Are these things the scariest shit that ever existed?

Are these things the scariest shit that ever existed? I can't imagine something more unsettling than supergiant carnivorous ostriches

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >atheist want me to believe in fictiion creatures
    Heh, nope

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's infinitely more evidence these are real than your shitty gods

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Who told you that, a troony scientist working for israelites?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          now, to be fair, dinosaurs were being discovered back when scientists went to church and weren't gigantic homosexuals. It's just that dinosaurs are autism magnets and autism goes hand in hand with troonery.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The evidence for those is evidence for God. As are any forms of nature

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will never, until my dying breath, accept that those were capable of flight.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      .

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Airplanes are impossible (they are denser than air)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you see those rocket-shaped things on the side and back? They burn an insanely energy-rich substance derived from crude oil to speed it up to a velocity previously impossible by animals to take-off.
        Also they have wheels which are really helpful to gain speed on a flat surface.

        The largest bird capable of flight (Andean Condor) has a wingspan of around 3 meters with a tiny body in relation to its wings (compared to Quetzalcoatlus). Quetzalcoatlus has a wingspan of 10.5 meters, a gigantic head and long neck.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wingspan alone means nothing; the area is more relevant

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the area is more relevant
            fair. But you know as well that if you double the size of an animal its mass grows roughly eight-fold. Those are massive animals, who have to have the muscle mass to lift off and keep those wings moving, but those muscles have to be very light. Their bones must be extremely light and long, but also withstand lift-off, turbulence and landing.

            why are all birds larger than the condor flightless? The largest featherless flyer (flying fox bats) is even smaller than the condor, why is that? Could it have something to do with the bio-physics of flight?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Using current animals to imply that larger birds couldn't fly doesn't worl because there were very large extinct birds that could indeed fly like Argentavis

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The reason bird can't reach similar sizes to pterosaur is due the difference on their launching mechanisms
            Birds launch themselves in the air with their back limbs and fly using by beating their front limbs, so they need invest in both their legs and chest muscles, and once flying the leg muscles don't contribute to the active flying
            Pterosuars meanwhile launched themselves with their front limbs, so they just had to invest in chest muscles that actively contribute to both launching and flying, being much more efficient in the weight/strength-for-flight department

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This, we're pretty sure that Archaeopteryx was from a different evolutionary line than pterosaurs, so the mechanism was initially hyper specialized for long jumping from trees

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >a tiny body in relation to its wings (compared to Quetzalcoatlus)
          does it?
          >a gigantic head and long neck.
          yes and swans and herons can't fly either

          >the area is more relevant
          fair. But you know as well that if you double the size of an animal its mass grows roughly eight-fold. Those are massive animals, who have to have the muscle mass to lift off and keep those wings moving, but those muscles have to be very light. Their bones must be extremely light and long, but also withstand lift-off, turbulence and landing.

          why are all birds larger than the condor flightless? The largest featherless flyer (flying fox bats) is even smaller than the condor, why is that? Could it have something to do with the bio-physics of flight?

          according to your logic there couldn't have existed any walking animals larger than elephants
          the antonov airplane was also a hoax by the way, no current engines or materials could be strong enough to lift such a big and heavy plane off the ground

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the area is more relevant
          fair. But you know as well that if you double the size of an animal its mass grows roughly eight-fold. Those are massive animals, who have to have the muscle mass to lift off and keep those wings moving, but those muscles have to be very light. Their bones must be extremely light and long, but also withstand lift-off, turbulence and landing.

          why are all birds larger than the condor flightless? The largest featherless flyer (flying fox bats) is even smaller than the condor, why is that? Could it have something to do with the bio-physics of flight?

          if we take your example of the Condor with a span of ~3m at ~15kg and this

          Using current animals to imply that larger birds couldn't fly doesn't worl because there were very large extinct birds that could indeed fly like Argentavis

          which apparently easily reached a span of 6m at around 70kg i think it's fair to say the cubic law for flying animals is overly simplistic

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought alot of modern archaeology has come to the consensus that these were more akin to shore water grazing Turkeys capable of long jumps and using their wings to hunt and paddle faster in shallow waters?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, the consensus is that they could fly.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Consensus is they lived underground, like moles

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hollow bones.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      then why did they evolve that way

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They were most likely capable of flight in their evolutionary past, but eventually lost their ability to fly as it became less and less useful, like the various flightless birds that currently exist today.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          but all flightless land birds have strong legs to move around (compare pic related with an emu skeleton) while with this thing its legs remained tiny and underdeveloped while its chest muscles and wings appeared to have been very strongly developed thorough its existence.
          that doesn't add up

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >those vertebrae

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they didn't

        it's fake
        that shit is physically impossible

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      then why did they evolve that way

      https://i.imgur.com/YPqaeMD.jpg

      but all flightless land birds have strong legs to move around (compare pic related with an emu skeleton) while with this thing its legs remained tiny and underdeveloped while its chest muscles and wings appeared to have been very strongly developed thorough its existence.
      that doesn't add up

      Quetzalcoatlus is the best indirect evidence we have of giant trees being real, actually. The animal was arboral, climbing about the giant trees, but not truly capable of flight. It probably could glide down from a tree or to another tree.

