>Featherless Velociraptors

Yeah have fun drawing all those feathers in the first place

Did you also know the T-rex didn't have giant tusks?

Did you also know cavemen didn't ride dinosaurs? Fucking shit ass show. holy fuck.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinosaur_Heresies
No feathers have been found on either animal as they simply aren't preserved in north america, but the entirety of dromaeosauridae, when preserved, is preserved with feathers. Their common ancestors have feathers, their closest relatives all had feathers. Deinonychus's arms are useless for all conventional purposes of wingless arms due to their stunted rotation.

Deinonychus is also roughly the size of the average dog, more than small enough to not entirely lose the feathered coat literally all of its closest relatives have.
The largest fully-feathered dinosaur is several times the weight of utahraptor, I don't know why that's even up to argument.

Lastly, Dakotaraptor, another feathered raptor was the same size of utahraptor and retained the knobs of its flight feathers (likely vestigial) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakotaraptor

Featherless raptors are a fantasy

>biologically it's unlikely an animal beyond a certain size would be coated in feathers,
Who taught you this?? Yutyrannus had a full coat and was more than a ton. Deinonychus and Utahraptor are both stem birds younger than the oldest birds. Assuming they had feathers is to assume they went bald far faster than any bald mammal. It would be a first in the fossil record. Revolutionary if true

*had no feathers
typo
Open a book written after 1997 anons. Bald raptors are dead

Why did flightless dromaeosaurs even have those useless mini wings? What utility did they get from these structures that caused them to be selected for as opposed to regular arms? Modern flightless birds have wings because their flying ancestors did. Did Cretaceous era raptors have flying ancestors?

When there's a caveman with dinosaurs you have no right to complain about accuracy.

>human among dinosaurs okay
>dinosaur without feathers not okay

The same reason ostriches do. Wings are useful for balance, warning, and striking

You have to remember that flying birds existed BEFORE dromaeosaurid raptors, it's possible that they had gliding/flying ancestors too

>Creationist anti-science propaganda showing humans coexisting with dinosaurs.
Dropped.

Imagine being so autistic that historical realism keeps you from watching a fictional work set in a caveman fantasy setting.

The problem isn't the show, the problem is that faggots will argue and pretend that fictional dinosaur designs exist because they look cool

>Complains about lack of feathers.
>Doesn't complain about pronated wrists.

Attached: 1564419160522.jpg (644x900, 630K)

I'll probably watch it. That being said, I do think it's kind of lame that after all this time, the show won't have faithfully recreated Dinos. I don't but this either people animate birds all the time, feathers aren't so different from scales. Just add some ridges or fluff to show that they're there. Still looks like a worthy segway into more mature animation. I doubt this kind of thing would ever have even been possible if it wasn't for Gendy and others, Toonami as well for endeavoring to shake the image of animation being "Child oriented."

There's a caveman riding a dinosaur and your biggest concern is the lack of feathers?

For fuck sake user if you're gonna get all anthropological autistic at least start with the bigger issues.

Also despite feathers being accurate feathered dinosaurs look fucking lame.

Primal takes place in the far future where civilization has collapsed after humanity engineered several extinct species back into existence.

It was inspired by classic dinosaur films and normos probably think feathered dinos are less scary than scaly ones

They know how it really was, fuck off.

Feathers suck, dinosaurs are cool when they are giant lizards of death.

I find it hard to take your side when you so obviously don't even know what a Velociraptor looks like, and probably just heard the feather thing second hand.

Well this was a really stupid time to expect realism since not only are cavemen there with dinosaurs but entirely fantasy creatures like Bat-humanoids and a giant ape that wears a dinosaur skull.

Nice try buckaroo. I know what a velociraptor looks like to the reasonable extent. I know that any large dromaeosaur in fiction is going to simply be labled "Velociraptor" regardless of height and geographic range.
If I'm generous they resemble snakes with some deino inspiration, but they're still naked and they're still running around in what's presumably north america

Like they draw scales or hair?

>featherfags have such autism that they won't watch ANYTHING dinosaur related unless the donosaurs are "realistic"
>they say this even though the show also features mammoths, cavemen, and giant Australian spiders along side the dinosaurs
you are so pathetic.

Here's some "naked" lions with mange, still pretty scary, or at least I wouldn't want to mess with them.

Attached: hsus_photo_479426[1].jpg (640x600, 61K)

dude the show have a modern man among dinosaurs.

I'm hype but not optimistic. Does anyone else know this feel?

>Velociraptors
>human sized
Pick one.

Or if you're going to nitpick, then go all the way and call them utahraptors.

>giant Australian spiders

Our deadliest spider is only 5 cm at the biggest and our largest is only 22 cm

As long as there is no romance, it'll be fine

>Dinosaurs and pre-humans existing at the same time
>Expecting historical accuracy
It's not a documentary, it's more like Conan's great great great great grandfather and his lizard friend go on a murderfuck adventure. Don't overthink it.

GENNDY GONNA SAVE CARTOONS FROM CALARTS LESBIANS AND TUMBLR TRANNIES

>Raptors of any kind
>Bald
Dakotaraptor raped that notion up the ass

They're not going to be named in the series, so that doesn't really matter

>Well this was a really stupid time to expect realism since not only are cavemen there with dinosaurs but entirely fantasy creatures like Bat-humanoids and a giant ape that wears a dinosaur skull.
Mother nature selects things in a certain way and creates certain body plans. There is now reason why they can't render the animals as they most likely were in nature. It would have been interesting to see. Expectation are one thing. However, mine are not expectations, merely desires. Wishes not yet fulfilled, maybe one day.

Nothing will ever have feathered dinos. They look stupid and ridiculous. Any movie or cartoon involving dinos wants GIANT LIZARDS! DANGEROUS BEASTS! MONSTERS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME! Not ridiculous bird-lizards. No bird really looks scary. Intellectually you can know some of them are really dangerous, but your monkey brain processes lizard=bad and bird=whatever.

So get fucking used to it, because no matter what science says, even if some scientist went and actually cloned a dino and showed everybody it has feathers, fiction would still have scaly dinos. They just look cooler.

Then why always use dinosaurs? There were literal prehistoric giant lizards and crocodiles, but everyone insists on using the class of animals that's heavily tied to birds only to make them look like lizards

It wasn't a mistake at the time, sorta.

Michael Crichton always wanted to be on the bleeding edge of scientific journals and at the time there was a small movement to rename Deinonychus Antirrhopus to Velociraptor Antirrhopus, the idea being they and Velociraptor Mongolienses (What is now simply known as Velociraptor) were subspecies of the same species.

This was largely rejected but in the Jurassic Park book they have both Velociraptor Mongolienses and Velociraptor Antirrhopus in the park, the smaller Mongolienses being the one they see hatch and play with in the nursery and Antirrhopus being the big ones they run from later.

>Velociraptors that huge
Those are Megaraptors at the very least

>Nothing will ever have feathered dinos. They look stupid and ridiculous. Any movie or cartoon involving dinos wants GIANT LIZARDS! DANGEROUS BEASTS! MONSTERS FROM THE DAWN OF TIME! Not ridiculous bird-lizards. No bird really looks scary. Intellectually you can know some of them are really dangerous, but your monkey brain processes lizard=bad and bird=whatever.
They didn't quite look like birds, also they can be just as frightening with feathers. Many monsters of yore had feathers in mythology and really, that's just a bad justifications based on your limited knowledge of a relatively young scientific field.

>Megaraptors
Megaraptor isn't a raptor

I really can't comprehend the brainlets that think feathers on Dino's wouldn't look rad as fuck. Just the sheer possibilities of plumage on murder chickens should blow your mind

Attached: conservation-pod.jpg (800x800, 111K)

>They didn't quite look like birds,
All of the most well preserved raptors look birdy as fuck

You don't need to draw every single feather, in fact treat it like hair.

While something is a relative of a creature I cant say with certainty they have feathers. There are many creatures that are close but lack certain features characristic of that species.

It's mainly nostalgia for Jurassic Park and to an extent, the walking with series

it has a human or at least something close to a human along side dinos, I don't think Genndy was going for scientific accuracy

but yeah dinos with feathers look rad, MTG did it pretty well

Open a book that's any younger than you. Dakotaraptor had flight feathers, meaning that the entire size spectrum of raptors would be feathered. There is no feathered animal in the entire fossil record who only has flight feathers, flight feathers mean a full coat

This is the case for mammals, feathers are a bit different. No known adult animal within a feathered order comes out bald. They might hatch bald but that's about it. The leading theory right now is that feathers date way too far back and might be an ancestral trait that many dinosaurs lost over time rather than the other way around

Its called bait. And you took it.

an animal nearly identical to utahraptor had a complete set (Dakotaraptor) and Deinonychus's entire family is feathered. To assume they're scaled is just wishful thinking

That means nothing. The only real argument for feathers is

Good. Seethe feathersoiboys hahahaha

They look weak. Mange usually deteriorates health.

To be fair though a gun makes anything look weak.

Featherfags are completely insufferable. The DID U KNOW MARIO 2 IS ACKSHUALLY DOKI DOKI PANIC IN JAPAN of dinosaur discussion. Nobody cares faggot, classic dino design is way cooler.

Attached: 046D8EE9-B484-4842-9678-46D52453BA2D.jpg (906x1000, 1.07M)

They have fossil records of their skin, no they were not.

Classic dino designs have their charm, but they're basically the reason creationists don't believe dinosaurs existed in the first place. Look at them, they don't look like functioning animals at all

>lying on the internet
Jurassic Park is so good that people deny inarguable fact

Deinonychus and utahraptor have no skin impressions, all raptors that do are feathered. Tyrannosaurus however has skin impressions!

W H O C A R E S

Attached: CC6A985A-64ED-4AD8-A18F-5D7E37D12B25.jpg (768x512, 143K)

feathered dinosaurs are for Pussies cucked by the world. people who did science like a bro would not see feathers on dinosaurs

Good thing women are going to inherit the earth

As people have largely pointed out, the show is a throwback to the pulpy ideas of "cave men and dinosaurs" in a barbaric, uncivilized world. We also see some kind of giant spider monster as I recall. Aside from comments about it adding to the work load of drawing, the atmosphere simply wouldn't feel the same if they didn't go with classic dinosaur designs.

I'm fond of feathered dinosaurs and would like to seem them utilized more, but in this case I'm not too broken up about it. Non-feathered dinosaurs will always look cool, and they'll always, and perhaps increasingly due to how paleontology is working things out, be associated with this kind of unrealistic, pulp type of setting.

Attached: CI5x_2tUEAEcwj2.png large.png (825x873, 1.06M)

Every time I see a classic Dino get feathercucked to look like a modern bird I imagine the bearded smug soiboy drawing it thinking he’s so much more informed than the rest. Meanwhile all he does with this creative license is create an aesthetically unappealing clusterfuck.

Also a reminder that birds can look cool

Attached: feather tank.webm (1280x720, 2.86M)

Or just kind of creepy.

It wouldn't be too hard to apply similar principles to dinosaur designs.

Attached: vulture.webm (720x556, 2.54M)

You don't think it's remotely possible that dinosaurs in modern textbooks are drawn to represent scientific data?

That's just your mental illness.

It's like a walking Metal Gear.

This is pretty cool. Nothing else I've seen is though.

I don't disagree. But I post such things to prove the problem is execution, and perhaps something like this , not in the actual idea. There's no particular reason feather dinosaurs can't be cool, or anything else aside from goofy, but they have actually be designed well by a good artist.

In truth, most of our dinosaur designs have always been artistic approximations. We've just had about a century or more to refine the "big lizard" idea. They used to get drawn like this. And this is actually a good painting from a good artist. It's just, overtime, we figured out what appealed to be people more and did in fact incorporate more scientific aspects as they developed. We'll get there with feathers someday, I'm sure.

Attached: Allosaurus Attacking a Cowboy Ray Harryhausen.jpg (1200x903, 168K)

>caveman riding dinosaur
>it’s the lack of feathers that are the most realism breaking
Weird flex but ok

Are you sore they are velociraptors?

They are supposed to be about the same size as chickens, those look a bit.... big.

I support the feather theory, no matter if partially or totally covered. They had feathers, and even if not known to what extent, thats undeniable, so i enjoy works that respect or at least hint this fact.
That being said, op is a whiny bitch and is being an autist about an animated sci-fi movie.

Attached: u6xkqskosyj31.jpg (250x247, 10K)

That's a Skekses user.

The fossil record shows the feathers where more like the ones in baby chicks that in grown up birds.

Attached: hqdefault[1].jpg (480x360, 20K)

Those are utahraptors, man.

Attached: ute.png (200x174, 62K)

No, in maniraptorans (aka any cool theropod that isn't a T. rex) feathers were fully modern, plus some weird things like QUILLS

>Doesn't complain about pronated wrists.
I'm convinced everyone is deliberately misunderstanding that paper. God I hate PopSci.
>researchgate.net/publication/225366451_Forelimb_biomechanics_of_nonavian_theropod_dinosaurs_in_predation
>Analysis of the joints of Deinonychus show that the forelimb could not fold avian fashion.

>but they're basically the reason creationists don't believe dinosaurs existed in the first place
The fuck are you talking about??? Look up creationist articles on Behemoth; they have zero problem with dinosaurs existing. In fact they almost never shut up about them.

>Dinosaurs have feathers, yet ones like the Raptors should be able to fly, cause why the fuck did birds only have that trait? cause when you look at a naked bird wing, not longer than a raptors arm.

There all just Dragons anyway. The Dinosaur concept was founded by a Museum owner who was a descendent of the Kights Templar. Many Ancient cultures acknowledged or worshiped Dragons and Feathred Serpent Gods. 100 years ago we thought they looked like lizards, now they look like Birds, even though the bones look like Fucking dragons! And many of the complete dino Species are fake as the realbones are kept in secret for only legit Paleontologist to see. Dragon Wings were remade into the Pterosaurs.

Why would you care for accuracy in a show that clearly doesnt care for it
like hell man there are sabretooth wolves and whatever those huge bat men are

Attached: 2th.jpg (288x288, 14K)

>>Featherless Velociraptors
And that's a good thing, you shit taste featherfaggot
>inb4 muh scientifically accurate dinosaurs in scientifically inaccurate story
Kys

Attached: 762.jpg (294x313, 20K)

God, evolutionists are retarded.

Attached: images.png (250x201, 7K)

>palaeontologists complaing jackshit

Fuck off paleofags, who gives a shit on your muh dinosaurs and the way they look. You guys are literally on the same tier as graphicfags who complain about "MUH GRAPHIX" in their video games.

Attached: 1549627663597.png (231x181, 70K)

no one did that BEFORE OP made this thread. featherfags literally started the discussion about the fictional design even though its objectively better than what you're suggesting is realistic

Thanks for the link, user!

tip harder
this literally only looks cool because it doesn't look feather until you look at the ugly arms

>i..if i pretend dinosaurs had feathers maybe it will prop up my failed evolutionist dogma!
No.

But seriously though, why conflate Cavemen with Dinosaurs if you just end up with featherless bipeds fighting eachother anyway.

Pretty sure it's a joke.

>entirely feathered

I mean, scientists are only making theories of what was covering their skin since there's literally no real way to know. Even if they found out they had feathers because of fossil records from a foot bone, that could just mean it had feathers on its feet, not its whole body.

It changes every few years what scientists think dinosaurs physically looked like. You can't say it's concrete.

>hands supinated
>crocodile heads
>tails are curved rather than straight
Fucking hell mate
>CAVEMAN EXISTING AT THE SAME TIME AS DINOSAURS

WHAT THE FUCK.

Why is this bird acting like a villain?

They ARE cool

also wrong looking hands.

It was Never concrete to begin with. The Dinosaur concept is fake. Theres a reason why they don’t show you the real fossils in museums. Bones that turn into rock and can be easily manipulated and counterfeit and you expect me to believe they know shit about fossilized species just like living ones? The Fossils are from Dragons, lets discuss that supject instead of Feathered Dinos or Flat Earth bullshit!

Giant lizard dinosaurs > Giant chicken dinosaurs
Don't @ me, virgins.

picked up

>Deinonychus is also roughly the size of the average dog
uwot

>because it doesn't look feather until you look at the ugly arms
Are you blind?

Someone explain this to me? Isn't the point of hands in dinosaurs that if they fall over, they could catch themselves with those hands?

>muh scientific accuracy
>man riding a T-Rex
What's with this board and its periodic feather dino autism flairs anyway?

Attached: 1510450434282.gif (266x268, 1.07M)

Attached: deinonychus-size.jpg (620x354, 109K)

I hope you aren't arguing that's dog-sized

>That
>Dog sized
On what planet?

I'm not that user.

Why are they orange? Are they inmates? There is a raptor prison?

Perfect blowjob size

user, no!

user, yes!

user, maybe?

user, I don't know

user, just...

user, why?

But naked Bears are

Attached: 3-14.jpg (605x661, 90K)

Literally nobody is going to do this. You have autism, kill yourself.

Mother Nature selects...?

You're going to cry about feathers and then anthropomorphize the process of natural selection.

Eat a bag of fatherless dicks you pedantic nobody.

>[ominous oboe toots with each step]

imagine being this wrong

fuck creationists

*whom
What are we gonna do on the grass? owo

The reason they didn't is because this is a Caveman pulp story and they're obviously going to emulate old school pulp dinosaur aesthetics.

>Come at me bro
>I'm comin at ya bro.

Trying to look cool is the problem.
Feathered dinos are Looney Tunes.
Scaly dinos are Loonatics Unleashed.

