How accurate is this in retrospect?

turn the wrists in, add a bit of flesh and some lips to the face and some horns and it's basically the same

>>5012310 (OP)
I meant the design btw

>>5012310 (OP)
Very inaccurate. Its missing its sparse, fine feathers.

>>5012312
For the time it was good.
But
>a shrink-wrapped skull
>lack of lips
>the arms are completely wrong, dinosaurs couldn't twist their wrists downward like that
>in the old trilogy tyrannosaurus was way bulkier than it is in the world movies but it's still too thin here
>tyrannosaurus had extended brow bones
>should have slight feathering the same way humans have hairs on our arms but not a whole fur coat

>>5012310 (OP)
>>5012331
>>5012317
Honestly, the oiginal design (OP pic) isn't even that bad. Feathers are unconfirmed and lips are still speculative. The only real flaws are that its skin is just too close to the bone and its wrists have an odd angle. Its length and height are a bit above average but not unrealistic either.

>>5012335
>and lips are still speculative.
No they aren't. The lack of lips should be considered speculative.
They didn't live in water like crocodilians, their teeth would be constantly dry.
Their jaw bones also wouldn't have allowed for a fully closed position so to keep it's mouth closed it would have needed lips with their jaws being slightly open behind them
Try to name a non crocodilian reptile with exposed teeth.

>>5012310 (OP)
https://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-unbelievably-dark-story-behind-poltergeist-and-its-young-star-heather-orourke/

>>5012343
Tb h Jurassic Park Rex does have lips. It's just that its teeth are long enough to poke out from underneath them.

>>5012348
If there is no part of the mouth that covers the teeth, then there are no lips

>>5012310 (OP)
It lacks muscle and the shape of the skull is pretty wonky. But other than that it's pretty good. Gets the idea of the animal really well

>>5012350
Man, look at this lipless cat

>>5012335
Actually the original animatronic was 40 feet long, which is average for a T. rex. The animatronics in the next 2 movies were only 37 feet long, making them below average. It was JW that started exaggerating the size

>>5012352
extended teeth like with a sabertooth tiger don't count. It's about the teeth row
Also whatever toy teeth or mutation this cat has shouldn't be counted as a rule anyway
You must be trolling at this point. No one can be that dumb

>>5012343
"the teeth would be dry" is a retarded argument. You should use the little holes above the teeth instead. Which are more similar to that of lizards instead of crocodiles. I prefer to use this to prove lips on dinosaurs since it is direct fossil evidence

>>5012355
You pretend like what you quoted is the only thing I said and it on its own is a strong argument already because it inhibits the physiological function of the teeth outside of aquatic life.

>>5012357
I just find the holes tend to convince people more often. Direct physical evidence is easier to grasp than an abstract concept

>>5012331
Why are you featherfags likes to chickenify everything despite literally no evidance beside “well they might had the feather cause feeling”?

>>5012350
>>5012354
Whether or not they cover the teeth is not what defines lips

>>5012331
Featherfags won't stop until they get this completely unscientific take

>>5012355
>>5012357
Trex was aquatic

>>5012556
all of these images are ten years or older. Holy autism

>>5012556
I am so glald we are out of this phase

>>5012556
I remember Trey would show the top image every time he mentioned T. rex. As if THAT is the definitive version of the animal

>>5012310 (OP)
What's weird about jurassic park in general is Michael Crichton (the guy who wrote the book) was really open to the idea of dinosaurs having feathers in the second book he described a baby trex as having downy neck feathers like a vulture. He was also really familiar with paleontology and the general discourse that was going on in it as well as being a critic of the direction the science was heading in at the time. Dude blows my mind and fucks off from medicine to be an entertainer.

>>5012558
>>5012556
>>5012559
It really piss me off though is the whole thing was a spectulation, a fucking hypothesis, with zero evidance, but they just fucking ran with it, and all of a sudden dinosaurs became dinoaviculatus
Fucking literal chickens , and with zero evidance at that
And then they say “nah ah, no agendas”
You know what it remind me of? How they made “cheddar man” as dark as possible based on absolutely no reasoning
Or how they pushed “Muslim Vikings” based on a piece of clothe that if you looked at in a funny angle and with lots of imagination, can resemble word “allah”
Based on that, Muslim Vikings was a thing for like a year or two. And you know why I said it was agenda? Cause the Muslim Viking “discovery” happened right in Sweden in middle of Syrian refugee crisis.
I wonder what event was going on when they started to deliberately chickenify dinosaurs

>>5012556
>>5012560
Wait, people actually thought the top image was accurate? Thought that was just a meme image. Even back when I thought T Rex was covered in feathers, I thought it looked more like the second pic or pic related.

Top one just looks like an giant vulture lmao.

>>5012476
For rexes, it's
>okay, so zero feathers on any discovered skin imprints... just feathers literally coating every other surface
Because featgerfags are clowns

They had the biggest arms in the dinosaur kingdom but most of it was not bone. Quite ironic, heh. Oh how they boasted their biggest arms and now they're small.

>>5012643
Primitive dinosaurian feathers do not fossilize well. They're not really feathers as you know them, they're fine hairs that are very sparsely distributed.
>okay, so zero feathers on any discovered skin imprints...
The skin imprints are coin sized and again, feathers don't really fossilize well. It's pretty uncommon to be able to tell them from literally any other source of fibres in the environment. Even really well preserved feathers have retards tagging along saying "THIS IS PALM BARK!" (despite having a completely different structure).

