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

Questions:"Dinosaur Planet"dinosaurs!!!(This time with feathers)


> >From what I can see,most of the animals featured look very nice.I especially
> like the Protoceratops and Prenocephale.However, I do not particularly agree
> that all small theropods should automatically be covered in feathers.The
> evidence for feathered dromaeosaurs,such as "Dave" and the recent "four
> winged dinosaur"is questionable to me,because they came from the same source
> (even the same quarry)as the infamous"Archaeoraptor".

Which makes me go to the point usually overlooked  concerning Lingham-Soliar and
all the Feducciaries.
Can I ask some questions? What is the motive of all these researchers for
actually NOT bothering to see the specimens?
The collagen fibers are NOT identical AT ALL to dino-fuzz or feathers.
Why, I should ask do they use selective ignorance in their papers? I have
extensive reads of Feduccia and now Lingham Soliar: my conclusion is that apart
from the fact that they snub completely any paper that  don't agree with them
(including anything done by Currie or Norell) and give credit to discredited
papers (like Czerkas') I see no evidence that they actually have seen other
things than photographs (sometimes bad photographs) of the specimens they
question. Not only that, I don't see any comparative analysis.
Has Lingham Soliar made microscopic analyses of the Sinosauropteryx structures
like Currie has done (that show the specific hollowness of each of the fibers)?.
Has Soliar done complete structural comparative analyses of the different kind
of fibers of "Dave" (like Mark Norell has published)?
The answer is no... so what are they all talking about?
I just see vacuous pontificating and dolphins compared to dinosaurs. BAD
comparison as any expert in dolphin tissue can certify.  I and many have seen
and studied 'Dave' in person... Boy that 'Dave' surely must have been FAT!
And obviously nobody in their right mind would question the four winged
Microraptor (a main source of trouble for Feduccia...) where flight feathers are

But then why are you not questioning Confuciusornis and its 'rare collagen
fibers that look like feathers'? Do you know collagen fibers found in
Psittacosaurus or any other animal from the Chinese deposits? Do you know that
muscular tissue from Psittacosaurus HAS actually been found and doesn't look at
all like any 'collagen fibers'? Why don't we have amphibians, lizards  or
mammals surrounded by decomposing collagen fibers?

'Archaeoraptor' didn't have forged feathers... it was a composite of two
different kinds of dinosaur. It is fairly simple to attach an animal with the
wrong tail but  forgery of feathers would have been a really elaborate hoax that
would imply too much hassle for people trying to sell fossils quickly and
illegally. Similarly, there's a big Sinosauropteryx with easily spotted
artificially added 'tuff' of feathers at the end of the tail (completely
different kind from the proper Sinosauropteryx dino-fuzz).

So there... no chance that any of the feathery dinosaurs being tampered with  in
other way than tampering with the pieces of a  puzzle trying to fit them
erroneously, not  tampering with the picture IN the puzzle.

Luis Rey

Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey