@ 34:34 Thomas said this where the neck muscles are shown to be anchored. That looks like a ball for ball-socket joint but I gotta be wrong, right? So what AM I seeing? I hope I made sense to somebody who can answer.
The ball is indeed for a ball-and-socket joint. That is the occipital condyle, the knob where the base of the skull articulates with the front of the vertebrae. But the muscle attachments are on those broad surfaces along the top and down the side.
No scientist is infallible nor claim to be. Experts in the field constantly debate all of these topics and sometimes they can be wrong and will change their minds in the face of new evidence. But all opinions are not equal and Holtz and colleagues like Dave Hone and others actually have a background in this topic professionally and have worked with these specimens in person. Holtz has been arguing his postion with scientific studies on bite force and all the factors revelant to it and presenting revelant citations with an actual argument. This is vastly different to some guy with no revelant credentials, who doesn't know the barest minimum about a topic making a bad argument based on misunderstanding papers or usually nothing, citing nothing and just making unverifiable, uneducated claims that contradict all the evidence to the contrary in bad faith. The standard "defense" is claim that EVERYONE else lying, or dogmatic and unwilling to change their minds or they're a maverick outsider "telling the truth" with no relevant background, incoherent arguments based on upfront flawed misunderstandings, trying to peddle some crackpot theory usually to people who probably don't know anything about the topic. That's the bastion of pseudoscience, misinformation and crankery at it's finest. It allows those people to duck under any kind of oversight or backing up their claims and peddle their misinformation directly to masses as if it's of equal quality.
Once again, you need to track down where the estimations come from. The Purussaurus data is from journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117944
@@rodrigopinto6676 I have directly observed the (real) skulls of multiple Tyrannosaurus and (cast) skulls of Purussaurus and can confirm that those giant crocs had skulls which are more massive, bigger, thicker, wider, and more robust than the dinosaur. Furthermore, the actual scientific studies of the bite force of Purussaurus show it to be 69 kN: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117944
Regarding the slide on bite force: Gregory Erickson estimated the bite force of a 7 meters Crocodylus (either C. porosus or C. niloticus) at about 22.4 kN, and the bite force of the extinct crocodylian Deinosuchus at about 102 kN.
Love these lectures! Thank you so much for making these available for me to binge on! I cannot get enough paleontology ❤️
@ 34:34 Thomas said this where the neck muscles are shown to be anchored. That looks like a ball for ball-socket joint but I gotta be wrong, right? So what AM I seeing? I hope I made sense to somebody who can answer.
The ball is indeed for a ball-and-socket joint. That is the occipital condyle, the knob where the base of the skull articulates with the front of the vertebrae. But the muscle attachments are on those broad surfaces along the top and down the side.
Why am I, a recent high school graduate from Canada watching a video on the Coelurids presented by a professor at the university of maryland
You may be subconsciously interested in this subject! Just a wild guess
Some still support the idea that Megaraptora is part of Neovenatoridae
No scientist is infallible nor claim to be. Experts in the field constantly debate all of these topics and sometimes they can be wrong and will change their minds in the face of new evidence. But all opinions are not equal and Holtz and colleagues like Dave Hone and others actually have a background in this topic professionally and have worked with these specimens in person. Holtz has been arguing his postion with scientific studies on bite force and all the factors revelant to it and presenting revelant citations with an actual argument. This is vastly different to some guy with no revelant credentials, who doesn't know the barest minimum about a topic making a bad argument based on misunderstanding papers or usually nothing, citing nothing and just making unverifiable, uneducated claims that contradict all the evidence to the contrary in bad faith.
The standard "defense" is claim that EVERYONE else lying, or dogmatic and unwilling to change their minds or they're a maverick outsider "telling the truth" with no relevant background, incoherent arguments based on upfront flawed misunderstandings, trying to peddle some crackpot theory usually to people who probably don't know anything about the topic. That's the bastion of pseudoscience, misinformation and crankery at it's finest. It allows those people to duck under any kind of oversight or backing up their claims and peddle their misinformation directly to masses as if it's of equal quality.
Recent estimated bite force of the Tyrannosaurus rex 64.000 newton and purussaurus 53.000 newton.
Once again, you need to track down where the estimations come from. The Purussaurus data is from journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117944
@@thomasrichardholtz9031 the bite force of Tyrannosaurus rex is considerably STRONGER than the value of “34.5kN”.!!!
@@thomasrichardholtz9031 rivals giant crocodile and purussaurus, or even the tyrannosaurus’s bite force may have been stronger than these.
@@thomasrichardholtz9031 tyrannosaurus skull is more massive bigger thicker wider and robust than purussaurus skull.
@@rodrigopinto6676 I have directly observed the (real) skulls of multiple Tyrannosaurus and (cast) skulls of Purussaurus and can confirm that those giant crocs had skulls which are more massive, bigger, thicker, wider, and more robust than the dinosaur. Furthermore, the actual scientific studies of the bite force of Purussaurus show it to be 69 kN: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117944
Regarding the slide on bite force: Gregory Erickson estimated the bite force of a 7 meters Crocodylus (either C. porosus or C. niloticus) at about 22.4 kN, and the bite force of the extinct crocodylian Deinosuchus at about 102 kN.
No crocodylus 16.0 kN and deinosuchus only 69 kN
@@themorningstar3299 Please note: you have to find the actual papers and evaluate the particular method used.
Thomas Richard Holtz tyrannosaurus could lift 300 kg and The bite force probably stronger than purussaurus.
Thomas Richard Holtz the megalodon' s biting power is questionable and rather difficult to accurately estimate since only teeth are available.
@@thomasrichardholtz9031 incorrect tyrannosaurus bite force probably stronger than this giant caiman named purussaurus.