Considering we have cave men with dinosaurs, I wouldn't sweat the details.

A sick predator is more likely to be a maneater

That's only true of species who have developed any familiarity with humans, because we tend to group up and kill animals who display man eating tendencies. Evolution doesn't really smile on traits that result in your death and the death of everything of the same species as you in a 10km radius. So you either have to be an animal with no contact with humans or that lives in an environment that humans can't effectively cull you from. That's why Crocodiles are responsible for the most deaths related to a feeding attack than any other animal.

Scaled dinosaurs are GTA San Andreas
Feathered dinosaurs are GTAV

You're thinking of them as feathered reptiles when everything about them points to an animal that descended from an already feathered bird ancestor (A much earlier dinosaur). Scales are extremely assumptive for raptors, to the degree of coldbloodedness. To assume they had scales is no less extreme than assuming an ancient parrot species did

Most of Deinonychus's weight is concentrated in the torso. Legs were tall but bones were hollow. In terms of mass Deinonychus was not large or movie monster material

Dilate

Half the people in this thread actively tried to argue that Utahraptor was anything less than fully feathered. You would have an easier time arguing for bald birds these days.
It's now known that maniraptoran dinosaurs often had flight feathers (not actually used for flight) on all four limbs. It gets ridiculous trying to justify an animal like that being covered in scales

Did you honestly expect feathers? Feathered raptors on mainstream tv? Normie dinos are stuck in the 80's and that is where they're staying. The only people who actually care are a minority they can unfortunately afford to ignore. And you just know there would be several hatethreads at a time if they went the opposite route, complaining about how "science ruined dinosaurs" from people who only barely cared about them in the first place.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm in the boat of, "You can't say definitively 'dinosaurs had this' when we keep discovering new shit and scientists have to hire artists to visualize it for the sake of presenting it to general audiences".

Before we thought it was scales, then we thought feathers, then we thought it was a mixture, now some people say the T-rex arms might've had wings and the reason it's so small is because evolution wanted to drop that element from its DNA.

I think being in any camp of, "Dinosaurs looked like...." is dumb because we don't know for sure and unless a preserved specimen in an ice block is discovered, we can't know for sure since a lot of biological information can not be extracted from just bones. Skin texture, pockets of fat, the color of the animal, etc. They're all just educated guesses that change over time with new discoveries and theories.

>they're basically the reason creationists don't believe dinosaurs existed in the first place.
What in the actual fuck is this

>Skin texture, pockets of fat, the color of the animal, etc. They're all just educated guesses that change over time with new discoveries and theories.
Microraptor, Psittacosaurus, Borealopelta,... These are only some of the dinosaurs we literally know these details from. Maybe go read the material before you make these claims. They make it really obvious you don't know what the fuck you're talking about to those who do. But you'd rather just assume, like said.

>That's why Crocodiles are responsible for the most deaths related to a feeding attack than any other animal

That's more because crocs are stupid assholes who will literally eat themselves to death if enough food is around, or at the very best get too FUCKING FAT to function. Fucking armored lardasses. Literally stop getting longer when they're old enough and start putting all the energy they used to put into getting long into being fat fucks.

Attached: croc.jpg (768x432, 169K)

This makes me like crocs even more.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZIfSaDNVjXI

Any soft tissue and hue preservation was incredibly difficult and rare to find and it's only very, very, VERY recently are paleontologists able to gather information about it, you fucking retard. And often times, they were wrong because the fossils would cause color information to change.

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-do-scientists-determine-colors-prehistoric-animals-180971807/

All animals would do this if they could, the croc just happens to be top dog in a biome that supports its behaviour long enough for it not to be a problem, until it flips over into a death sentence. Lions may not die fat, but don't think that that is by choice.

I say Grenndy is going with the more traditional cinematic versions of a dino, you know the one that is most common and appealing to a casual fan not in to science. So calm your tits OP.

Attached: 1558583121475.gif (720x480, 126K)

>That's more because crocs are stupid assholes who will literally eat themselves to death if enough food is around
That's literally all reptiles
Their brain is all R-center so they are all fight or flight, or in this case kill or sleep.

I want someone to make the virgin chicken lizard vs The Chad Hollywood Monster Dinasaur

Oh you mean the same ones that triggered fans before then? If you wanna go the anachronistic route, go all the fucking way

Attached: 19th_century_science_ruined_dinosaurs_by_osmatar_d81jxfc-fullview.jpg (1280x625, 73K)

>I'm in the boat of, "You can't say definitively 'dinosaurs had this'
>Get told it has been done several times over
>That was difficult and only recent so it somehow doesn't count
So you'd rather assume shit can't be done even though you know it has been done, than be up to date. Enjoy the 1800's I guess.

>Science can't update itself with new information in a field that is constantly being researched

HEY REMEMBER WHEN WE THOUGHT PLUTO WAS A GREY PLANET

If only.

Attached: GloriousIguanodon.jpg (1600x1200, 732K)

Based and Hawkinspilled

Attached: 6a1717f2ae65cdaaa5a3f3846eeb2444.jpg (900x1200, 257K)

Bit of a bunk argument if you're ignoring said updates of the past decade retard.

Attached: C5_snVqWcAAn0kk.jpg (1050x600, 170K)

Because there can always be updates to the updates, retard. Thinking that we've hit the top of the mountain for dinosaur discovery and research and can now say, "Oh yes, they were 10,000% THIS" is fucking ignorant. We're just now discovering shit like the Greek statues might've been brightly color painted instead of marble, and for a long time, we've been saying definitely "They were white marble". You really think dinosaur research isn't going to find something new to update itself with?

Feathers also help cool the body, keep it warm, and warerproof the body depending on feather type.

The whole point of this show is to portray a fantasy prehistory based heavily on classic Edgar Rice Burroughs/Frank Frazetta style high adventure fiction, this is not the time or the place for getting bee in your bonnet about paleontology.

Maybe the protagonist is just really small.

The problem with these arguments is you can say dinosaurs definitely had bones, you can say they definitely had feathers. these things are IN the fossils.
Which dinosaurs OUTSIDE of maniraptora is a different discussion but WITHIN maniraptora it is all of them because at that point you're arguing whether or not birds have feathers

To me it looks like Genndy went with Jurassic Park Dino's models, which admittedly are the coolest looking Dino's.

Attached: 41b.gif (500x281, 946K)

You're talking as if there isn't anything we can be certain of though, or to use your own analogy, you're acting like tomorrow those greek statues might not be statues at all anymore and that it is thus reasonable to doubt they are statues. A lot of shit is still open for debate. The integument of dromaeosaurids isn't one of those topics.
Telling you to be up to date isn't telling you to stop there, hell once you stop you aren't up to date by default. But you're just using it as an excuse to remain ignorant on what we do know.

You're arguing as if fossil evidence such as "tyrannosaurus has ribs" can be backtracked.
Maniraptora (Velociraptor, Deinonychus, every theropod immediately outside of, and younger than, birds) has feathers. If you want bald theropods so much pick the allosaurids

The whole point is that we only have half an answer, and that's why it's dumb to start screaming definitively, "Dinosaurs had feathers, they looked like giant chickens!". Like I said before, it could be revealed they only had feathers around certain body parts, or we're just now theorizing maybe some species had wings where we once said it was arms. That's why hopping in the boat of, "I know what they look like, they said it had feathers, so they must be giant woodpeckers" is dumb. And that's often where this discussion goes to: People just want to scream that dinosaurs looked like a giant Ostrich or something. Have you seen how many different renditions there are of a T-rex with feathers based on scientist description? Some just mohawk the head, some coat the entire body, some make them furry, some dress them up like a vulture.

If you want to stand by dinosaurs had feathers, fine, that's scientific fact. If you want to start screaming at people and saying, "No, THIIIIIS is what a T-Rex TRULY looked like!" and post an ARTIST RENDITION as if it's fact and not just another theory of WHAT they might have looked like, that's when you paleontologist wannabes become autistic. And in this thread alone, that's what it boils down to. People just wanting to scream that a raptor must've been a giant rooster and you know that for a fact.

Would you make this same assertion about a prehistoric penguin or eagles? It's still maniraptora which is a mere bubble around aves(birds).
Yes, anyone saying they know what dinosaurs look like is an idiot, but again, to suggest any maniraptoran is bald is only slightly less bold than suggesting any bird is (naturally) bald. You don't say "Tyrannosaurus might have had fifteen eyes!" you don't say "triceratops had an extra horn" you don't say "Utahraptor was bald" because you're stretching the bounds of assumption to an absurd degree

>you know that for a fact.
Nah man, there are no facts. Only thing I can be certain of is that I exist and that's about it. For all I know I could be a brain in a vat. You can't trust anything.

there is a MASSIVE difference between tyrannosaurus and utahraptor.
Only ONE tyrannosauroid was feathered (and just like all feathered animals known to man, it had a full coat)
EVERY SINGLE MANIRAPTORAN PRESERVED was entirely feathered with all of the adaptations birds have for feathers. To assume any are bald is to assume that bald birds is plausible

We shall call these hypothetical bald birds

"balds"

Mohawks are an outdated paleomeme. So far every feathered dinosaur had a complete coat. Every feathered animal had a complete coat. Feathers aren't fur, they don't come about in elephant patches.

