[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Purposefully false restorations?
I read the article in question with raised eyebrows. If Milbourne is
making accusations like that I think he'd better be prepared to back them
up with some hard facts. Otherwise, he may even be in libelous
> From: Larry Dunn <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Purposefully false restorations?
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 1997 4:33 PM
> In the recent issue of Prehistoric Times, artist Mike Milbourne, without
> naming names, accuses the restorers of Giganotosaurus and
> Carcharodontosaurus of purposeful falsehood in the restoration of their
> respective finds in an effort to upstage Tyrannosaurus rex. I'd heard
> this in the past from another prominent dinosaur artist (in a private
> conversation, so I won't say who), but not as strongly as put by
> Milbourne in PT.
> I'm providing some quotes from the article, entitled "Giganotosaurus:
> Not Rex Enough", to get listmember input on some of Milbourne's
> assertions. Is he right? Mike, if you're a member, please feel free to
> jump in (Mike Fredericks, could you forward to Milbourne if you have his
> e-mail address? Thanks!)
> (I've decided not to employ the standard convention of attributing
> grammatical errors to the original author/publication (that being
> 'sic'), as this would clutter things up too much.)
> "Right from the offset of these two discoveries, it seemed to me as if
> importance was never placed upon the proper collection and documentation
> of the fossil material. It seemed as if the goal was for certain
> paleontologists to gain access to the "lime light", by claiming that
> they had found a meat eating dinosaur with a skull larger than that of
> Tyrannosaurus rex. And what better way to draw attention to yourself
> than to make a claim like that. With dollar signs in their eyes these
> paleontologists turned their backs on real professional scientific work.
> They could have cared less about presenting their fossil material in a
> scientific manner . . . ."
> "The missing skull elements of both Giganotosaurus and
> Carcharodontosaurus were purposefully and falsely elongated and enlarged
> for the specific intent of coming up with a skull that was supposedly
> larger than the skull of Tyrannosaurus rex. In the case of
> Carcharodontosaurus the premaxilla was extremely over exaggerated and
> extended to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to make the skull as
> long as possible. The same is true with the Giganotosaurus skull,
> except this time the stretching was done at the back of the skull.
> There is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make money from a
> dinosaur discovery but not at the expense of accurate scientific data."
> Melbourne then goes on to compare G. and T. at length, and provides some
> very handsome restorations, presumably in a uniform scale, of skulls (T.
> being the biggest, with G. and C. looking rather shrimpy by comparison).
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com