Jurassic Park db forum

Chaotic_Baryonyx wrote:God, you people are so arrogant it hurts my soul. Even if he's dead wrong with the Scavenger thing, I'm still waiting for you people to dig up half as many dinosaurs as he did and thinking up revolutionising theories about Hadrosaurs. Even if this goes against the 'no more negative posts', I don't care, you're a bunch of self-aplauding cocksure loudmouths. Maul thyself.

First and foremost Chaotic, get this straight, now if I'm correct, Horner is a Paleontologist, and he is supposed to find the most accurate truth about the prehistoric world. Now, why is it that he gives out good theories that are reasonable and accurate about Hadrosaurs and yet, he goes on blabbing things about the "Pure Scavenger" theory.

He's a paleontologist, that's the reason why I throw a fit for this, but the mere reason is that facts are their to prove that Rex IS a hunter, but he doesn't seem to "see" these facts. Yet he goes on rampaging about a 60ft Spino, Rex can't run, can't hunt, and things like that, so you ask me, it's not really trying to find the truth on paleontology. Clearly I'm not the only one who see's it, and Horner is supposed to be a profession at this, this is supposed to be his specialty, so for him, he's supposed to look for truth, so you ask me, he's got great theories about Hadrosaurs but why such a sore thumb about Rexy not being able to hunt when their is proof of Rex being able to hunt now a days.

Even if Horner's specialty is not in carnivores, he should have all the resources to know that Rex was able to hunt, Rex has the best legs of any large known theropod to date, Rex has tools very capable to hunt. He's a paleontologist, and he's supposed to look at both sides of the coin.

"As long as Horner retires from it, everything's peachy. lol"

Um, were the other three movies THAT EFFING AWFUL as to say they were utter crap? Okay, JP3 was, but, hey, whatever.

"The only way Horner should be involved is to have him giving a speech about the Tyrannosaurus (explaning how it was not a hunter, of course), and then have the T. rex come through the wall and eat him."

Oh, how childish.

"Horner is biased against T-rex because he doesn't want anything to get more attention than his precious miasaurs"

Um, if you knew much, you'd realize that the whole Miasaur thing's been kind of dead for a number of years. Egg Mountain in Montana isn't even an excavation site anymore, it's a tourist attraction. And, furthermore, Horner's been working heavily on the excavation of a number of T. Rexes in Montana. Which brings me to the next quote.

"There has been a recent discovery of T-Rex. One that is 45 feet long! It was nicknamed C-Rex. An 45 FOOT REX!"

Yes, Horner is unearthing this beast. It's called the C. Rex after his wife, Celest. They're thinking there's an even bigger one in that quarry/thing. Also, that's old news. It was unearthed last summer. I'd try to scan the article, but it's about a thousand miles away from me at the moment.

"God, you people are so arrogant it hurts my soul. Even if he's dead wrong with the Scavenger thing, I'm still waiting for you people to dig up half as many dinosaurs as he did and thinking up revolutionising theories about Hadrosaurs. Even if this goes against the 'no more negative posts', I don't care, you're a bunch of self-aplauding cocksure loudmouths. Maul thyself."

I just liked what they said. I mean, who are any of us to say, "Oh, I hate Horner because he's a big stupidhead about the T.Rex! His view is different from my view so I shall hate him forever and fart in his general direction!"? We are mere viewers of movies and if you're not going to do anything but bitch about the movie, then why go watch it? Why bitch about it in a JP forum?

"never said he didn't contribute a lot just that his theories about carnivores were wrong."

*points to commenting above this quote*

Also, I was at a lecture of Horner's about a year ago when he said JP4 was in the works. I'm pretty sure that I posted it here ages ago, but either way. I was just highly disappointed in my fellow forum members when I read this post and how it became a thread for bashing Horner. Sure, I don't agree with his theory about the Rex but it doesn't mean I'm going to hate him forever and discredit everything he says.
I'll end with this: The JP movies and books are there for entertianment value, they are not full of scientific fact, of course the books are much more accurate than the movies. Now, if you really don't like who works on the movie, don't see it.

And, if anybody would like to see what's up with some of the excavations of the C. Rex and the like, try checking out the Museum of the Rockies web site. I'll try to find a link and edit this when I do.

I disagree with Horner's ideas on the T. rex, but I have to agree the mudsliging is a little over the top however funny it may be. Who among us are paleontologists and not just interested parties or students in the field? Didn't think so. A few of us, I'm sure, are studying to be one at some point or simply want to inform themselves, but it makes no sense to give out opinions under the guise of expertise that doesn't necessarily exist. The movies aren't scientifically accurate on the whole, and, as tnag noted, neither are the novels. It's entertainment, and there's a level of artistic license used to make the story more enjoyable. Not everything can fit in with science as we know it. Try to remember that.

See, the point that I get too is that I'm not concerned about the movie, the movie is a movie, yes, I'll admit that I was rather angry at how the Rex got owned by the Spinosaurus, however, what I'm implying is that when Horner goes around telling everyone that Rex is a Pure Scavenger, and then you get all these people to believe him, but yet we have conclusive evidence to prove it's predatory...somethings wrong here.