Feathered dinosaurs will always look less badass than scaly ones, so why even bother?

Velociraptor had bones, you don't question that? Good
Velociraptor has just as much evidence for feathers as bones. Suddenly questioned
Same for every raptor, literally all of them

crocs are actually really smart as far as reptiles go. some of them will put sticks on their snout during bird nest building seasons to lure in the birds

Because bones are seen with our eyeballs and feathers are deduced from dissection. That's why people might question the latter.

I'm not questioning the latter, I'm saying that's why people do it.

>So far every feathered dinosaur had a complete coat.
Psittacosaurus rocked a nice mohawk on its butt. Kulindadromeus had a bare tail and hindlimbs. I know these don't apply to maniraptora but lets not let bias get in the way of data.

Furries are behind the whole feathered dinosore meme, honestly if every furry on earth was gassed the world would be vastly vastly improved.

I'm talking about pennaceous feathers, not hairlike quills from animals outside of maniraptora

Then people need better eyeballs.

Attached: microraptor-gui-type-specimen.jpg (1050x558, 528K)

All in the service of getting really, really fat. This is the true source of sapience. The urge to eat.

HmmmMMmmmm

Fair enough, just wanted to point out that it isn't quite true for every feathered dinosaur discovered. It is certainly true for every feathered dinosaur relevant to the discussion.

But both feathers and bones are plainly visible as fossils.
One of the largest raptors (if not simply the largest) Dakotaraptor had flightfeathers, which is always tied to full coats. Anyone hoping for bald raptors in the real world AFTER researching this stuff is delusional

that looks shooped af

I should have been more specific anyhow, thanks.

DINO FUCKING IS THE BIG BRAIN OPTION

Attached: raptor porn always relevant.gif (687x399, 692K)

The problem is that paleontologists presented audiences with a version of a dinosaur bird that had no feathers early on, so it birthed an idea of, "Yes, it had wings, but NO FEATHERS!" kind of mindset.

I suspect it's just the same kind of emotional people who refused to accept that Pluto wasn't a planet or something. They just got used to one way, and don't care for new thing.

Attached: pterodactyl-adrian-chesterman_54f6.jpg (900x584, 95K)

Reminder that Gennedy Tartaovski is a dangerous womanizer and tried to sexually assault several female co-workers during the production of Samurai Jack season 2

Oh Yea Forumsmblr you have done it again

can't wait to see Grug bond with his dino stepchild while savaging mammoths

Attached: BAH GAWD.png (1365x529, 539K)

At least the shitposters is trying to change the subject away from this retarded non-topic that isn't even about the cartoon

Attached: 1566609841037.jpg (1526x1982, 862K)

Samurai Jack season 2 was an assault on everyone

Attached: Demon baboon.jpg (634x855, 86K)

hey lil mama lemme whisper in ya ear.jpg

Fun fact: We now know that these bitches were covered in fuzz that we call pycnofibers, and the odds that this trait shares common ancestry with proto-feathers, rather than having evolved independently, increase by the day. In a few years we very well may refer to these structures as feathers.
The people who picture these as being bald are stuck in the past just as much as those who deny raptors their proper coat.

Attached: Pteranogeddon detail Witton 2016.jpg (656x940, 259K)

Late 80s and early 90s
>Dinosaurs were surprisingly birdlike, probably intelligent
early 2000s
>Some dinosaurs had fully-developed feathers
Early 2010s
>There are large dinosaurs with entire coats of feathers, small to man-sized carnivores had just as much feathering as birds
Late 2010s
>Feather-like fibers are appearing on animals closely related to dinosaurs, suggesting that feathers are older than dinosaurs. Feathers are the ancestral trait that a minority of dinosaurs (the big ones) would have lost and a majority (birds and their relatives) kept
People keep using weasel words and bullshitting about scientists changing their minds when the trend has always been pretty steady. Birdlike dinosaurs are birdlike, what a shocker

Why are the Jews trying to push this feathered dinosaur agenda? What do they gain from this perception of extinct animals?

We were sold a beautiful lie. We can’t just forget that.

Attached: 6E1958FE-3CC7-41D8-BB76-94486C4A0260.jpg (461x640, 87K)

Zoomer here, I can't believe you nostalgic tards believed kaiju actually existed.

It’ll happen to you.

>velociraptors
>the size of a human being
stop pretending you know anything about dinosaurs.

The largest known animal to have ever existed is swimming in the ocean right now user.

Attached: WitIt.jpg (512x384, 67K)

That's another colossal disappointment. No extinct animal was as big as this boring, harmless fuck in the ocean right now.

>Assuming the size of the raptor matters in the debate
Stop pretending you know anything about dinosaurs either.

Theres no such thing as CAVEMEN LIVING AT THE SAME TIME AS DINOSAURS WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU AUTISTS

>Deinonychus
>the size of a human being
This is a jurassic park fan meme explanation and nothing more. Don't even try with utahraptor because it was stumpy-legged and not a runner, and still not bald. If you see a raptor in fiction it's velociraptor

Could headcanon them as Austroraptor, they're comparable in size to the more famous large dromaeosaurs while their snout is about as slender as their more famous smaller kin. It would be headcanon ofc, it's pretty obvious the taxonomy isn't where the interest of Genndy lies.

>the isle
fuck off

I do kinda wish more fiction began using "modern" interpretation/knowledge of Dinosaurs since they seem to be way more alien and freaky looking, which I find neato.

Attached: Dino's.jpg (1280x748, 191K)

>The Isle
What? Fuck no. Games don't own taxa. Austroraptor was a real animal.

Enjoy you Baskin Robbins view on gender, I guess. We got the last bit of real fun.

This, so much this. There wouldn't be any complaints if just one mainstream dinosaur franchise had the balls to get out of the 80's. All we get are shitty indie games in perpetual early access on steam.

GODDAMN

GRUG PUNCHES A NIGGA TO GIBLETS AND YOU FAGS ARE ARGUING ABOUT FEATHERS

If jurassic park wasn't as good as it was half the people in this thread would be like "THIN INTELLIGENT DINOSAURS ARE LAME! I WANT FAT SWAMP DWELLERS WITH COLD BLOOD"

With how much people want dinosaurs to be lizards, you'd think that lizards would be insanely popular without having to be renamed dinosaurs

Autism on Yea Forums, what a shock.

Nobody would care about dinosaurs if they weren't all extinct to begin with.

How based do you think Primal will be, bros? Mildly based or supremely based?

Attached: hlESEWj.jpg (897x1200, 256K)

Big lizards are too ingrained into pop culture. Everyone into dinosaurs is into them because of jurrasic park and those people have been making games/movies/comics/cartoons/etc which inspire other kids who carry that on.

youtube.com/watch?v=fUFa_qXosos

How does Yea Forums feel about this dino show for kids?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 32K)

Wait sauce?

absolutely based

Depends on how much dinopussy grug smashes

Ajin

Where can I find a barbarian wife to challenge to trials of combat and the consumption of flesh?

I love Jurassic Park and I don't hate old fashioned lizard dinosaurs but constant going back to it just feels uninspired and in a way quaint.

Greater scientific discovery and hindsight has shown that Dino's are far more diverse, strange and alien then we initially imagined yet so many people are stuck with the same tired "Giant lizard" shtick.

This is a case where reality is so much stranger then fiction.

Attached: Paraceratherium Witton 2016 low res.jpg (1024x815, 339K)

Fuck you Pluto will always be a planet in my heart

Thanks dawg

Attached: 1558479968988.jpg (750x745, 57K)

One of those perpetually war-torn Eastern European countries probably.

Too true, birds are proper theropod dinosaurs which no one cares about.
You're implying the same isn't true for feathernazis though. I was one of those kids, I still love the original with all my heart. And of you go back to it now, that first movie is all about the bird agenda. Even scaring the kid at the beginning who didn't think birds were scary.
But the franchise dropped the ball hard when they didn't grab the perfect opportunity to update their designs with Jurassic World if you ask me. They could've brought so many people into the current era if they had just had the balls to piss off normies.
Tl;dr featherfags love JP too, we just have a few notes.

Good thinking.

it will start strong but will get ruined when the cavelady love interest shows up

>T-rex
>Raptors
>Stego
>Triceratops
>Generic sauropod
>Generic flyer

Why can't any other dinosaurs enter the popular mindset? Why not this improbable fucker?

Attached: Tanystropheus 2 Witton 2015 low res.jpg (1120x640, 296K)

Jurassic Park.

