 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2008How Cretaceous men cut ribs from Dinosaur Leonardo
The following links show a mummified dinosaur called Leonardo, which is the world's best-preserved dinosaur. The most remarkable thing about the dinosaur is that on the left side of its ribcage, each rib lost its upper halves while the lower halves are still covered with intact skin. Is there any natural instance like this? Is there any skin as obstinate as this one, except humans? Photo 1: the whole dinosaur during excavation. Note the skin still covers the remaining lower halves of its ribs. http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786939&p=0 Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of ribs were missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786940.jpg&p=1 Photo 3: Kodak's X-ray photo. The caption under the photo says damaged bones show no healing, suggesting the damage occurred after death. The caption is readable in Photo 4 below. http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786942.jpg&p=3 Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where ribs are missing. These blood vessels remains are still visible to all visitors to the Houston museum which houses the fossil at present. http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men/files Choose this file: "Expandable original PDF photo of Kodak Co..pdf". >The following links show a mummified dinosaur called Leonardo, which >is the world's best-preserved dinosaur. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786939&p=0 The section within the rectangle never had any ribs. It's above the point where the ribs articulate with the vertebrae. Even if I accept that ribs were there, you've presented no evidence that they were cut by men. >Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of >ribs were missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786940.jpg&p=1 The features you claim to have been blood vessels are in fact tendons. Similar structures can be seen in the skeleton at http://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brach.htm Also, see http://www.carnegiemnh.org/dinosaurs/paleolab/camptosaurus.htm >Photo 3: Kodak's X-ray photo. The caption under the photo says damaged >bones show no >healing, suggesting the damage occurred after death. The caption is >readable in Photo 4 below. >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786942.jpg&p=3 How is that relevant to your claim? >Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, >show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where >ribs are missing. These blood vessels remains are still visible to >all >visitors to the Houston museum which houses the fossil at present. How big would red blood cells have to be to be visible to the naked eye? > http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men/files > Choose this file: "Expandable original PDF photo of Kodak >Co..pdf". I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any blood vessels visible. >>The following links show a mummified dinosaur called Leonardo, which >>is the world's best-preserved dinosaur. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any > blood vessels visible. Ribs cut out by men? Don't we have a little problem about *time* here? Namely, that the predecessors of all us mammals were little inconspicuous critters; then came the planet killer meteorite whose crater has been found near Yucatan; then with the dinosaurs gone the little critters could evolve into the branches of mammals we know today, a matter of some millions of years ... the statement about humans cutting out dinosaur ribs is not an observation; it's a warning about the writer's (lack of) knowledge of his topic. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.med 2008 Mar 19] > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The section within the rectangle never had anyribs. It's above the > point where theribsarticulate with the vertebrae. It's not above, but below, the point where the ribs articulated with the vertebrae. Intact skin is found in the area above/around the rectangle. The rectangle area is now a depression ( a hole cut by Cretaceous men). The rectangle area is below the level of the skin around the depression. This rectangle area shows in many of the photos I mentioned, including the X-ray photo taken by Kodak Co. The Kodak X- ray photo caption identifies "damaged bones", which lie in the rectangle area. Even if I accept > thatribswere there, you've presented no evidence that they werecut > bymen. There has never been any natural case in which many ribs were broken in half, with the upper halves missing and lower halves still covered by intact skin. Only humans could do it. > >Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of > >ribswere missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). > >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786940.jp... > > The features you claim to have been blood vessels are in fact tendons. How could tendons contain numerous mostly erythrocyte-like objects? Tendons contain mostly collagen ( I have just checked tendon histology images on the web). > Similar structures can be seen in the skeleton athttp://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brach.htm It's bigger dinosaur called Alvis, not Leonardo. Do you know the diameter of dinosaurs' erythrocytes? They were round and concave with a diameter of 18-25 microns, almost four times those of human erythrocytes. Dinosaurs' blood vessels