|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 26, 2012 8:50:14 GMT -5
City clerk? Don't you mean dangerous murderer? Judging by his brash behvior this guy was very confident of his fighting abilities, which hints he is much stronger than the average person.
Spartans spend their entire lives fighting, so that's not really a fair comparison, and as far as I know samurai didn't practice hand to hand combat.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 26, 2012 9:05:31 GMT -5
I find seals and sea lions to be underrated. They're amazingly flexible and agile on land. A seal bend back to touch his rear flipper. So if a predator like a bear jumped on an elephant seal's back, he can reach behind and bite the bear. The pinniped can defend itself from every position.
Compare this to stiff rhinos or buffalo who cannot attack a predator latched onto its back. All they can do is run around, crashing into trees in vain attempts to get the tiger off.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 26, 2012 9:10:44 GMT -5
Seals don't have the most impressive jaws. I'd rather be fast, buff, have horns, and be inflexible than being slow, heavy, and being able to touch my nose with my toes.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 26, 2012 10:20:18 GMT -5
Another underrated animal is the wild boar. Eurasian boars are the biggest, strongest wild swines. They can weigh 250 kilograms, have 5 inch tusks, and built like a brick house. Their low center of gravity and thick hide protects their vital organs. Eurasian boars are also the most aggressive suids.
This isn't a deer or antelope we're talking about. A prime mature boar is a fearless, dangerous animal that won't hesitate to tackle a tiger if his life's in danger.
Tigers do prey on boar but usually on weak, sick, or young. Against a peak condition boar without the benefit of ambush, the carnivore risks his life. Same goes for lions. Rarely will a lone lioness tackle a male warthog her size and larger.
National Geographic estimated Hogzilla to weigh 800 pounds. No tiger, bear or anything in its right mind would mess with such a behemoth.
Make no mistake. Boars are up there with bovines as some of the toughest big game to kill.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 26, 2012 14:34:37 GMT -5
I posted a source stating Alamosaurus rivaled Argentinosaurus in size. Alamosaurus is the biggest dinosaur in N. America and also one of the largest sauropods. I can't for the life of me see how 4 t-rexes can fell such a behemoth. Perhaps you can't, but Tyrannosaurus can. If you wish to debate it with him (as soon as he comes back), take a look at the size chart.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 27, 2012 7:33:47 GMT -5
There aren't any vital regions on the sauropod the t-rexes can bite onto.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 27, 2012 8:30:42 GMT -5
Base of the neck, perhaps. Stomach might work, although it would be tricky, and if they can avoid getting kicked the Tyrannosauruses can also disable a leg or two.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 27, 2012 8:48:24 GMT -5
If they bit his leg, they'll get dragged and crushed to death. 1 tail swing would totally obliterate a t-rex. Also, is there evidence t-rex hunted in packs?
Even Com agrees with me an Alamosaurus would sweep the floor with 4 t-rexes.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 27, 2012 9:25:49 GMT -5
If they bit his leg, they'll get dragged and crushed to death. I doubt it. Tyrannosaurus is not that stupid; it's not a leech and will let go if it fears it's in danger or has done sufficient damage. Provided the swing is accurate and enough force is put in. We're presuming they did, or the match would be meaningless. Now did they truly hunt in packs of unrelated individuals? I doubt it. Yes, and 2 people are not the entire forum population.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 27, 2012 9:51:55 GMT -5
1. Actually most people on that thread, except maybe 2 thought the alamosaurus would easily win. 2. A tail swipe will still send T-rex into horrendous trauma and nausea if it hits. This sauropod rivaled Argentinosaurus in size. 3. From here: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090806112357.htm tyrannosaurus mainly hunted juvenile animals which were smaller and less armed than their adult counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 27, 2012 10:49:26 GMT -5
This theory is nothing more than poor speculation in my opinion. Olvier's only "evidence" is a lack of juvenile dinosaur fossils. The problem is fossilization itself is a rare event which would be made even more difficult when they can be swallowed hole by many predators besides tyrannosaurus. Jumbo do you really think that a six to nine ton animal could have survived off bite sized meals; even when they grew extremely fast, only where frequent during certain periods of time, and where also preyed on by other, smaller, predators, more suited to this task?
This article only strengthens my view that tyrannosaurus is both overrated and underrated.
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 27, 2012 12:59:53 GMT -5
1. Actually most people on that thread, except maybe 2 thought the alamosaurus would easily win. No, only 2 people thought it would win. In fact, before you stated your opinion it was only SC. There's no proof that Tyrannosaurus "mainly hunted" juveniles. Dromaeosaurus existed alongside it and was much smaller and probably found nourishment in the form of smaller prey. Tyrannosaurus needed much more food to subsist. Whoever wrote the article also seems to be rather biased. Of course there aren't any fossils showing successful predation, because there's no way of knowing if the dinosaur was hunted down or scavenged. Tyrannosaurus' jaws are also adapted to crush bones and the dinosaur may have damaged the skeletons of its prey to get at the marrow. And, if Tyrannosaurus killed something and ate only some of it, leaving the rest behind, the carcass would invariably be scavenged by on other opportunists, including Tyrannosauruses.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 27, 2012 20:22:02 GMT -5
Calling Sciencedaily biased?
And it would take hours, maybe even days to bleed out the alamosaurus. The t-rexes would likely give up by then.
|
|
|
Post by Super Communist on Jul 27, 2012 23:59:59 GMT -5
Judging by the title alone, it sounds like they're trying to downgrade tyrannosaurus's hunting abilities. Besides remember the other daily science articles we posted? You know the ones that actually had science involved instead of speculation, like the one that said tyrannosaurus had a six ton bite force. What would be the point of becoming a giant, bone crushing, animal just so you could consume infants? This article is almost as improbable as the pure scavenger theory.
|
|
|
Post by jumbo1 on Jul 28, 2012 0:11:33 GMT -5
sciencedaily is the very same source you and Anom used on multiple occasions.
|
|