Tanystropheus wasn't a dinosaur. Just a really cool extinct reptile.

Frank Frazetta?

>alien
It’s just an emu.

It’s just a Tapir.

>I want everything to just steal jurassic park designs instead of look at modern finds
>I don't care that jurassic park only looks the way it does because the used the latest finds
Mind you jurassic park used some artistic licence, but what's so artistic about copying it

How to spot a Zoomer:
>Classic dinos became popular because of Jurassic Park!

Those are the same dinos that keep getting featured in old dinosaur films before Jurassic Park. Except maybe the raptors, JP popularized em.

The cavelady will die at the start
Also "lady" will be a stretch if they're full BUNGA too

Jurassic park murdered classic dinos for vaguely accurate 90s dinosaurs

Attached: deinonychus2-02.jpg (640x480, 40K)

Attached: 1511730050303.webm (1280x720, 2.91M)

Attached: 1561325793799.webm (480x600, 2.91M)

I wonder if people will look back and feel angry when they learn that panda bears weren't covered in scales and spikes

I’m already angry they aren’t

That doesn't quite work since Pandas were never popularized as DRAGONS BUT REAL.
It's more like being pissy that shit like Samurais and Knights was 90% pomp and circumstance.

Imagine their fury at cats

Attached: All-Yesterdays-cat.jpg (697x554, 270K)

Dinosaurs have to be the only subject in the world where people who haven't opened a textbook in years will vehemently defend outdated information and even try and hold it against experts as if there's any better source simply out of nostalgia

Godzilla doesn't need to be real to be cool, neither do the "raptors" featured in jurassic park (Utahraptor and Deinonychus were both shitty excuses, one's too small, one's too fat, both are feathered)
Seriously though it was a 10/10 movie with shit sequels

I need a description of this for every modern animal.

that's just a lump with a skull on it. Stupid;look at a croc
it's the shining example of how people are cucked by Science. everyone believes in the contemporary lies ("if we don't stop climate change in five years it'll be too late!" x5) and then grow up to have their Dreams shattered and learn to be a good consumptionuous employee

god lets satan do it

nice brapper on that cavebitch

We don't know that for sure

It's nice that people question things, it's stupid when people refuse to look for answers afterward.
"Why should I believe X has feathers???" Most people who ask this aren't going to enjoy being stepped through the science.

Tyrannosaurus was the popular example, but no self-respecting scientist actually gave tyrannosaurus feathers. Only ONE scientist suggested it was a scavenger as a JOKE and it got blown sky high by news sites.

Velociraptor and its raptor brethren are another that are a sore spot for people, there has been literally no backtracking on how birdlike they were, yet people refuse to fucking READ despite questioning.
If only they were willing to actually question scientists and professors themselves

>Largest KNOWN ANIMAL
>KNOWN
>"We don't know that for sure"

Fantasy > Reality. Scientists, you do your thing, but don’t encroach upon our established Dinosaur settings.

But we literally do

To be fair, if they really were "experts," they would have gotten it right the first time, and also have actual fucking evidence beyond endlessly parroting nonsense about flight feathers with no photos.

unironically posting these images of shrink wrapped modern day animals is the easiest way to out yourself as a retard

There are no experts in this thread, if we're talking about actual paleontologists, yes they can provide the "nonsense"

Dakotaraptor's biggass size and feathers have been documented very well if you're interested in studying them

Attached: dako.jpg (456x413, 13K)

Fuck the established setting, feathered dinos are just cooler. Its not even an issue of realism

Attached: downloadfile-2.jpg (1920x1357, 375K)

You can't stop me

Attached: hunting swans.jpg (640x427, 23K)

Attached: tumblr_inline_mgngh4qhp71qboc2u.png (500x389, 252K)

Attached: tumblr_inline_mgngkrapEX1qboc2u.png (500x401, 142K)

I love these. Any more?

>I read it as "Fatherless Velociraptors"

Attached: tumblr_inline_mgngkffq6S1qboc2u.png (500x403, 252K)

Feathers suck because of modern walking birds are not cool.

That's all I got user, look up all yesterdays

>Only ONE scientist suggested it was a scavenger
T-rex is too slow.

>Disembowels you

Attached: cassowary-attack-2.jpg (400x300, 30K)

WIthout provocation they are not attack.

You give me a scaly lizard T-Rex and I'll let you and your people turn everything else into a turkey.

There has been only ONE cassowary related death in all of history and it was because someone was lying in the path of one as it ran
They are less lethal than domestic cats

>>I read it as "Fatherless Velociraptors"
Illegitimacy is a massive problem in the dinosaur community

The war was against emus not cassowaries.

>>Wins war against you

Attached: emu-war-emu-smirk.jpg (900x477, 59K)

user, furries are all about scaly dinosaurs. The hell are you talking about?

Still looking not cool enough.

>It would be a shame if i was big enough to include you in my ration

Attached: shoebill-facts.jpg (776x398, 67K)

Those are all intentional choices, except for the lack of feathers which is just inaccurate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting an up-to-date representation of dinosaurs, it's actually pretty hard to watch media with blatant mistakes like that.

>Frazetta was one of Genndy's inspirations for Primal
BASED

Attached: frank-frazetta.jpg (1920x1200, 999K)

Attached: lmaoing @ mammals.png (534x455, 688K)

I like how it's impossible to tell what exactly is going on in the painting.

Attached: mx8qvf2QHP1qf5489o1_1280.jpg (1163x1700, 665K)

those aren't velociraptors, you impressionable child

That's a pretty hot cavewoman on the bottom there

Yo Shoebills are fuckin' huge.

Attached: Shoebillsize.jpg (450x375, 48K)

>Thinking that they look like any raptor at all

Imagine how people will feel when it becomes public knowledge that dinosaurs literally were unable to roar

Personally I find the reality of the situation so much more unnerving. It doesn't roar. It makes low, rumbling growl-like noises that the human ear could barely detect as noise. But it would still be LOUD. Loud enough that you wouldn't hear it, you'd FEEL it. The Tyrant Lizard King sounded more like the fucking Jaws theme than some roaring lion or anything like that.

Just give this a listen, and imagine the kind of dread that animals 65 million years ago had to endure every time one of these beasts came by: youtube.com/watch?v=sqJ4d1rtajg

Dinosaurs didn't exist at all. Fossils were put there by Satan to trick us.

isn't this drawn by the retard that didn't know that scientists take into account muscle attachment, skin imprints etc etc whenever they reconstruct a dinosaur?

Satan must be a fuckin' great dude if he gave us dinosaurs. You know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna hang out with the devil and his dinosaurs and you're not gonna stop me.

>youtube.com/watch?v=sqJ4d1rtajg
Can't hear shit.

That's stretching it past the point of suspension of disbelief. Hippopotomi have the teeth of plant eaters.

Stone & Savagery is based and redpilled.

Attached: frank_frazetta_tyrannosaurusrex.jpg (977x1200, 462K)

No, these are intentionally inaccurate to highlight the issues with reconstructions of extinct animals, by applying these methods to modern day animals. Look up All Yesterdays and the follow-up All Your Yesterdays for more.

>implying they have feathers
Proofs?

Didn't have to be slow to catch slow-ass hadrosaurs and stubby ceratopsids. We have direct evidence that T. rex hunted thanks to an Edmontosaurus specimen that got a chomp out of its back and lived to tell the tale for at least a few more years. Scavengers don't hunt the biggest prey in their biome. T. rex did.

Based
Featherfags are insufferable

just big enough to get their shit slapped, like most other modern birds. Theyre a bunch of fucking jokes with hollow bones

We literally did you brainlet, T. rex has been confirmed as having lost the trait of feathers. The only people holding on to a fluffy rex are just as biased as those holding on to naked raptors.

Some people will take ANY bait sheesh

>Hippopotomi have the teeth of plant eaters.

Attached: this will kill you.jpg (1000x629, 194K)

At this point feathers are the null-hypothesis for all coelurosauria. If you wanna claim they're bald then the burden of proof is on you.
T. rex is a good example. We have a pretty solid area of skin impressions that rule out a full coat.

Attached: burb.webm (588x854, 1001K)

Attached: jesus.jpg (439x209, 17K)

Yes. Their canines and incisors are unsuited for feeding and their molars are very obviously made for grinding down plant matter.

Are you blind?

The iguanadon mafia doesn't fuck around man...

They have grinding molars instead of shearing ones. At most you could assume it's an omnivore from it's dentistry, and even that would be stretching

Well yes, but no. All they really need to be provoked is for a guy to bop his head.
Source: I got attacked by a Cassowary as a kid. I just thought the goofy bird was dancing so I bopped my head in return. It was not just dancing...

And yet more people have been eaten by hippos than lions. On average, by the time a hippo dies, it has killed a man.

