Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
king of dino's

T rex might still claim the title back

125 posts in this topic

This is quite old, as 2 more dinosaurs surpassing 40 (1 maybe even past 50) have been discovered...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frog that dosnt matter t-rex would kill them both,Im sick of people looking down at the most ferocious dinosaur that ever lived.Show some respect tot he dinosaur that could kill anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frog that dosnt matter t-rex would kill them both,Im sick of people looking down at the most ferocious dinosaur that ever lived.Show some respect tot he dinosaur that could kill anything.

you have no idea what you are talking about. T Rex with almost useless fore arms? You've got to be kidding. See my last post on spino vs T Rex. The latest Spino is almost one third bigger than the largest T Rex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you have a mouth that can kill ANYTHING with one bite do you think your going to use your arms alot?If it had larger arms the fornt half of its body would be unlevel and fall,Clearly you dont know what your talking about.ANd what your saying is size counts right?A spino is larger than a sarchasuchus and yet when it gos to drink from a river it will be pulled under and killed,Size dosnt mean anything if they are both evenly matched.The t-rex still would have beaten the spino in a fight even if it was a tad bit smaller,The spinos jaws wernt made for killing herbivores it was made for holding fish.Those arms?Tucked under its body,Useless in a fight,They were ment for pulling F-I-S-H out of rivers not for combat.

Edited by DigitalDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think its funny people compare spino to a croc but thne say he eats only fish what crocs are u people looking at the only 100% fish eating crocodilians have jaws about the width of your forarm used for qucik side to side motion nile crocs grab wildebeast zebra gazel and such not fish a large spino would more then likely be able to grab large prey with its jaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have to use all its energy to walk and to use its arms so its jaws couldnt have that much power becaus eit would off set the balance of the dinosaur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have to use all its energy to walk and to use its arms so its jaws couldnt have that much power becaus eit would off set the balance of the dinosaur.

dude chill, even if T-rex and spino ever had a battle, Spinosaurus, im sorry to say would kill T-rex, it has many advantages, its not as bulky, its got a longer jaw, it gots longer arms with big claws, and its in general bigger, T-rex may have a strong bite but thats all its got

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you know anything about dinosaurs?Uh first off just because something has a longer jaw dosnt mean anything,And for the last frackin time its arms were positioned under its body so they would be USE-LESS in a fight.Long claws also dont mean anything if you cant use the arms that control the claws,How is spinosaurus not as bulky as t-rex?It had a 5 or 6 foot spine sticking out of its back,That limits its movements and t-rex had more than a strong bite.The t-rex faught very often and this is known due to the tooth marks of other tyrannosaurs in almost evry skull of evry t-rex ever found.Spino never faught,It probrally relied on intimidation because it couldnt fight.And im not sorry to say that t-rex would kill the spino.By the way heres a quote form draconic " For your information, a spino approximately one third longer than every other theropod would in all liklihood also be the heaviest." now whos bulkier spino or t-rex?If your a third longer than every other theropod would in all liklihood also be the heaviest,Weight equals bulk wich equals speed reduction wich equals an animal that would rely on intimadation to scare off a potential foe.

Edited by DigitalDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you know anything about dinosaurs?Uh first off just because something has a longer jaw dosnt mean anything,And for the last frackin time its arms were positioned under its body so they would be USE-LESS in a fight.Long claws also dont mean anything if you cant use the arms that control the claws,How is spinosaurus not as bulky as t-rex?It had a 5 or 6 foot spine sticking out of its back,That limits its movements and t-rex had more than a strong bite.The t-rex faught very often and this is known due to the tooth marks of other tyrannosaurs in almost evry skull of evry t-rex ever found.Spino never faught,It probrally relied on intimidation because it couldnt fight.And im not sorry to say that t-rex would kill the spino.By the way heres a quote form draconic " For your information, a spino approximately one third longer than every other theropod would in all liklihood also be the heaviest." now whos bulkier spino or t-rex?If your a third longer than every other theropod would in all liklihood also be the heaviest,Weight equals bulk wich equals speed reduction wich equals an animal that would rely on intimadation to scare off a potential foe.

You evidentally don't.

Believe it or not, real, famous, PHd carrying paleontologists were advisors in Jurassic Park, and they recognized Spino as both the largest, AND most formidable dino, and this was even before the new, possibly 60 foot super spino was found. Do you really think you know more about this than real paleontologists?