      Tiny Birds like the Hoatzin have a similar bodyplan. They climb up and down the trees and use their wings to glide.

      Another possibility is that the giant pterosaur was semi-aquatic.

      But this bird was ohysically not capable of true flight like it’s shown doing in Jurassic Park. The physics don’t allow for it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the best indirect evidence we have of giant trees being real

        dude

        there are still giant trees that exist, they're called the redwood forests

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, but bigger trees. Perhaps monster trees like you see discussed on some websites.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Perhaps monster trees like you see discussed on some websites

            that is highly unlikely

            do you think capillary action alone is sufficient to explain how trees of that mountainous size could supply their brances with water?

            well even if it could, there probably wouldn't be enough fresh water to keep anything that size alive much less growing

            hot take though, it would make a lot more sense for a quetzalcoatlus to launch off of a tall tree than attempt take off from ground level

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No matter what I don’t ever believe that Quetzal was able to fly on his own, perhaps glide into a descent but not truly fly.

            Maybe he flew off the edge of sharp cliffs, next to the ocean, where he used his wings to glide down into a dive. And then used his powerful arms to scale the cliffs back upwards when he was ready to have another go, sort of like how bats climb things.

            This was either an arboral/terrestrial creature or a semi-aquatic creature, but definitely not one which could truly fly. His wingspan is too short and his head is too disproportionately big.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe he flew off the edge of sharp cliffs

            dude
            maybe they only jumped off the most high cliffs they could and got around that way
            but that would make landing in different places to find food more or less impossible if there aren't convenient and drafty cliffs everywhere

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lower Gravity, Expanding Earth is real. It's all electrical.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/fVVsOMD.jpg

      you see those rocket-shaped things on the side and back? They burn an insanely energy-rich substance derived from crude oil to speed it up to a velocity previously impossible by animals to take-off.
      Also they have wheels which are really helpful to gain speed on a flat surface.

      The largest bird capable of flight (Andean Condor) has a wingspan of around 3 meters with a tiny body in relation to its wings (compared to Quetzalcoatlus). Quetzalcoatlus has a wingspan of 10.5 meters, a gigantic head and long neck.

      [...]
      [...]
      Quetzalcoatlus is the best indirect evidence we have of giant trees being real, actually. The animal was arboral, climbing about the giant trees, but not truly capable of flight. It probably could glide down from a tree or to another tree.

      Tiny Birds like the Hoatzin have a similar bodyplan. They climb up and down the trees and use their wings to glide.

      Another possibility is that the giant pterosaur was semi-aquatic.

      But this bird was ohysically not capable of true flight like it’s shown doing in Jurassic Park. The physics don’t allow for it.

      Pterosaurs, unlike modern birds, cannot fly from a standing position- even if they get a running start. Every single species of Pterosaur *must* initiate flight by climbing up some kind of surface (like a ledge or a tree) and then 'gallop' off, glide, and then fly. They have to do this because the Pterosaurs wing evolved from the connective tissue between the arms and the toes, which are amazing at gliding, but shit for flapping, and they lack the sophisticated feathers of *modern birds- instead being covered in either furry or oily short feathers. Granted, don't get me wrong: they were excellent gliders (they're built like kites), and could probably soar longer, and faster, than modern day birds.
      Furthermore, in the entire 162 million years that Pterosaurs lived, not a single species ever evolved away their little fingies. Every single Pterosaur retained a claw or a 'paw' that allowed them terrestrial movement like walking on all fours, climbing, and even grasping or clutching things. This suggests commitment to a very specific, but successful, way of life.

      *Modern birds when they flap their wings they create a kind of "catchers mitt" type shape that catches and fans more air and is really excellent at generating thrust and pushing off the ground. Even bats, who made a wing from the webbing between their long, gross, fingers, replicate this design because it's just so much better than having one stupid flap.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, recent biomechanical studies show they could absolutely launch themselves into flight without a running start or a junping off from a high place. they had ling enough limbs that it was sort of like pole-vaulting. your knowledge is a lot more up-to-date than a lot of the bumbling morons in this thread, though, so kudos for that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because the Pterosaurs wing evolved from the connective tissue between the arms and the toes, which are amazing at gliding, but shit for flapping
        ever taken a look at a bat?

