[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: T. rex Track
If I remember correctly, there is not another footprint, in what's left of
the sediments before it breaks up, nine feet before or after the one print.
But I wouldn't quote me on that. I'm sure one of the experts here could tell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: T. rex Track
> > Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:37:48 -0500
> > From: "Ray Stanford" <email@example.com>
> > And, I don't know where the person who set up the web page (link
> > in my earlier post) on the T. rex track got the mistaken idea that
> > there could be a 60 foot T. rex. Sounds like an exaggeration, to
> > me. But the other information is quite useful, I think.
> On the subject of that page,
> Can anyone enlighten me as to how Lockley determined a stride length
> of nine feet from a _single_ print?
> Strange that the inflated sixty-foot length estimate comes in tandem
> with a weight estimate of 8,000-12,000 pounds: well towards the lower
> end of conventional T. rex weight estimates.
> _/|_ _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor -- <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/
> )_v__/\ "Nyeeeoooowng Thhhhhhrb Ptooosh Ptoosh Wibba Wubba
> Kaaaafooooooom" -- Harvey Thompson, imitating a Defender