The reason is that the BBC has switched to using freelancers instead of in-house reporters to save money and it shows in the quality especially when underpaid freelancers produce cheap AI generated garbage in exchange for the small reward they get.
BBC in 1999: We have info from real paleontologist's and we released a dinosaur documentary to tell everyone about dinosaurs 🗿 BBC in 2024: if it is dead it dinosaur ? 🥺
12:27 oh god it's a David Peters reference. For context: The vampire Jeholopterus hypothesis was posited by David Peters quite a while back and was promptly ignored because it made no sense.
7:11 Nope, not even that. Linhenykus is a member of a whole group of small theropods with only one finger, most famously Mononykus which is also named for that trait. 12:45 Oh. Oh no. This confirms what I had been afraid of when Longisquama came up as an ancestor of birds. The article is based on the "work" of David Peters. So, Peters is a self-declared scientist who tries to "discover" details in fossils using image manipulation of photos of the fossils. Among the "discoveries" he's proudest of is vampirism in Jeholopterus.
Still at the first one and I'm already disturbed that the same Company that made Masterpieces like Walking with Monsters, Dinosaurs, Beasts, Cavemen and the Walking with Dinosaurs Specials would hire someone like that. That Guy knows that Sloths aren't Birds, right?🤨
Oh no BBC! This is so shamefull. ´Jeholopterus, the vampire dinosaur´, my goodness. BBC is making a new Walking With Dinosaurs right? My expectations for that have gone down quit a bit after seeing this. Thanks for allerting me with this video!
This smacks of "I fed these pictures into an LLM and sent the results to my editor, who published this dreck without second thought." Even if this is the first time you've read about the suzhousaurus, pairing that picture with the words "appearance of a giant rat" would never cross a normal human mind. "Looks like a furry turkey" maybe, but rat? With that condor-like neck? Or worse, suggest that a fucking therizinosaurid is a "distant ancestor of a ground sloth?" Even drunk I would never use those combination of words to describe that picture.
The "zhou" in Suzhousaurus is pronounced like "joe" is in English, the reason "zh" is used is because in Romanized Pinyin j makes a sound that is kinda like "ch" but different, so a different spelling of the sound was needed.
9:18 Dinosaurs are technically reptiles too you know. 10:54 You mean’t Non-avian Dinosaurs? because Birds are also dinosaurs they called Avian Dinosaurs. 12:54 It is getting stupid since Pterosaurs are not the only flying reptiles because Birds are also flying reptiles & Yes birds are actually reptiles because dinosaurs are reptiles & birds are dinosaurs meaning birds are reptiles. & Also crocodilians are actually more closely related to birds & non-avian dinosaurs than to lizards. 15:57 Carnotaurus didn’t actually ostederms it actually has these really bumpy scales all over its body. & In fact most theropods don’t have osteoderms the only theropod that indicates that to have osteoderms that is Ceratosaurus. and Carnotaurus most likely did have horns that could’ve been layered in keratin then the horns would grow a bit larger when the animal was alive.
Birds and reptiles are completely different and not at all related. A good way to go by is all birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Because they weren't related at all. Birds are not reptiles whatsoever.
@@PestilentAllosaurus You may don’t understand but birds are reptiles because they belong in the clade of reptiles called Archosaurs which includes Pterosaurs Crocodilians Non-avian dinosaurs & birds. If you don’t believe me on that? & please go watch Clint’s reptiles Dinofax Laramidia storm chasers video called "Are Birds Reptiles?” I am sure you would understand that but If not then you probably being more used to with the same old classification thing like "Birds are their Classification clade!” Which is no longer to be a the case here.
@ You would may not understand this but Birds are reptiles because they are belong in the clade of reptiles called Archosaurs which includes Pterosaurs, Crocodilians, Non-avian dinosaurs, & Birds,.If you don’t believe me on that? & please watch Clint’s reptiles, Dinofax, & Laramidia storm chaser’s video called "Are Birds Reptiles?” I am sure you would understand that. But If you don’t believe that? and then you are probably being more used to with the same old classification thing like "Birds Are Their Own Classification Clade!”. Which is no longer to be a case unfortunately.
The reason is that the BBC has switched to using freelancers instead of in-house reporters to save money and it shows in the quality especially when underpaid freelancers produce cheap AI generated garbage in exchange for the small reward they get.
BBC in 1999: We have info from real paleontologist's and we released a dinosaur documentary to tell everyone about dinosaurs 🗿
BBC in 2024: if it is dead it dinosaur ? 🥺
12:27 oh god it's a David Peters reference.
For context: The vampire Jeholopterus hypothesis was posited by David Peters quite a while back and was promptly ignored because it made no sense.
Looks like the BBC did about as much fact checking their claims on the dinosaur article as their political articles.
15:57 Carnotaurus had true horns. Extensions of the frontals that were sheathed in keratin.