Attached: 1551443333448.png (500x300, 42K)

>And yet more people have been eaten by hippos than lions.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You probably just heard someone talking about how deadly hippos are and filled in the rest.

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/hippo-haven-107453678/

Its like you are begging to be humiliated.

Hippos don't eat people, but like elephants, bulls or rhinos, they can be aggressive and are very dangerous.

Where is it mentioned they consume flesh?

But creationists do believe dinosaurs exist. They think they were there with Adam and Eve in the garden, and existed at the time of Noah's flood which they interpret as a historical event. They think dinosaurs are the dragons mentioned in the bible. Din't base anything on what Creationists believe, they're idiots and will believe anything they think agrees best with their book.

>they dont have thing
>prove a negative bro XD
Usong big words doesnt mean shit, burden is om you making a claim, they dont have feathers faggot

>haha this limp wristed faggot is you XD
no u

>Still doesn't recognize the difference between deadly and carnivorous
The only person you're embarrassing is yourself.

C.M. Koseman is the shit, if you haven't already look up his sci-fi speculative work All Tomorrows.

To be fair I ran the numbers years ago and I don't have the calculations with me at work, bit I'm willing to run them again later if this thread is still going.
Yall are right that I was too quick to equate killing to eating tho.

>highlight the issues with reconstructions of extinct animals
Shrink-wrap fell out and was called out as much as 30+ years ago

The user made an error and failed to follow the conversation properly. He claimed their mouths make them look like meat eaters then claimed they consumed flesh and hunted people.

no one doubts they are africa's most dangerous animal but claiming they eat meat especially of humans is retarded

Null-hypothesis means it isn't just a claim, it is the baseline. Deviating from that baseline is making a claim that requires evidence, accepting it is not.
Eg T. rex deviated from that naseline, we know this because we have evidence.

The best thing about outdated dinosaurs is how they render cryptids as bullshit.
Ever find it funny how cryptid dinosaurs only match up with what the general public would remember as a dinosaur? Cryptid pterosaurs always have small heads and stand upright despite it being abundantly clear that they had large heads and a quadrupedal stance.
Cryptid dinosaurs are always straight out of the 50s even with shit that's now physically impossible

The guy was purposefully using old paleontology methods to exagerrate the fact no reconstruction can be perfect

Inb4 I get shit for "naseline"

>Implying dentistry can prove it doesn't eat meat
Don't trust what (((they))) tell you about "herbivores"

Attached: InformalCircularAlaskanmalamute-size_restricted.gif (334x251, 2.95M)

oh so if i say that Gods existence is the baseline hypothesis then you have to disprove that right? Fuck off retard, excellent bait
t. Knows hes spouting bullshit

>Durr dinos didn't have feathers
They are called Dino-SOARS for fucks sake.

>d I-NO-SOARS
>feathers

Jesus fuck

>retard cant handle the burden of proof
better luck next time fag :^)

Bird bones are stronger than mammal ones due to an internal honey comb structure. Try harder dumbass.

You can't make me listen to my own arguments if I hide your posts and all related replies.

So is it going to be 2 episodes every night for a week or just 1 episode a night?

Attached: cliff frank_frazetta_whitegorillas.jpg (792x1023, 179K)

Stronger comparatively to weight but surely your average dense mammal bones would not snap nearly as easily as hollow bird ones right? Not the user you replied to btw.

Stronger by weight, but mammal bones are stronger overall as they are so much denser.

This guy looks like he's saying
>whatcha gonna do about it faggot

yeah sure smaller dicks pleasure women more because less is more right? Fuck off that honeycomb structure is to compensate, not excel retard
the only way i wouldnt be able to slap a birds shit is if that shit stain is bigger than me, especially gooses
That was intentional because fuck 'em

Even better, lay off with the virgin dinos and give me some Chad terror birds.

You just made me realize that one of my favourite dinosaur books had a homage to this painting in it.
Mind fucking blown.

if people want scaly monsters so much then why aren't lizards and crocodiles given more attention? There are actual prehistoric lizards and crocodiles that have no movies. You wouldn't have to make up fake bullshit about them or give them the wrong names. There's no feathers to remove. Raptors as a whole are just not viable for an audience that wants bald lizards. Just USE LIZARDS

>theres no feathers to remove
that implies they have feathers in the first place idiot, which has yet to be proven

No, since the existence of god isn't backed by mountains of evidence and decades of research and analysis. Only willingly ignorant cunts would say it isn't enough.

>Gangplank Galleon starts playing

>which has yet to be proven
I take it you've just avoided every fossil find in the last 30 years or this is just bait

>the only way i wouldnt be able to slap a birds shit is if that shit stain is bigger than me, especially gooses
If you can't handle geese you're either a pussy or a literal child. Grab'm by the neck and squeeze. If need be, hit a motherfucker with another motherfucker.

Currently paleontology doesn't think large dinos had feathers, only medium/small ones

>What the fuck is a YUTYRANNUS

Pandas are large and have huge, scary jaws. They look like they could crunch bones much like hyenas do.
Imagine the disappointment if people believed pandas were apex predators only to learn those lazy fucks only ever ate bamboo.

Look up Frank Frazettas other paintings, the dude was a master of drawing thick asses, and hasn't been surpassed.
Mainly because all his girls are actually him drawing his wife

I wonder how much brain tissue must be damages before posting posts like this unironically.

Not recognizing sarcasm is a form of autism.

>Implying there aren't folks who would unironically post the exact same thing.
It's damn hard to recognize satire when those who are serious make even more ridiculous statements.

>Featherless raptors are a fantasy
>ancestor of mammals had fur, get with the times naked elephant shitlords

Crocs are flat and mostly dangerous in water.
They don't look impressive since they can't tower over a human and they usually won't follow them out of water.
Same with sharks, unless you're swimming with them you're safe.

Don't mind me, only dinosaur worth shit walking through.

Attached: Carnotaurus.png (4319x2511, 3.72M)

Even Parasaurolophus?

Feathers are not fur. Elephants ancestors were bald as well, with mammoths being the well-preserved abnormality (aside from the columbians)
And again the problem is that raptors so far have all had flight feathers or roots for flight feathers. You're playing with assumption and fantasy to suggest that flight feathers have ever developed on a bald adult animal

then there's the fact that the raptor that lived in the hottest climate of all raptors (Velociraptor) was feathered, the largest newly discovered raptor (dakotaraptor) was feathered. Mammoths have fur because they lived in an ice-cold climate. The comparison is apples and oranges

Give me a bald maniraptoran animal and then we can get cooking

Tadpoleosaurus!

Here's the thing: no one cares. I know that this "real dinosaurs had feathers" shit is something you faggots latch to to feel superior to all the unwashed mases when most of the time you have nothing else going for you in your life. But only reason why people even give a shit about dinosaurs is becouse they are scary dragon monsters to awe at. You aren't changing any minds here. Remove this pop-culture bullshit and they aren't any more interesting than eurypterids or capitosauria. Can you imagine having heated discissions about those without looking like a lunatic? Exacly. People don't give a shit about your dead faggot birds. They want they fantasy dragons.

Modern parrots have scales, user.

Attached: parrot.jpg (1024x680, 154K)

>not Troodon
>opposable thumbs, big brain
>would likely have evolved into intelligent beings if the meteor didn't cut things short

God was so afraid of them he sent the rock

Attached: troodon.jpg (580x377, 46K)

This parrot is not realistic.

I hoped you were trolling, but I can't be sure anymore.

You sure do sound autistic.

Use headphones.

It's just someone moving their furniture.

I think you're reading into it way too much. I just told you precisely what is available to both you and me. I have no way to feel or appear superior to you here of all places.
You made the illogical comparison to elephants and mammoths, I don't know why you'd suddenly go off and get mad when someone points out why that doesn't add up compared to a class that has shown feathers under both environmental circumstances.
It's not about ruining your childhood, it's about delusion. There's no reason to ruin some kid's fantasy, but you're an adult who replied to someone else with a comparison between animals with the intent to correct them.
You clearly didn't check if that comparison works, but wanted to do the correction anyways. You care bitch.
You care that you can't just fight off scientific evidence of feathers, you care that you can't just prove it all fake and stump every scientist who's studied it prior. You care that there is literally no counter source in existence.
Otherwise you wouldn't pull a comparison out of your dick

I'm sorry but get cucked. Monsters aren't real and never were

Alien and freaky?
It's literally just a giant turkey.

Attached: JP-VolunteerBoy.jpg (1015x554, 44K)

>Um actually what about elephants
>Gets Um actually'd back
>You're just trying to look smarter than all of us! Make belief is more important
Why did you even start then faggot kek

because from there the names get even stupider.
No kid says their favorite is Micropachycephalosaurus or whatever the fuck. T-Rex. Stegosaurus. Triceratops. Brontosaurus.