I really doubt it.

You are misquoting me. Yes a 60 foot spino is probably heavier than a forty foot Rex, but this is because it is a full third bigger. But it is still a more gracile built and therefor much faster animal, just as if there were a 60 foot velociraptor. The sail is not a hindrance, if anything, it helped this dino warm up and cool off quicker than ANY other large carnosaur, another great advantage.

We also know Spino hunted other large prey, not just fish. Their teeth have been found imbedded in other dinosaur bones. And if you knew anything about reptiles, you would know that young crocodiles eat mostly fish, but large crocs mostly go for big mammalian prey when it is available, often outsizing them like water buffalo. It was probably the same thing with Spino.

And here is another important thing that has been ignored in this discussion. Unlike the Rex, which was the only big Carnosaur of its time and place, Spinos seemed to live side by side, for millions of years with another awesome predator, possibly also larger than T Rex, the Charcodonosaurus. This suggestd Spino could hold its own against more conventional theropods of large size, and unlike Rex, may have sometimes actually fought with other species of carnosaur.

And although I do not agree, there are PHd carrying, famous paleotologists who know far more about dinos than you, that have made a reasonable argument that T Rex is nothing but a scavenger, whereas Spinos snatched pterodactlys out of the sky if we are to believe the fossil evidence, and catching fish requires a predators skill, unlike simply sniffing out and scarfing down rotten meet. No wonder it didn't need a predator's forearms, it may very well have been just an "overgrown garbage disposal on hind legs".

Edited by draconic chronicler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
has on this Link T-rex Might be King Again http://gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/carnivores/

That guy is not even aware of the new, super spino discovery. He is still basing his info on Stromer's "baby" spino, which was still longer than any t rex!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frog that dosnt matter t-rex would kill them both,Im sick of people looking down at the most ferocious dinosaur that ever lived.Show some respect tot he dinosaur that could kill anything.

WTF? T-rex was a scavenger,and just a sideways look from a spino would send him packing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You evidentally don't.

Believe it or not, real, famous, PHd carrying paleontologists were advisors in Jurassic Park, and they recognized Spino as both the largest, AND most formidable dino, and this was even before the new, possibly 60 foot super spino was found. Do you really think you know more about this than real paleontologists?

I really doubt it.

You are misquoting me. Yes a 60 foot spino is probably heavier than a forty foot Rex, but this is because it is a full third bigger. But it is still a more gracile built and therefor much faster animal, just as if there were a 60 foot velociraptor. The sail is not a hindrance, if anything, it helped this dino warm up and cool off quicker than ANY other large carnosaur, another great advantage.

We also know Spino hunted other large prey, not just fish. Their teeth have been found imbedded in other dinosaur bones. And if you knew anything about reptiles, you would know that young crocodiles eat mostly fish, but large crocs mostly go for big mammalian prey when it is available, often outsizing them like water buffalo. It was probably the same thing with Spino.

And here is another important thing that has been ignored in this discussion. Unlike the Rex, which was the only big Carnosaur of its time and place, Spinos seemed to live side by side, for millions of years with another awesome predator, possibly also larger than T Rex, the Charcodonosaurus. This suggestd Spino could hold its own against more conventional theropods of large size, and unlike Rex, may have sometimes actually fought with other species of carnosaur.

And although I do not agree, there are PHd carrying, famous paleotologists who know far more about dinos than you, that have made a reasonable argument that T Rex is nothing but a scavenger, whereas Spinos snatched pterodactlys out of the sky if we are to believe the fossil evidence, and catching fish requires a predators skill, unlike simply sniffing out and scarfing down rotten meet. No wonder it didn't need a predator's forearms, it may very well have been just an "overgrown garbage disposal on hind legs".

Ok, mr. dinoman, did you know that spinosaurs have more in common with chickens than even iguanas or crocs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i find it all very funny no one will ever know for sure who was "hardest" its like arguing over God being real or not, its all just opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope everyone here realizes that T-rex's title came from it being one of the first large therapods discovered, and lager than any other found in the early 1900's. Then spinosaurus was found, and it was larger, then chardontonsaurus, then giganotosaurus. See? T-rex is a glorified cretaecious(forgot how to spell it) Buzzard. Of course it had teeth marks in it! It was constantly hunted by Smaller, more agile raptors! Just because it had marks on it doesn't mean it won the fight or was tougher than any other dino. Infact, that may mean it was a weakling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i find it all very funny no one will ever know for sure who was "hardest" its like arguing over God being real or not, its all just opinion