7:11 Nope, not even that. Linhenykus is a member of a whole group of small theropods with only one finger, most famously Mononykus which is also named for that trait.
12:45 Oh. Oh no. This confirms what I had been afraid of when Longisquama came up as an ancestor of birds. The article is based on the "work" of David Peters. So, Peters is a self-declared scientist who tries to "discover" details in fossils using image manipulation of photos of the fossils. Among the "discoveries" he's proudest of is vampirism in Jeholopterus.
The BBC have been in decline for over a decade, does not surprise me that they are getting to the level of The "History" Channel
"Ancestor of the giant ground sloth" excuse me WHAT!!!!
😂 I've expected him to write that the Parasaurolophus Crest is a Snorkle for diving
This article had to have been written by an AI. There's no way a human can write something this bad.
Apparently it’s older than ai
12:28 to be fair there could have been a flying reptile that filled the vampire bat's nitch but it would be really hard to tell.
This seems very much like the author's "research" was reading things online and making stuff up if he couldn't find anything.
I mean some of if feels like he made an effort to be wrong.
Research was seemingly straight up David Peters
Still at the first one and I'm already disturbed that the same Company that made Masterpieces like Walking with Monsters, Dinosaurs, Beasts, Cavemen and the Walking with Dinosaurs Specials would hire someone like that.
That Guy knows that Sloths aren't Birds, right?🤨
Oh no BBC! This is so shamefull. ´Jeholopterus, the vampire dinosaur´, my goodness. BBC is making a new Walking With Dinosaurs right? My expectations for that have gone down quit a bit after seeing this. Thanks for allerting me with this video!
lol there are multiple 1 fingered Theropods. There's at least also Mononykus
the fact that this is old makes it even worse because now we know its not ai
This smacks of "I fed these pictures into an LLM and sent the results to my editor, who published this dreck without second thought."
Even if this is the first time you've read about the suzhousaurus, pairing that picture with the words "appearance of a giant rat" would never cross a normal human mind. "Looks like a furry turkey" maybe, but rat? With that condor-like neck? Or worse, suggest that a fucking therizinosaurid is a "distant ancestor of a ground sloth?"
Even drunk I would never use those combination of words to describe that picture.
Its a bit older than the LLM boom.
The author basically failed the Turing test, as a human.
You should do Masiakasaurus your next ai video. That thing would be a total demon. Also, he's one of my favorite dinosaurs. I know, odd choice.
I am upset at BBC too
What have you done this evening? Nothing, I've corrected BBC on an article....
Is this article satire?
I think this article may have been... ai generated.
Edit: made in 2018? Ok, maybe this guy is just dumb.
this has to have been satire right?
The "zhou" in Suzhousaurus is pronounced like "joe" is in English, the reason "zh" is used is because in Romanized Pinyin j makes a sound that is kinda like "ch" but different, so a different spelling of the sound was needed.
9:18 Dinosaurs are technically reptiles too you know. 10:54 You mean’t Non-avian Dinosaurs? because Birds are also dinosaurs they called Avian Dinosaurs. 12:54 It is getting stupid since Pterosaurs are not the only flying reptiles because Birds are also flying reptiles & Yes birds are actually reptiles because dinosaurs are reptiles & birds are dinosaurs meaning birds are reptiles. & Also crocodilians are actually more closely related to birds & non-avian dinosaurs than to lizards. 15:57 Carnotaurus didn’t actually ostederms it actually has these really bumpy scales all over its body. & In fact most theropods don’t have osteoderms the only theropod that indicates that to have osteoderms that is Ceratosaurus. and Carnotaurus most likely did have horns that could’ve been layered in keratin then the horns would grow a bit larger when the animal was alive.
Birds and reptiles are completely different and not at all related.
A good way to go by is all birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Because they weren't related at all. Birds are not reptiles whatsoever.
@@PestilentAllosaurus You may don’t understand but birds are reptiles because they belong in the clade of reptiles called Archosaurs which includes Pterosaurs Crocodilians Non-avian dinosaurs & birds. If you don’t believe me on that? & please go watch Clint’s reptiles Dinofax Laramidia storm chasers video called "Are Birds Reptiles?” I am sure you would understand that but If not then you probably being more used to with the same old classification thing like "Birds are their Classification clade!” Which is no longer to be a the case here.
@ You would may not understand this but Birds are reptiles because they are belong in the clade of reptiles called Archosaurs which includes Pterosaurs, Crocodilians, Non-avian dinosaurs, & Birds,.If you don’t believe me on that? & please watch Clint’s reptiles, Dinofax, & Laramidia storm chaser’s video called "Are Birds Reptiles?” I am sure you would understand that. But If you don’t believe that? and then you are probably being more used to with the same old classification thing like "Birds Are Their Own Classification Clade!”. Which is no longer to be a case unfortunately.