could thus be very large, visible when taken with high-resolution cameras, especially when the original image has been expanded 400% (see the Kodak original image in Photo 4's pdf file named "Expandable original Kodak photo in PDF" > Also, seehttp://www.carnegiemnh.org/dinosaurs/paleolab/camptosaurus.htm > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How is that relevant to your claim? The caption under the Kodak X-ray photo confirms the bones (ribs) were damaged to the left of the frills and the right ribs. > >Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, > >show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any > blood vessels visible. Did you expand the PDF file to 400% and see the last second photo with my arrows pointing to small oval/round dots? I thought you had good eyesight before. >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >It's not above, but below, the point where the ribs articulated with >the vertebrae. Well, no, it's not. The fact that nearly all ornithischian dinosaurs have this feature, and have it *above* the ribs argues against your interpretation. The picture at http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786916&p=1 shows this. >Intact skin is found in the area above/around the >rectangle. That was part of the frill that extended along the creature's back. See http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp where the frill is mentioned. It's also mentioned in your "Expandable Original PDF photo of Kodak Co..pdf" file. >The rectangle area is now a depression ( a hole cut by Cretaceous >men). Why men? Why not some other intelligent creature? (Assuming, of course, that your interpretation of deliberate removal of ribs is correct.) >The rectangle area is below the level of the skin around the >depression. This rectangle area shows in many of the photos I >mentioned, including the X-ray photo taken by Kodak Co. The Kodak X- >ray photo caption identifies "damaged bones", which lie in the >rectangle area. How do you know that it's in your rectangle area? I'd suggest that it's elsewhere. Also, note that the caption states that the ribs are "broken", and not "removed". >> Even if I accept >> thatribswere there, you've presented no evidence that they were cut [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in half, with the upper halves missing and lower halves still covered >by intact skin. You haven't demonstrated that this is the case. >Only humans could do it. Why? Why couldn't some other intelligent form of life do it? >> >Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of >> >ribswere missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). >> >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786940.jp... >> >> The features you claim to have been blood vessels are in fact tendons. >How could tendons contain numerous mostly erythrocyte-like objects? You haven't demonstrated that there are any erythrocyte-like objects present. See the end of this post. >Tendons contain mostly collagen ( I have just checked tendon histology >images on the web). Unless they become ossified, as happens in several living animals. See http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/documents/JVP_25_3_60 2-613.pdf >> Similar structures can be seen in the skeleton at http://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brach.htm >It's bigger dinosaur called Alvis, not Leonardo. I know. I was simply offering a more encompassing view of the anatomy, as well as pointing out that Leonardo was not unique in that regard. >Do you know the >diameter of dinosaurs' erythrocytes? They were round and concave with >a diameter of 18-25 microns, almost four times those of human >erythrocytes. In other words, you could line up 40 of them within a millimeter, correct? >Dinosaurs' blood vessels could thus be very large, What does that have to do with the size of dinosaur blood vessels, other than the fact that 18-25 microns would be their minimum diameter? >visible when taken with high-resolution cameras, especially when the >original image has been expanded 400% (see the Kodak original image in >Photo 4's pdf file named "Expandable original Kodak photo in PDF" See figure 1 of http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/documents/JVP_25_3_61 4-622.pdf >> Also, see http://www.carnegiemnh.org/dinosaurs/paleolab/camptosaurus.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The caption under the Kodak X-ray photo confirms the bones (ribs) were >damaged to the left of the frills and the right ribs. It doesn't say where the x-ray was taken on Leonardo. >> >Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, >> >show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> How big would red blood cells have to be to be visible to the naked >> eye? Well? >> > http://groups.google.com.tw/group/mummy-dinosaur-carved-by-men/files >> > Choose this file: "Expandable original PDF photo of Kodak [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >my arrows pointing to small oval/round dots? I thought you had good >eyesight before. I do, and I don't see any evidence of red blood cells. Let's do some math: If you blow up your "Expandable Original PDF photo of Kodak Co..pdf" to 1200% while looking at the photo in question (which is just above the radiograph on page 2), you can see individual pixels. Assume for a moment that each pixel is the size of an erythrocyte, 25 microns in diameter. This would mean that 1 millimeter would be 40 pixels long, and, since the photo is roughly 600 