Given the unlikelihood of feathers independently arising a gajillion times most dinosaurs had at least some little hairs and the scale to feather genetic pipeline wasn't so far along that reversions were unlikely.

>>5012805
Ok so which is the correct scientific approach?
A) we didn’t find evidance for feather (or hair) but have for scales, so let’s just have them presented with scales only
Or
B) there was no hair or feather evidance, but I FEEL and think they must had it, so I just gonna put them in all the depictions cause reasons
One is science and the other is belief

>>5012818
>We found an ape with preserved hair, but no humans with preserved hair
>Therefore humans were entirely bald!

>>5012818
You keep talking about science but you know nothing of phylogeny, or phylogenetic bracketing.

T. Rex is closely related to dinosaurs with feathers.
T. Rex is descended from clades that contained feathers.
Either complex integument randomly arises, out of thin air, or t. rex has some residual, vestigial feather remnants poking out of some part of its body and the coin sized patches simply lacked them because micro-fuzz fossilizes like ass.

Now, shouldn't you be misrepresenting some data?
Is it time for the infographic where you pretend the coin sized skin impressions from 5 different species actually came from vast swaths of one individual, as if we have 80% of a T. Rex hide, and it's not just that different species had sparse fuzz in different locations?

Reminder:
T. Rex is closely related to dinosaurs with feathers.
T. Rex is descended from clades that contained feathers.
Either complex integument randomly arises, out of thin air, or t. rex has some residual, vestigial feather remnants poking out of some part of its body and the coin sized patches simply lacked them because micro-fuzz fossilizes like ass.

>>5012331
Bord

>>5012822
Idiot we also have FULLY HAIRLESS apes
How do you explain that
>>5012822
Both of you talk of a hypothesis AT BEST, and yet you behave as if it’s a gospel
It’s funny “le coin size” is not enough evidence, but your literal speculation must means trex were hairy
Fuck off dreamer

>>5012352
What's wrong with the cat?
Larping as a vamp?

>>5012564
KFC yard sale?

>>5012564
>I wonder what event was going on when they started to deliberately chickenify dinosaurs
Decades of jewish CIA resaerch determined that making dinosaurs less masculine would make sexually repressed homosexual autists troon out and permanently sterilize themselves, which is projected to reduce the genetic proliferation of sodomy by 15% over the next 100 years.

>>5012310 (OP)
Give me even a single piece of evidence why natural evolution would give such a giant animal those puny arms incapable of grabbing anything, incapable of even reaching the floor or it's mouth even. It makes no sense. Also feathers lol

>>5012854
Based?

>>5012331
Ugueto had such potential. Now he's just another basic bitch feathers 'n' gore fag. SAD!

>>5012847
nothing's wrong with it, my cat has teeth like that, too, just a little bit less obvious. they're a bit shorter and her head is white, so you usually don't see them. i think it's just a regular genetic trait, there's nothing wrong with it.

>>5012854
I would call this bullshit but unironically the proof is there. Just look at paleotwitter

>>5012639
Trey was infamous for choosing the most retarded reconstructions to represent the animals he was talking about. I'm not sure if he believed they looked like that or just wanted to be a contrarian

>>5012903
The proof is all over society at this point. Anyone denying the subversion of every single sphere of human life at this point is on the payroll.

>>5012564
What event? Scientific evidence for feathers, narcissist schizo.

Your obsession with the paleo twink is also concerning.

^
Always report bots.

>>5012927
Feathered dinosaurs are a scientific fact
Just like race and IQ is a scientific myth
And wolf reintroduction is supported by, again, science

Sorry rightie you lost

>>5012476
If elephants have hair, something like a Tyrannosaurus that evolved from a feathered ancestor likely had some sort of sparse, almost invisible from a distance fuzz.

>>5012476
Big trungus funny

>>5012930
Now this is shitty bait.

>>5012854
>>5012903
>>5012903
Honestly, I'm less worked up over the idea of T Rex having some barely noticeable hair strands on its skin than the way its height is portrayed. They're always portrayed in a way where it feels like you can reach its chin. Even in museums, they are always mounted in a crouching position.

Then again, this might just be my Jurassic Park addled brain coping.

>>5012920
>>5012929
>>5012930
>hurr durr this animal ancestor had feather so it means trex is a chicken
>evidance? Zero
Holy shit this is the most unscientific, dogmatic shit I have ever heard.
Get it through your HEAD. You have ZERO EVIDANCE. At best you have a hypothesis.
You telling us we need to let go of our childhood lizards and embrace “le science” yet you are parroting a hypothesis and claim it’s a fact
You don’t follow science otherwise you would drop this shit until it can be tested and verified.
Nah, you are dogmatic, and following a cult

>>5012856
There are plenty of animals that can't grab anything with their front limbs. Also they would be a liability in a fight, if another T. Rex bites it off you have a festering wound that kills you.

>>5012854
But they are all straight men who claim to be lesbians....

>>5012317
Go back

>>5012310 (OP)
What do you think these little buggers tasted like? They could have fed a village for weeks.

>>5013798
Probably horrible, at least when they're fully grown. Imagine how gamey and tough a 12 ton predator would be if bears and big cats already taste like shit.

>>5012865
He’s a literal fag as well