[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Discovery Channel's "Beasts in Your Back Yard" and Tyrannosaurid skin



    Regarding Tracy Ford's comments to me regarding my most recent posting,
it seems he may not actually have read my points carefully enough and is,
therefore, taking them a bit too personally, even though nothing I said was
intended to assail him personally (or his possibly valid deduction of
Hadrosaurs in Ottawa).

     I was concerned about what I call mindlessness of the media at times
and merely using his post as a departure point.  If one reads my post again,
it will be clear that I took the positions that there may well have been
hadrosaurs in pre-Ottawa, just that it is not absolutely proven by
'reasonable' deduction.  So, isn't Tracy attacking a straw man in saying
what follows?:

"Give me a frigen break. Unbelievable. Hadrosaurs are known from Alaska to
South America. They just so happen to have by passed Ottawa altogether! Hey,
well then there were no dinosaurs in Ottawa, or Florida! Just because they
aren't found there they just happened to not have been there.
Therizinosaurids weren't known from North America, but HEY, they've been
found now. No Jurassic ankylosaurids were known until the last decade, so
what, they just so happen to just pop up? My point is that just because some
things haven't been found before doesn't mean they weren't there......Bull!"

    Some quesions to ponder:  (1) Must we take it as gospel that hadrosaurs
were ubiquitous simply because they were at many locations?, or; (2) Does a
great population density of hadrosaurs across a continent absolutely assure
that they were at places where no physical evidence unquestionably locates
them?

    Ray Stanford