pixels wide, the entire bottom of the photo shows an area only 15 millimeters wide. Since several ribs are visible in the background, that conclusion is obviously ludicrous, since each rib would then be only a few millimeters distant from its neighbor. However, since each pixel was assumed to be the size of a erythrocyte, that would mean that in reality each pixel covers an area *larger* than 25 microns, and so there's no way that erythrocytes can be seen in this picture. > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > interpretation. The picture athttp://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786916&p=1 > shows this. Distorted was the remains of Dinosaur Elvis, which was totally different from the undistorted Dinosaur Leonardo. Look at the right side of Leonardo's ribcage, and you will find yourself defeated by your own tendency for unreal things for your vested interest. I have given you too much time to repent, but you are still as obstinate as Leonardo's skin. That's why 90% of people go to hell and stay there for a long time. OK, back to the topic. Can you find your "tendons" network between frills and ribs on the right-hand side of the ribcage? Let me quote your source article: Week of Oct. 19, 2002; http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp "Much of the left side of the dinosaur was relatively flattened, with skin drawn taut against ribs and other bones." quote says Michael J. Everhart of Fort Hays State University in Hays, Kansas. "Something had to shut down the normal process of decomposition within just a few days," he notes. "It's difficult to explain." end of quote Another quote from the caption of Kodak's X-ray photo: "Radiographic and photographic images of Leonardo's ribcage. There is no evidence of healing around the broken ribs, suggesting they occurred post-mortem." Leonardo's flattened left side was clearly spread out in my following new pictures (especially the second link): http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786913.jpg&p=0 http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786911.jpg&p=1 http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786912.jpg&p=2 Leonardo's belly could have been cut open by Cretaceous men. That's why its left side was spread out as if flattened while its right side, and many other 3D dinosaurs, was not flattened at all. Leonardo's left side was not flattened below its right side. If it was below its right side, how does one know it was "flattened" when no CT was done on it ? Where do you think its vertebrae/spine was? Let's not talk about your "tendons" claim, as it does not concern the subject. > >Intact skin is found in the area above/around the > >rectangle. [quoted text clipped - 131 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Let's not talk about your "tendons" claim, as it does not concern the > subject. Large are the areas of the "tendons" networks along the spinal columns of Dinosaur Leonardo and Dinosaur Elvis, in proportion to other areas around the spinal column. Furthermore, why there is no large-sized "tendons" network on Dinosaur Leonardo's right side and "left side except the rectangle area I marked"? > > >Intact skin is found in the area above/around the > > >rectangle. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Why men? Why not some other intelligent creature? Because the Intelligent Designer won't create other intelligent creatures when first humans were still sinful, clinging to unreal ideas/things, as obstinate as Leonardo's skin. The Intelligent Designer could of course destroy all such " intelligent but sinful humans" and create again " other intelligent creatures". But he had mercy on us for over forty million billion years--forty million billion years. Now, no more mercy. Proud and obstinate intelligent creatures will be turned into "eternally painful stones", after His original life force (in the creatures) returned to Him. (Assuming, of > > course, that your interpretation of deliberate removal of ribs is > > correct.) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > it's elsewhere. Also, note that the caption states that the ribs are > > "broken", and not "removed". I saw my chest X-ray films before. The caption on the Kodak X-ray photo indicates "ribcage" too. A radiologist will confirm the white shapes were the frills and the ribs on the right side of the ribcage. The ribs in the X-ray ended at an angle just as how ribs articulate to vertebrae. The X-ray photo does not show ribs ending at the front of my chest X-ray films. My rectangle lies on the left side of the spine column, where the X-ray film shows no bone (no healing as the caption says). Who dares to say the ribs were removed? > > >> Even if I accept > > >> thatribswere there, you've presented no evidence that they were cut [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > You haven't demonstrated that this is the case. Common people have common sense; uncommon people don't have common sense. > > >Only humans could do it. > > > Why? Why couldn't some other intelligent form of life do it? You meant monkeys or aliens? Aliens were like us, created by the Intelligent Designer. Aliens didn't come to Earth to this kind of things. Aliens are uncommon. Why don't you like common-sensed common people to do it, but cling to the unreal idea of uncommon aliens doing common things. > > >> >Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of > > >> >ribswere missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >of Dinosaur Leonardo and Dinosaur Elvis, in proportion to other areas >around the spinal column. That's because they had tall neural spines. See http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/terry.derting/CVA_atlases/alligat or_skeleton/Thoracic%20Vertebrae.htm for a quick anatomy lesson. See http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/spinosaurusmount.jpg for an *extreme* example of tall neural spines. > Furthermore, why there is no large-sized >"tendons" network on Dinosaur Leonardo's right side These particular tendons only occur in the area of the neural spines in the vertebrae. >and "left side >except the rectangle area I marked"? We can't see Leonardo's left side, because it's underneath him. >> > >Intact skin is found in the area above/around the >> > >rectangle. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >turned into "eternally painful stones", after His original life force >(in the creatures) returned to Him. In other words, your claim not one based on any evidence found with Leonardo. >> > (Assuming, of >> > course, that your interpretation of deliberate removal of ribs is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I saw my chest X-ray films before. The caption on the Kodak X-ray >photo indicates "ribcage" too. Who said otherwise? >A radiologist will confirm the white >shapes were the frills and the ribs on the right side of the ribcage. What do you mean by "frills"? No frills will be visible in an x-ray of the ribcage. >The ribs in the X-ray ended at an angle just as how ribs articulate to >vertebrae. The X-ray photo does not show ribs ending at the front >of my chest X-ray films. My rectangle lies on the left side of the >spine column, where the X-ray film shows no bone (no healing as the >caption says). Who dares to say the ribs were removed? Wasn't that implied when you wrote: There has never been any natural case in which many ribs were broken in half, with the upper halves missing and lower halves still covered by intact skin. It certainly seems like you're claiming that ribs were removed. >> > >> Even if I accept >> > >> that ribs were there, you've presented no evidence that they were cut [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Common people have common sense; uncommon people don't have >common sense. But since you're now saying that ribs *weren't* removed, it would seem that I was right to say that you haven't demonstrated it. >> > >Only humans could do it. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >people to do it, but cling to the unreal idea of uncommon aliens doing >common things. Because there were no people around at the time. >> > >> >Photo 2: photos taken by Kodak Co., showing the upper halves of >> > >> >ribswere missing from the spine column (see lower right corner). [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] >> > than 25 microns, and so there's no way that erythrocytes can be seen >> > in this picture. <SNIP> >Look at the right >side of Leonardo's ribcage, and you will find yourself defeated by >your own tendency for unreal things for your vested interest. <SNIP> His agenda? The whole reason you post this nonsense if for your bronze age sheep herder creationist agenda. Ben On Mar 22, 8:50 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...@pobox.com> wrote: > <SNIP>>Look at the right > >side of Leonardo's ribcage, and you will find yourself defeated by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ben No agenda. You mis-labeled a wretch. Thank you, Augray, for your patience with me. >On Mar 22, 8:50 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >doll...@pobox.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >No agenda. You mis-labeled a wretch. >Thank you, Augray, for your patience with me. No agenda? Are you going to agree or deny that the earth is roughly 4.5 billions years old and that dinosaur fossils are tens to hundreds of million years old? Ben On Mar 23, 1:44 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- doll...@pobox.com> wrote: > >On Mar 22, 8:50 pm, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- > >doll...@pobox.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Agree. As old as you think. OK? No more questions. No more answers. >On Mar 23, 1:44 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000- >doll...@pobox.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Agree. As old as you think. OK? No more questions. No more answers. No more questions when you stop making questionable cross postings to alt.atheism. Ben >> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Distorted was the remains of Dinosaur Elvis, which was totally >different from the undistorted Dinosaur Leonardo. Where is Elvis distorted? >Look at the right >side of Leonardo's ribcage, and you will find yourself defeated by >your own tendency for unreal things for your vested interest. There's a certain irony in that statement. >I have >given you too much time to repent, but you are still as obstinate as >Leonardo's skin. That's why 90% of people go to hell and stay there >for a long time. OK, back to the topic. Can you find your "tendons" >network between frills and ribs on the right-hand side of the >ribcage? Who said that there were any tendons on the right-hand side of the ribcage? >Let me quote your source article: >Week of Oct. 19, 2002; [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >decomposition within just a few days," he notes. "It's difficult to >explain." end of quote So? >Another quote from the caption of Kodak's