>I think you're reading into it way too much.
It's me who is waving my pop-science knowlege around? Monsters are real. In fact they are more real than your faggot birds are. Becouse feathered dinosaurs are dead. Made up monsters are still in minds of people aside of those who latched on insignificant bit of trivia to evangelise to strangers on a bangladeshi beanie baby collecting app. I do know as most people by now that some grup of long dead animals had feathers. But it doesn't matter any more than any other random bit of trivia like how many touchdowns some guy scored in the '50 or what your uncle had on breakfast. To paraphrase: "My dinosaur is much more important and much more powerful".

>tfw that joke doesn't work anymore cause now they really are.

Yes, the dinosaurs in the minds of the public are far more important than the dinosaurs deduced from scientific reasoning. In turn those dinosaurs are more important than the ones that actually existed millions of years ago.
I'm not in disagreement there, you're the one that chose the correctional elephant angle.

you could always give them nicknames. T-rex and Raptors are nicknames and short for their longer scientific names. I always refer to Pacycephalosaurus and its family as Packies

The joke was that the kid was wrong and that those turkeys would kill you regardless of what they looked like
The movie was preparing the 1993 audience for the fact that these dinosaurs won't look like the freaks they saw in childrens books

It would be nice if Jurassic Park was remade with the EXACT same mindset of taking modern finds and merging them with an artistic spin

>Packies
That's racist

People wouldn't like that. And them being or not "scientifically accurate" doesn't matter.
Movie dinosaurs are a monster just like Dracula or Frankenstein. You never are going to see one and neither is anyone else. People wanted to see scaly monsters from abyss of time, not large chickens. Some featherfags would blow their loads but overall public would be disapointed. And featherfags being frustrated never stops being amusing.

>Feelings are more important than the truth
You non-binary by any chance?

What about people who want to read and learn about science? there's no school of thought left that supports featherless raptors, does that mean that literally every scientist, every enthusiast, must be a "featherfag" with a bias? It can't possibly be because they reached the same conclusion?

It is because "Dinosaurs" evoked Dragons so heavily people want them more for the Myth of Dinosaurs as a Dragon substitute then anything else.

The Featherless ones may be inaccurate but they are cooler. Because, you know, Naked. and the cool factor is all the general public cares about, hence why it is so hard for feathered ones to take off in media.

Honestly people should just give the featherless ones a new name like "Dracosaurs" or some shit like that if they use them.

No, in fact I would suspect that feather discipless are the ones on progresive spectrum more often than not.
Tell, me do you care if people know The Truth about how cynodonts or eurypterids? Hell, do you even ever talk about pterosaurs having even more different than standard portrayal of them anathomy?
Your feelings tell you that feathered dinosaurs matter. The fact is that they couldn't matter less.

Well, featherless dinosaurs were here first. You can just call the more accurate ones something else and be over it.

Pterosaurs are my favorite animals, but they've been thrown a bone in fiction. Bipedal portrayals have mostly slowed to a halt and they always get to be badasses.
They've been depicted as fluffy and scaly on and off so I can't really care that most of the world doesn't know they had pycnofibers, most of the world thinks of them as birds of some sort
No strong feelings about cynodonts or sea scorpions

True, but you're fooling yourself if you think current day reconstruction methods are perfectly accurate or optimal, they're just a marginal improvement over what came before. The whole point of All Yesterdays is that; short of inventing time travel, we'll never have a 100% accurate image of what life was like in prehistoric times.

>No strong feelings about cynodonts or sea scorpions
Becouse there is no reason to have any feelings about them. People like scaly dinosaurs becouse they fill our need for dragons. Do you really think that people would care about them if dinosaurs were known to have feathers from the start? They would be just "that thing that existed" like terror birds.

Good everyone would be better off then, the science enthusiasts would study them without retards screeching about how their discoveries are ruining their childhoods, without news reports exaggerating their finds to get reactions out of idiots.
Maybe then movies would focus on animals that actually looked scary in life, like the giant crocodiles.

>Do you really think that people would care about them if dinosaurs were known to have feathers from the start?
Absolutely. There were 5 tonne predators feasting on the carcasses of 130 long sauropods and raptors running around with daggers on their feet. What does some of them being feathered have to do with anything?

>we'll never have a 100% accurate image of what life was l
We're getting pretty damn close these days.

>You aren't changing any minds here.
You don't call out bullshit to change the mind of the bullshitter, you do it so his bullshit doesn't gain traction with those who still have to make up their minds.
We know you don't care, we don't care you don't care, but someone uninformed out there reading your bullshit might, so it's worth the time to call it out for the bullshit it is.

You're sounding increasingly insane user

I want to see feathered nightmares from a bygone era. Scales are just boring.

Would even be feasible to feature majority imaginary feathered dinosaurs in a cartoon, CG movie or video game without getting absolutely hammered for historical inaccuracy? Basically just do the coolest believable feathered dinos possible because it's something you think would be terrifying? Without even saying it's supposed to be realistic.

If we are talking about art, yes, feelings are more important than the truth.

>implying mountains of evidence are readily available for feathered dinos
>has yet to post shit
>tries to project burden of proof when called out
and neither is feathered dinos since you obviously cant even post a citation faggot
oh you mean the ones that dont exist? yeah sure :^)

You would get lauded with praise for breaking the mold and not sticking to JP's design aesthetics by the palaeo community. We know it's impossible to be completely accurate, so it might as well be interesting. Same way we'd love to see more media feature swamp dwellers. We're just tired of seeing the same JP rip-offs over and over again.
Normies would seethe and flood the board with hate.

ah the wording there was poor yes, but im trying to say that i would doubly slap a gooses shit, because fuck them it was a rushed secondary point user

And the scalefags want lizards with a giant erect penis leaking semen

It's impossible for dinosaurs to be mentioned anywhere without some featherfag jumping in. You are like fedoras getting into conversations to enlighten people that god doesn't exist in case they didn't heard about it. Yes we know. Now fuck off.

WOO HOO!

Attached: duck dicks.jpg (2448x3264, 1.81M)

Already posted the type specimen of microraptor, one of the many fossils with direct evidence of feathers that you can see with your own eyes. I'm not gonna flood this thread with the rest just for one retard who could've gone to /sci/, or even just googled this shit, if you were more than just a retard with bad faith arguments.
It's literally been the point of this entire thread. Did you even read OP's post? This isn't the thread you though it was. Now fuck off.

Not really? We can only guess at behaviors from how the thing is built and what it's descendants act like, and we're literally scraping at the bones to figure out their metabolism, with still no consensus. We just overturned the idea that Trex was partially feathered, which was the leading theory until then. I'd say we're like 70% close to accurate at best

YEE HAW

Attached: allYesterdaysCitipati.jpg (1024x1024, 145K)

Attached: 498ed76be651cffb6bb9bac6a9bb75c3.jpg (600x600, 37K)

lol

Attached: 1558280271149.png (434x524, 250K)

>talking out of your fucking ass like that

If you care about dinosaurs being inaccurately featherless, then perhaps you missed out on the fact that MODERN MAN is walking alongside them.

admitting you are retarded still leave you retarded

>and feathers
no

They are made specifically to highlight the retardation of shrinkwrapping fossils and calling it a day, by giving modern animals the same treatment. You're basically taking an onion article seriously here.

>hurr just google it
t. Doesnt understand burden of proof

>he actually believes feathered dinosaurs
>HUURRRRR FEATHERS FOUND WITH DINOS DAT MEAN DINOS HAD FEATHERS
sure thing buddy, i found your wife with Tyrone but does that mean he's her husband?

Imagine CHOOSING to be this retarded.

>"educated" and "trained" (((scientists))) using "the most advanced technology and methodology"supposedly worked on this for hours and hours and coming up with totally not intentionally incorrect results to that totally wont completely supplant common knowledge on trivial matters to condition people to become receptive to a never ending progress of subversion
friendly reminder to never trust modern day academia

Imagine CHOOSING to be this mad.

I guarantee a shaved lion looks 10 times scarier than a hairy one. Shaved mammals always look scary.

Not mad, just surprised you can be so stupid yet still remember to breathe.

The public wants Jurassic Park raptors. No one cares about your feather autism.

I'm going to make a movie about Rome, the statues will be painted in flashy colors and you can't stop me with the public at your back.

>boycotting anything that isn’t accurate
Paleofags are the worst

I wish all featherfags would just fuck off back to their discord servers for their indie games that will never come out

Eh, they just always looked dumb to me

Attached: Sphynx-cat1.jpg (1000x667, 78K)

I'm pretty much sure an utharaptor with feathers would have died of suffocation, being as big as a t rex and an active hunter you know.
The dilong was a relative of t-rex, smaller, had feathers and we know the t-rex didn't.

So don't be such an obtuse piece of walking shit, you damn jew.