Eh, not really. There ARE ways to tell, but until they clone a t-rex, all they have on dinos is an archeaopteryx by the name of C-11. (yes, they cloned one, duh! :yes: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, not really. There ARE ways to tell, but until they clone a t-rex, all they have on dinos is an archeaopteryx by the name of C-11. (yes, they cloned one, duh! :yes: )

What ways are those then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well i find it all very funny no one will ever know for sure who was "hardest" its like arguing over God being real or not, its all just opinion

See, this guy is the only one so far that I have found who I can agree with(aside from Andy, of course). We will never know what these creatures were like in life because we were not there. Cloning, no matter how accurate, would never be able to produce a 100% real dinosaur, because of how much the DNA would be distorted through fossilization, and because of the environment it would be in today. After all, we have less oxygen in our atmosphere, and plants have been evolving for 65 million years since dinosaurs died out. It would either die within a few hours of being born, or would live and be different enough that we couldn't use it for accurate research.

This is the greatest fault of Jurassic Park(and don't get me wrong, I love the movie and the book). The simple fact is is that we have no idea of knowing what they were ever like.

That is all.

(PS: Andy, you called in the cavalry, right? Well, here I am.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Question. Why would a predator have 7 in razor sharp teeth and a HUGE bite force if he was going to be a scavenger? Sure he might have eatten rotten meat when he could find it, but he probably hunted for fresh meat.

Edited by Rexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are vulchers the size of small children, and have sharp beaks, and claws, powerful wings, etc. and be scavengers? Because that is their role in nature, question it all you want, it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this guy is the only one so far that I have found who I can agree with(aside from Andy, of course). We will never know what these creatures were like in life because we were not there. Cloning, no matter how accurate, would never be able to produce a 100% real dinosaur, because of how much the DNA would be distorted through fossilization, and because of the environment it would be in today. After all, we have less oxygen in our atmosphere, and plants have been evolving for 65 million years since dinosaurs died out. It would either die within a few hours of being born, or would live and be different enough that we couldn't use it for accurate research.

This is the greatest fault of Jurassic Park(and don't get me wrong, I love the movie and the book). The simple fact is is that we have no idea of knowing what they were ever like.

That is all.

(PS: Andy, you called in the cavalry, right? Well, here I am.)

True, so mabey C-11 isn't exactly like his cretaceous counterpart, but he IS the closest living thing there is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for backin me up Sy,By the way the t-rex wasnt wimp.On the african plains if you find the skelital remains of alion with tooth marks all over it dose that mean its a wimp?No it means it faught to the death,Lions fight almost all their lives and have the scars on their skulls to prove it.So what your basically saying is,The african lion is a wimp.I can see why a 400 pund cat that can kill just about anything is a wimp,I mean those razor sharp claws couldnt do anything right?By the way since when can a 2 foot tall animal take on a 15 foot giant?Oh ya thats right they have super powers that allow them to magically kill the t-rex right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, not really. There ARE ways to tell, but until they clone a t-rex, all they have on dinos is an archeaopteryx by the name of C-11. (yes, they cloned one, duh! :yes: )

Oh dear lord.

Why must you speak of things you know nothing about? Do you like being smited?

I'm just going to let you go down in flames, since it's so amusing...but for the record, outside of Hollywood and your own fantasy, they have never cloned an archaeopteryx, nor any other prehistoric animal. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, mr. dinoman, did you know that spinosaurs have more in common with chickens than even iguanas or crocs?

Yes spino had more in common with chickens than iguanas, becasue both dinos and chickens are archosaurs. But Crocs are archosaurs too, not lower reptiles, which your probably didn't know. And most paleontologists will say they can learn more about dinosaurs from crocodiles than they do from birds. In fact, it was becasue of like bone characteristics of theropods and crocodilians, that scientists can now determine the sex of these dinos with some degree of reliablility.

Virtually no animal is a pure scavenger. T Rex no doubt hunted some prey just as vultures do, even if it was primarily a scavenger. Even if T Rex was not an active hunter, it could have been a succesful "ambush predator". Since todays huge crocs may have had similar lifestyles to large theropods, we see they are opportunistic feeders. They hunt if they are hungry, and not adverse to scavenging dead animals as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could something on land that big be an ambush predator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.