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

Re: Purposefully false restorations?

I read the article in question with raised eyebrows.  If Milbourne is
making accusations like that I think he'd better be prepared to back them
up with some hard facts.  Otherwise, he may even be in libelous

> From: Larry Dunn <larrydunn@hotmail.com>
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: pretimes@aol.com
> Subject: Purposefully false restorations?
> Date: Saturday, October 25, 1997 4:33 PM
> In the recent issue of Prehistoric Times, artist Mike Milbourne, without 
> naming names, accuses the restorers of Giganotosaurus and 
> Carcharodontosaurus of purposeful falsehood in the restoration of their 
> respective finds in an effort to upstage Tyrannosaurus rex.  I'd heard 
> this in the past from another prominent dinosaur artist (in a private 
> conversation, so I won't say who), but not as strongly as put by 
> Milbourne in PT.  
> I'm providing some quotes from the article, entitled "Giganotosaurus: 
> Not Rex Enough", to get listmember input on some of Milbourne's 
> assertions.  Is he right?  Mike, if you're a member, please feel free to 
> jump in (Mike Fredericks, could you forward to Milbourne if you have his 
> e-mail address?  Thanks!)
> (I've decided not to employ the standard convention of attributing 
> grammatical errors to the original author/publication (that being 
> 'sic'), as this would clutter things up too much.)
> "Right from the offset of these two discoveries, it seemed to me as if 
> importance was never placed upon the proper collection and documentation 
> of the fossil material.  It seemed as if the goal was for certain 
> paleontologists to gain access to the "lime light", by claiming that 
> they had found a meat eating dinosaur with a skull larger than that of 
> Tyrannosaurus rex.  And what better way to draw attention to yourself 
> than to make a claim like that.  With dollar signs in their eyes these 
> paleontologists turned their backs on real professional scientific work. 

> They could have cared less about presenting their fossil material in a 
> scientific manner . . . ."
> "The missing skull elements of both Giganotosaurus and 
> Carcharodontosaurus were purposefully and falsely elongated and enlarged 
> for the specific intent of coming up with a skull that was supposedly 
> larger than the skull of Tyrannosaurus rex.  In the case of 
> Carcharodontosaurus the premaxilla was extremely over exaggerated and 
> extended to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to make the skull as 
> long as possible.  The same is true with the Giganotosaurus skull, 
> except this time the stretching was done at the back of the skull.  
> There is certainly nothing wrong with trying to make money from a 
> dinosaur discovery but not at the expense of accurate scientific data."
> Melbourne then goes on to compare G. and T. at length, and provides some 
> very handsome restorations, presumably in a uniform scale, of skulls (T. 
> being the biggest, with G. and C. looking rather shrimpy by comparison). 

> Opinions?
> Larry
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com