X-ray photo: > > "Radiographic and photographic images of Leonardo's ribcage. > There is no evidence of healing around the broken ribs, suggesting >they occurred post-mortem." And? Also note that the same page states that "the mummification process also preserved a network of tendons..." >Leonardo's flattened left side was clearly spread out in my following >new pictures We can't see his left side, because he's laying on it. All of your pictures show Leonardo's *right* side. >(especially the second link): >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786913.jpg&p=0 The arrows supposedly pointing to vertebrae actually seem to be pointing to parts of the ribs. >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786911.jpg&p=1 The object that you identify as a scale is in fact the top of a neural spine of one of the vertebrae. >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786912.jpg&p=2 > >Leonardo's belly could have been cut open by Cretaceous men. That's >why its left side was spread out as if flattened while its right side, >and many other 3D dinosaurs, was not flattened at all. Well, *some* flattening has obviously taken place, unless you're going to claim that Leonardo was only three or four feet wide while alive. >Leonardo's left >side was not flattened below its right side. If it was below its right >side, how does one know it was "flattened" when no CT was done on it ? Because he was dug out of the ground, and they had to remove whatever was below him to get him to whatever building he's now housed in. Just as a side-note, Leonardo was found with the right side of his body facing down. The pictures we see present him upside-down in relation to how he was buried. >Where do you think its vertebrae/spine was? The parts that you identify as part of the "frill" are the tops (neural spines) of vertebrae, and the small towers of bone are Transverse Processes of the same vertebrae. Does that give you an idea? >Let's not talk about your "tendons" claim, as it does not concern the >subject. It does if you're going to claim that they're really blood vessels. >> >Intact skin is found in the area above/around the >> >rectangle. [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] >> than 25 microns, and so there's no way that erythrocytes can be seen >> in this picture. Can I assume that you agree with this? > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > We can't see his left side, because he's laying on it. All of your > pictures show Leonardo's *right* side. You are making a world-class joke in claiming that all my pictures show Leonardo's "right" side. Where are the pictures of Leonardo's left side? Non-existent as you claimed its left side lay below its right side? No. 1 deceiver making a joke bigger than evolutionism. > >(especially the second link): > >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786913.jp... [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > - Show quoted text - <SNIP> >You are making a world-class joke in claiming that all my pictures >show Leonardo's "right" side. >Where are the pictures of Leonardo's left side? Non-existent as you >claimed its left side lay below its right side? No. 1 deceiver making >a joke bigger than evolutionism. <SNIP> Oh come on, Liantai, you are making a world class joke of yourself trying to imply that evolution is not a FACT. There is not one iota of rational evidence that a man butchered that dinosaur. Get over it and deal with reality, it's happening whether you like it or not. Ben >> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in >> <a9965801-4a1e-4624-9334-dc6d29928...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> : [snip] >> >Leonardo's flattened left side was clearly spread out in my following >> >new pictures [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >You are making a world-class joke in claiming that all my pictures >show Leonardo's "right" side. No, I'm quite serious. >Where are the pictures of Leonardo's left side? Non-existent as you >claimed its left side lay below its right side? No. 1 deceiver making >a joke bigger than evolutionism. Every animal with vertebrae has a left side and a right side. You have a left and right side, I have a left and right side, etc., etc., etc. This property is called "bilateral symmetry". Do you dispute any of this? In http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786916&p=0 Elvis's left side is facing up, and his right side is underneath, and we can't see it in this photo. Conversely, in http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786939&p=0 we can only see the right side of Leonardo (although because of twisting of the neck, we can also see the bottom of his jaw). Do you understand what I'm talking about now? By the way, I highly recommend you track down a copy of this: Murphy, N. L., D. Trexler, & M. Thompson. 2007. "Leonardo," a Mummified _Brachylophosaurus_ (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) from the Judith River Formation of Montana. In "Horns and Beaks: Ceratopsian and Ornithopod Dinosaurs", edited by Kenneth Carpenter, pp. 117-133. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. [snip] > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > [snip] Read the following sentence: Much of the left side of the dinosaur was relatively flattened, with skin drawn taut against ribs and other bones. Do I have to teach you English? That sentence was from the ScienceNews article you provided. It mentions clearly the skin (on the left side) drawn taut against ribs and other bones. Or are you going to re-invent English to say it could mean skin on the right side? (No. 1 deceiver, don't talk about ribs in that sentence, as that's not my point, but No. 1 deceiver's point. If you insist, I would say the ribs' upper halves were removed, leaving behind lower halves for that reporter to report. I once asked "Who dares to say the ribs were removed?", I meant only I dare to say that. Don't put words into my mouth as saying I admitted the ribs were not removed. That was your bad habit in arguing.) Thank you for bringing up the words bilateral symmetry yourself, as I was just prepared to remind you of that idea. So, bear in mind bilateral symmetry and mirror counterparts. Now find in this discussion where you admitted "vertebrae are visible" and use your ivory-tower sense to say the large areas left of the "visible vertebrae" were not Leonardo's left side, which you claim invisible, while the reporter said "much of the left side of the dinosaur was relatively flattened, with skin drawn taut against ribs and other bones." >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >Much of the left side of the dinosaur was relatively flattened, with >skin drawn taut against ribs and other bones. And? Do you have a picture of this? >Do I have to teach you English? No, my English is fine. >That sentence was from the ScienceNews >article you provided. It mentions clearly the skin (on the left side) >drawn taut against ribs and other bones. Or are you going to re-invent >English to say it could mean skin on the right side? (No. 1 deceiver, >don't talk about ribs in that sentence, as that's not my point, but >No. 1 deceiver's point. Actually, my point is that there are no pictures (that I'm aware of) of Leonardo's left side. If you've got one, why don't you post it? >If you insist, I would say the ribs' upper halves were removed, >leaving behind lower halves for that reporter to report. I once asked >"Who dares to say the ribs were removed?", I meant only I dare to say >that. That's certainly not the impression I got, and I doubt that anyone else got that impression either. I would suggest that a more descriptive phrase would have been "Who, besides myself, dares to say the ribs were removed?" Otherwise, it sounds like you're unaware of *anyone* who dares to suggest it, including yourself. >Don't put words into my mouth as saying I admitted the ribs were >not removed. That was your bad habit in arguing.) Sometimes it's hard to figure out what your position is. >Thank you for bringing up the words bilateral symmetry yourself, as I >was just prepared to remind you of that idea. So, bear in mind >bilateral symmetry and mirror counterparts. Believe me, I do. >Now find in this >discussion where you admitted "vertebrae are visible" I've never claimed that they're not visible. >and use your >ivory-tower sense to say the large areas left of the "visible >vertebrae" Do you realize that when you say "left of the visible vertebrae" that you're being rather vague as to the location that you're talking about? "Left" from whose point of view? Let me as you a question: Is the area that you've enclosed in the rectangle in http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=1812786939&p=0 the area that you're talking about when you say "left of the visible vertebrae"? >were not Leonardo's left side, which you claim invisible, I never claimed they were invisible, just that they can't be seen in any picture you've posted. >while the reporter said "much of the left side of the dinosaur was >relatively flattened, with skin drawn taut against ribs and other >bones." Who claimed otherwise? > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > [snip] God help me if you still ask real or unreal questions after you have looked at the following pictures with an open mind. http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786910.jpg&p=0 http://diedrakirk.1000words.kodak.com/default.asp?item=177944 >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:12:32 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >http://diedrakirk.1000words.kodak.com/default.asp?item=177944 *Now* I see where your confusion lies. Let me outline some Brachylophosaurian anatomy, and then I'll go over each of your notes one by one. First, let's go back to http://campus.murraystate.edu/academic/faculty/terry.derting/CVA_atlases/alligat or_skeleton/Thoracic%20Vertebrae.htm for a quick review of the landmarks of the thoracic vertebrae. Now, here's a picture of a thoracic vertebrae of a Brachylophosaurus (the same species as Leonardo) from the front left: http://www.morphbank.net/Show/imageAlias/?id=79413&imgType=jpeg Note the 20 centimeter tall neural spine. Also, note the transverse processes that project from the left and right sides. Now, regarding your note that starts "Frills pointing vertically upward...", what you indicate to be frills are in fact transverse processes, as I pointed out in news:3p5iu3hdht0cmdv0lkpa03p5i8i6j4gk9r@4ax.com The feature indicated by the "Back bone--spine column..." is really the right illium. The features pointed to by "Left ribs' remaining lower halves..." are parts of the frill. See http://skeletaldrawing.com/leonardo/brachy_leonardo.jpg for a reconstruction. I strongly disagree with the "Three yellow lines..." note. There were never any ribs there, since the tops of the neural spines are visible, and the neural spines are *above* where the ribs meet the vertebrae. As I've pointed out in the past, the repeating