Attached: 1539904800034.png (482x556, 39K)

>then there's the fact that the raptor that lived in the hottest climate of all raptors (Velociraptor) was feathered, the largest newly discovered raptor (dakotaraptor) was feathered.
And they weren't bigger than an ostritch, you humongous faggot.

this

>Human among dinossaurs (something that didn't happen)
>We KNOW for a fact said dinos are not based on real life ones according to the trailer with several fantastical elements to it
>WHAAAAT THIS DINO DEPICTION IS NOT REALISTIC AAAAA
You are going to watch it anyway, dinofag.

Attached: the war never ended.webm (404x720, 998K)

Behold! Homo Farnsworth frolicking with dinosaurs at the time of creation!

>Aussie taking revenge in the name of his ancestors circa 20xx

They were made by and posted by pseudo-intellectuals that think scientists know as little about anatomy as they do.

BARBED CORKSCREW DICK.

Here are your dinosaurs, bro

Attached: 1564836292794.jpg (1544x869, 232K)

Are those Llamaraptors.

Young Earth Creationists actually DO believe Dinosaurs existed. They just believe that they're not as old as fossils say they are. Best as I can tell, the also accept the world isn't flat.

Attached: Christ on an Apatosaurus.jpg (300x426, 98K)

Do you think Hippos kill for food?

He got absolutely no respect in JW2

damn
k. rool really let himself go

Hippos kill FOR FUN!

Still too big to be Deinonychus. Those are supposed to be around 3 feet high at the shoulder. Much smaller than the movie ones.

Out of all the dinosaurs out there, that one is among the few that I feel the urge to bully. Look at that fucking dude. Look at his little backwards arms. Look at his fucking face.

I wanna put that fucker in a headlock and noogie it.

Utahraptor was not nearly as big as a young tyrannosaurus what kind of shit are you smoking

Based
Fuck featherfags

Feathered dinosaurs are gay.

But they never did is the point.

Attached: 1564399106119.jpg (1200x919, 321K)

Attached: 1564447790997.jpg (1000x680, 137K)

Attached: thatsmypurse.png (555x460, 154K)

Attached: 1564213764460.png (513x359, 264K)

Attached: 1564408954566.png (303x244, 96K)

Maybe if the prosecution of dinosaurs for non-violent crimes didn't lead to so many of them being either jailed or unemployable because of their criminal records, we'd see more stable nuclear raptor families!

Attached: 1457739923946[1].png (668x501, 609K)

I bet you think Megalodon looked like a bigger great white too

Wait, it didn't?

Show me photographic evidence of a dinosaur with a "full coat"

That's a genuine plot-point in the Jurassic Park book.

They were able to guess the colour of this feathered dino because of the preserved pigments in their fossilized feathers

Attached: wBF_OUsXqCpucWwfIGhwPRD9-8iHPmJDegTEVtO8YVs.jpg (900x771, 114K)

A number of skin impressions from tyrannosaurids (T. rex and its closest relatives) have shown portions of the body to be featherless, including the chest, neck, stomach, and hips. The thing is that these patches kind of make it so that rex couldn’t possibly have feathers without looking like some weird mangy freak, because it’s rare that feathers are separated by scales before giving way to more feathers.

Attached: vZN8eyO.jpg (2700x1519, 626K)

Show me photographic evidence of a maniraptoran animal without one

There's hypothesis that young T. rexes could have "fur" but lost it when maturing.

The only feathered animals without a full coat are the ones that have fur like down or hedgehog like quils. That's why it became the consensus in short. It's about avoiding assumptions and right now a scaly animal with pennaceous feathers is an unprecedented thing

Before this fossil, there were speculations of a body shape closer to a whale shark. Especially the overly large and elongated caudal fin would make more sense. Smaller ventral fins would help to reduce drag. Also, speculations of the snout being shorter than that of a great white since the prey items for Megalodon were a lot heavier and thicker.
More like a basking shark than a great white in terms of body plans

Attached: megskeleton.jpg (720x479, 56K)

And what after this fossil? A basking shark with sharp teeth that eats meat sounds a lot scarier than a bigger great white, I dig that.

wouldn't be too farfetched given how many species have young that look weird/colored different for camo

>These inaccuracies are all intentional choices.
>But this OTHER inaccuracy is just inaccurate.

Attached: squinting gamer.png (143x143, 17K)

If an meteorite wiped out all dinosaurs then how did modern birds evolve from their extinct ancestors?

paleontology is constantly evolving
Took forever to get the public to buy into feathered dinosaurs and now they have to convince them that not all the dinosaurs are feathered
Our view on some of these creatures are from a fragment of bone with some indents that match up with quills or feather

Attached: Dino.webm (444x250, 162K)

I thought it was thought to be more akin to this shape, not a basking shark

Attached: 4e0319a14c0edc1ab9d1ba8abdf1ea60fc5784a4r1-1032-774v2_hq.jpg (1024x768, 39K)

Why can't paleontologists ever get their shit together? Is their whole field a bunch of bullshit that can never be trusted?

There was nothing wrong with this 1800's dinosaur and it didn't need to be changed. Better design than anything that came after it.

New evidence comes to light that causes them to have to reexamine how things work and function. Same with any branch of science. When LITERALLY the only thing one has to go on for something like is the thing's teeth and fragments of the jawbone, first impressions often are not correct. It doesn't fucking matter what you think looks better, it's not CORRECT. You can think 2 + 2 = 5 looks better than 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn't mean fundamental Math should be changed to account for your hurt feelings you tumblrite. This isn't ART, this is SCIENCE.

>There is no such thing as a bald raptor

Alopecia-afflicted Raptor Matter!

It's a lot of theory and trying to guess an entire species existence off sometimes something as small as a tooth or a single vertebra (Thanos simonattoi)
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaCDmykyjVw_B983AQ2iGuZOA3ZLJ8Sry

2 things.
Birds are older than velociraptors and we're present long before the impact

The meteor did not kill all of the dinosaurs, it killed most of everything

On top of what said
was in a private collection until the owner decided to give it to the museum
There are and will be fossils that could help make leaps and bounds in palaeontology but the collectors refuse to share their collection publicly

It isn't tumblrites that get mad at palentology, it's /pol/tards. They think science can't be trusted because "liberals" are in "control" of it and therefore have ruined dinosaurs by giving them feathers.

They can also regulate temperature, as Stephen Jay Gould said a century ago.

It's adorable

That's way too rounded
The ancestors from the two (main) argued genus; sand tiger sharks, makos, basking sharks and great whites all have a similar head shape, so it would be a more robust/blunt version of that over a whale shark or bull shark shaped head

Attached: Mary Parish megalodon illustraion 10.2.2018.jpg (800x376, 15K)

/pol/tards are just Scientology trying to get its revenge.

Look at a few of the designs palaeontologists came up with to explain the Helicoprion tooth whorl

Attached: Misbegotten-Helicos_color.jpg (2700x2003, 1.96M)

Give me one good reason why this can't be the case for Parasaurolophus

Combustion leaves noticeable traces on fossils. There would be marks from constant heat stress inside them. We know this because we can detect stress marks in fossils, even wounds that have healed or not. It's one reason we know T. rex was an active predator, we have Triceratops fossils with T. rex teeth embedded in them that healed over, meaning it was attacked in life.

If a dinosaur breathed fire, we'd have evidence of it. Both on animals it was using it against and in fossils of the fire-breather itself.

Did the truth ever come out?

This thread made me remember the time machine from HG Wells. In that book the protag visited a abandoned museum from an unknown civilization that used to exhibit artifacts from the victorian era, like box of matches, cars and other stuff. A cartoon / Comicbook / book based in this concept: could be really fun to watch and write: A distant civilization recolecting traces of modern civilization like skeletons and other stuff and trying to figure out what they used to look like.

Attached: cvr9780743487733_9780743487733_hr.jpg (1256x2012, 1.01M)

>that one hiding behind the curtain
what's his fucking game
what's he planning
I don't trust him

Oh fuck that Ray one is pretty smart

He's going to drink ocean water!

Nothing (((at all)))

For those asking for proof, what kind of proof do you want precisely? Do you want feather roots growing out of the base of the bones? Those have plenty of photos we can share here.
Do you want the physical fossils to look at yourself? That can't be done here but feel free to check if there are any paleontologists in your area. There's nothing we can do for you there, no way to prove it beyond the pictures on the internet.
What matters is what you're willing to accept or believe. If you believe that there were scaly raptors of any kind feel free to show us the sources that allowed those beliefs.

I would reccomend researching yutyrannus or maniraptora if you're interested in large dinosaurs with complete coats of feathers

I need a fucking real ass dinosaur in my office by 5:30 or you're fired.

There's several thousand species alive today but they're pretty fast and skittish

Yeah, that's Frazetta.

Attached: frank_frazetta_thorsflight.jpg (891x1200, 200K)

Ok but there are a number of animals who don't have feathers and can fly user, they are called bats.

Bats and platypuses are anomalies.

Wait, platypuses can't fly.

They don't want any proof that contradicts their childish worldviews.