        >don't get me wrong: they were excellent gliders (they're built like kites), and could probably soar longer, and faster, than modern day birds
        you don't know what you're talking about, what determines what is a good glider and what is not is usually the aspect ratio of the wing, "built like kites" is nonsense
        it appears it had a relatively large wing area though which is good for lift at lower velocities

        >Furthermore, in the entire 162 million years that Pterosaurs lived, not a single species ever evolved away their little fingies
        yeah and after millions of years of evolution i still have my tailbone, and bats still have a thumb, therefore bats are good in walking on all fours and climbing and it's totally not akward

        >*Modern birds when they flap their wings they create a kind of "catchers mitt" type shape that catches and fans more air and is really excellent at generating thrust and pushing off the ground
        now you're going full moron, you clearly don't know anything about aviation

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Pterosaurs, unlike modern birds, cannot fly from a standing position- even if they get a running start.

        There is nothing else alive today or evident in the fossil record that inhabits that behavioral niche. It's like special pleading but 100 million years ago trust me.

        And you're wrong technically, the smaller more realistically sized pterosaurs who specialized in eating insects could take off from the ground.

        It's literally just the fake enormous examples designed to draw in museum visitors and get funding that are biologically impossible, its embarrassing that more archaeologists don't call them out on this garbage

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they look oddly familiar familiar

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wyvern

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They give me Hydralisk/Duriel vibes

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It just occurred to me that we almost never seem to have dinosaur threads on this board. I wonder why

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fake pseudo-scientific mythological creatures aren't real, let alone history

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i feel bad for you

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      there are often some on IQfy, but they either die after 3 posts or turn into a shitshow because people start seething about feathered dinosaurs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It just occurred to me that we almost never seem to have dinosaur threads on this board. I wonder why

        I don't know if it's a good thing or not but the ultimate and logical conclusion of haplotardism is people arguing that their dino ancestors where stronger than the dino ancestors of other people.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          were*

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean, dinosaurs aren't really related to us.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/UzYHAro.jpg

            Dinosaurs are not our ancestors, they and other diapsids split from our lineage some 302 million years ago. The real debate should be which pre-mammalian synapsid is the coolest, but hardly any non-paleontologist even knows what those are.

            >This dino we found in my country was stronger than this dino we found in your country
            >therefore it mean that we're better
            It will be a thing, if it isn't already

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean, dinosaurs aren't really related to us.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Dinosaurs are not our ancestors, they and other diapsids split from our lineage some 302 million years ago. The real debate should be which pre-mammalian synapsid is the coolest, but hardly any non-paleontologist even knows what those are.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >their dino ancestors
          Are you genuinely moronic? you're obviously american

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have yet to see an example of a feathered dinosaur that isn’t a fricking bird. I’m not religious either so I have no horse in this race. I just think atheists unnaturally worship feathered dinosaurs to “own” Abrahamists without taking a step back to think critically about how fricking moronic the concept truly is

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I have yet to see an example of a feathered dinosaur that isn’t a fricking bird
          Most of them aren't birds, just bird adjacent. Yutyrannus is probably one of the least bird like at the surface level.
          >think critically about how fricking moronic the concept truly is
          Most feathered dinosaurs are very similar to birds, so makes pretty good sense they'd have feathers

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's probably a good thing. Go check out the paleoschizo threads on IQfy up right now, its just back and forth seething about chinese conspiracies to trannify dinosaurs with feathers

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We would have easily curbstomp them

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I read that they would have trouble carrying a human rider on their back and that is really unfortunate because it ruins some of my cool daydreams that I have in my wage cage.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    some of the more moderately built pterasaurs are actually realistic and kino

    pic tangentally related but another questionable example, the reconstruction of Jeholopterus

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    For me the best argument is their look. There's no way animals built like that wouldn't fly. They literally look like giant kites.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They were not bigger than a brontosaurus anon

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I want old paleontology back. But the new ones probably get paid with hookers and blow to keep them boring.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      are tigers boring because they have hair, anon?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Tigers would be way cooler if they had camouflage scales.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    As a tourist here I just want to say I'm thoroughly enjoying so many people confidently stating they were only capable of going up a cliff and gliding down like this is the 1910s

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know if there's a single smart person on this website to be honest

Comments are closed.