parallel structures that you've interpreted as blood vessels are in fact ossified tendons, and they've been recognized as such of over 100 years. They occur *above* the rib cage, parallel to and on both sides of, the neural spines of the vertebrae. This is especially obvious in http://morphbank4.scs.fsu.edu/Show/imageViewer/?pop=yes&id=79869 Zoom in by clicking on the picture, and look at the top, and you can see the neural spines of the vertebrae behind the tendons. I'm also puzzled why someone trying to remove the lungs would feel the need to cut through ribs if the chest was already cut open. But I'd also note that there's no mention of the rib cage having been cut open in Murphy et al. (2007). > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The features you claim to have been blood vessels are in fact tendons. > Similar structures can be seen in the skeleton athttp://www.montanadinosaurdigs.com/brach.htm I just expanded that picture to 200% (with Painter software) and found the "tendons" contained numerous small dots, which are never found in any living tendons. The "tendons" were in fact "blood vessels containing red blood cells". Tendons or not, they were not above ribs, but under "missing vertebrae of Dino Elvis and missing ribs of Dino Leonardo". > Also, seehttp://www.carnegiemnh.org/dinosaurs/paleolab/camptosaurus.htm > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any > blood vessels visible. >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >the "tendons" contained numerous small dots, which are never found in >any living tendons. How do you know? >The "tendons" were in fact "blood vessels >containing red blood cells". Tendons or not, they were not above ribs, >but under "missing vertebrae of Dino Elvis and missing ribs of Dino >Leonardo". No. See figure 1 of http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/edwards/people/postdocs/documents/JVP_25_3_61 4-622.pdf [snip] > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How is that relevant to your claim? Dino Leonardo and Dino Elvis could be cut to remove their lungs so that their contagious disease would not jump to humans. Men slaughtered them or just abandomed them to their extinction. > >Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, > >show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any > blood vessels visible. >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Dino Leonardo and Dino Elvis could be cut to remove their lungs so >that their contagious disease would not jump to humans. What makes you think that they had a disease? What makes you think that humans were susceptible to it? Wouldn't removing their lungs expose whoever did so to the disease? Why not just burn the bodies? > Men >slaughtered them or just abandomed them to their extinction. [snip] > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How is that relevant to your claim? Its relevance is evident in the new notes I just added to the X-ray image. The following link takes you to the new notes, which marks the positions of spine column, the missing ribs, the frills, the ribs on the right side of the ribcage. You'll see that the X-ray image and its caption confirm my claim. http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786914.jpg&p=0 > >Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300% of their original sizes, > >show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any > blood vessels visible. >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >the right side of the ribcage. You'll see that the X-ray image and its >caption confirm my claim. In fact, it doesn't. >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786914.jpg&p=0 What makes you think that the spinal column is missing? It certainly seems to be present. The caption says that the ribs are broken, not missing. What makes you think that your three arrows on the left point to frills? [snip] > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai > <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > In fact, it doesn't. The x-ray photo shows there is not a single bone ( or left rib) below the right ribs or to the left of the right ribs in the ribcage. It confirms my claim that some ribs on the left side of the ribcage are missing or at least partially missing. Can you find any left ribs ? > >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786914.jp... > > What makes you think that the spinal column is missing? It certainly > seems to be present. The caption says that the ribs are broken, not > missing. What makes you think that your three arrows on the left point > to frills? The three white bone-like objects point upward, just as frills do. > [snip]- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai >> <lin440...@yahoo.com.tw> wrote in [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >confirms my claim that some ribs on the left side of the ribcage are >missing or at least partially missing. Can you find any left ribs ? Not all the ribs that are known to be there based on other photos are visible in the x-ray. Claiming that ribs are missing because they can't be seen in the x-ray is rather problematic. >> >http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=lin440315&b=17&f=o1812786914.jp... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> to frills? >The three white bone-like objects point upward, just as frills do. Just like neural spines do as well. The three arrows point to neural spines. >> [snip]
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.