He is still a paleontologist, and his job is to find the most conclusive and accurate truth of the prehistoric, something that he's not doing with the Rex. What also boggles me is his quotes of a 60ft Spinosaurus, a specimen that I have yet to see, given that Spinosaurus has the longest vertebrae of any known theropod dinosaur, but the tail is more than 40% of the animals length resulting in a long dinosaur, however, the one bombed in the WWII bombing was at 33 ft, and it wasn't fully grown, but it was close. The calculations for the adult size was about 45ft lng, and it still wouldn't of been a large heavyweight contender, as the Big Three.

I will GIVE Horner his credit where it's due, but I will always be their to say that Horner clings onto rather outrageous theories. If Horner would admit that he's wrong about the whole T-Rex gig, then I believe he wouldn't have such flamers chanting under his nose. The mere fact that he's a paleontologist, and that he believes something still that has already been proven wrong with evidence...well, you tell me why I wouldn't throw a fit if Horner goes and coughs up to people, especially kids that T-Rex couldn't hunt...false information, that is where I draw the line.

Granted, that's a good case. There's a problem here, though. There is a lot of evidence (rather strong evidence, in my view) supporting the idea that T. rex hunted, but none of this is what you are calling proven fact. The truth is, there is no way to prove either theory. All you can do is accept certain evidence that draws you toward a certain conclusion. There's a passage at the end of the first novel where Dr. Grant finally came to a realization about how little information you can get from fossilized bones that I find very relevant to this. People get so caught up in debating all these various ideas, but they forget the theories are just that: ideas. Horner has a right to present his theory no matter how much any of us dislikes it, and you really have very little room to argue if you haven't researched the matter yourself without forcing the facts to fit a foregone conclusion.

Also, just for clarity, don't misinterpret researching the matter as looking up information others painstakingly found out through their own work...I mean going out, studying the actual fossils, and using the scientific method. To do anything less is nothing more than being the armchair quarterback.

Edit: To avoid any confusion, my initial reply was rather randomly constructed and trying to address multiple things without breaking down individual quotes. I won't normally do so unless I want to address statements from more than one person individually, usually to correct something.

You give out some valid points, but when it comes down to it, we still have to look for the most accurate theory. Bones don't give us everything, but they can give us building blocks, and yes, Horner has everyright to say what he wants, but I have every right to say what I believe of his theories, the problem is that he is STILL a paleontologist, and that is where my problem will always arise. My validations on dinosaurs is in truth, from other peoples painstaking research, however that is the whole purpose of other people's research, it is information for us to use.

I don't want to say too much now, for if I do, it'll end up being a one page article, but to end it short. If a T-Rex saw a crippled hadrosaur, and it wasn't able to get away from it, the T-Rex would definetly seize the opportunity to hunt it down...as long as Horner keeps on going on that whole Pure Scavenger gig, I'll always be posting things to sail him off. He's a paleontologist, he has the advantage that none of us does, he can look at the evidence right up, while we have to leech off other people's works, why is it that he doesn't see these strong evidence. Honestly, to say that a T-Rex can't hunt nor run because it didn't have the arms...?...It's nose was really good to pick up dead carrion, his lack of evidence makes it very hard for me to believe him.

Also, you state that their just ideas, yes, but their are ideas that have alot of evidence to prove it's worth, and their are some ideas that have remotely mute to back it up. We have alot of evidence to prove T-Rex was a very capable hunter, and when someone comes up to state that T-Rex can't hunt because it had "no arms" wasn't able to "run", and with basically what I said with remotely mute for evidence then it gets alittle tiring. You are right, Horner has all tools, and has the advantage out of us all, then why isn't he not seeing the other evidence of proving T-Rex as a valid hunter. To believe that T-Rex is a Pure Scavenger is to believe that their are NO solid evidence to prove Rex being a hunter, reasons why I'll not hesitate once to critisize Horner about this belief.

At least I'm not bashing on Horner, I'm only disagreeing with his Pure Scavenger, and I have everyright to.

Yes, you have every right to say you disagree, but it doesn't give you the right to say he is wrong.
I've been doing some reading and found that Horner's approach to the field of paleontological theories is to prove them wrong. He goes in with a theory that's already been put together, then he tries to prove it wrong. It's called "null hypothesis." So, maybe his whole "T-Rex is a scavenger" thing is a way to get other paleontologists motivated to prove him wrong. You never know.
I'm just pointing this out as another example as to why you shouldn't say Horner's a bad person because of his theories. I could say you suck because of some trivial thing, too, but I would be terribly biased and petty. So, there it is.

Honestly, to say to you guys, I don't HATE the guy, I just HATE his "T-Rex Pure Scavenger" theory, that's what really bugs me. Other than that, I don't hold a personal grudge against Horner, only some of the things that he blurts out, things like "T-Rex can't hunt at all"...."Can't run"...."Nose was ONLY good for sniffing out dead carrion"...yep, that stuff will surely burst my bubble, and I'll always be their to nail him right back, not him personally, but definetly his "theories", wether he does it for just to be different or for what you stated "null hypothesis" he is building a large group of people who are really displeased with some of this ideas. Yes, I am one of them, my only problem is that he's a paleontologist, and it seems to what I've read and watched of Horner it seems to me that he speaks very one sided, seemingly to purposely completely ignore all what could be possible evidence for Rex being a hunter, "null hypothesis" or not, it's no excuse.