Bakker made up Utahraptor Discovery story

[Manatee]

Just out of curiosity, what happened to the discussion about Bakker making up the Utahraptor discovery?

[CityRaptor]

It became forgotten during a discussion that better needs its own thread.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Regarding Dan's therizinosaurs sculpt, nobody said it's the most accurate to date because it's not. Other therizinosaurs had already, at that date, been released which might not have been as nicely sculpted, but we're just as accurate in terms of posture and anatomy and more accurate in having feathers. Dan's was more accurate than the 1992 Safari Therizinosaurus but less accurate than say the Collecta or newer Safari models (see how a sliding scale works?).

I see how inserting personnal bias can be done using inaccurate terminology yes. Is not what you are doing , weighing individual factors that make the sculpts inaccurate,or accurate, one against the other based on your own personnal bias to rank them?  for instance ....."which might not have been as nicely sculpted,"   that is a personnal judgement, not a scientific observation. Further complicated by another series of personnal judgements here " but we're just as accurate in terms of posture and anatomy and more accurate in having feathers" ( I assume you meant were not we're for the record, perhaps an auto correct feature in overdrive)None of the things you are using to rank the figures can be quantified, measured or given consistency from one observer to the next, which means they are personnal criteria .That is where the problem is in trying to create fifty shades of a term like accurate...it is based on personnal opinion rather than science.     

[stargatedalek]

well other than a lack of feathers, which is pretty easy to quantify


perhaps we should make this discussion to a new thread?

[HD-man]

Just out of curiosity, what happened to the discussion about Bakker making up the Utahraptor discovery?

It became forgotten during a discussion that better needs its own thread.

That's what I was referring to when I said, "This thread turned out weird, but whatever." As for Bakker, see my post on page 2.

[Gwangi]

"Oh boy, I can't believe I'm subjecting myself to this but here goes. I'm a gluten for punishment." I am greatful for your response and do not mind taking the time to respond. I am honestly a bit shocked at the entire view given of people as not caring and so forth . I will return to that point in a moment.

The reason I said that, is because I had to prepare myself for typing up an hours worth of dialog, very little of which that I knew would ultimately matter to you and your opinion. I can see it was a wasted effort which is why I was hesitant to do this to begin with.

Your opening commentary via Rebor vs, Jurassic park is what I consider a huge and glaring double standard. You place high standards on the toys themselves, but refuse to hold the movie to the same standards. Justification is offered in that...,.""Movies concerning dinosaurs are different. They are few and far between and most older movies just got the dinosaurs flat wrong.

Nothing I can do to change that opinion. You say it's a double standard, I say you're unfairly comparing two different mediums that exist for two different reasons that both concern dinosaurs.

"Jurassic Park" was the best there was from a selection of movies, none of which achieved full accuracy"
Well sorry, but Jurassic park got the dinosaurs flat wrong too....you can use prejudice to attempt that argument  all you like, but Jurassic park simply made a whole set of more modern mistakes in place of the existing ones.They did not get it right and even worse, they had more updated science and accurate information and chose to do the dinosaurs incorrectly, to make a fast buck.

I know they got them wrong, we all know they got them wrong. You don't have to hammer that in anymore. No one ever said they achieved full accuracy, just a greater degree than the movies before it. But with you it either is or isn't so there is no reason to argue this point either.

Since you "Took me to task " I feel it necessary to remind you that at least three or four bans were given members in the space of a single day regarding harsh and negative bashing and goading in the Rebor Thread. Going through and pasting ONLY the positives is somewhat intentionally misleading isnt it? Especially give that I am certain you know the reality of what happened there.

No, this is incorrect, and I just checked through the first 7 pages of that thread. Simon and Yutyrannus were the only two banned for remarks about Rebor. Other bans were dished out at the same time in other threads in an attempt to crack down on forum negativity and goading as a whole. There really were only a few fully negative posts from a couple vocal members. The rest, like I said, highlighted both the models good and bad qualities.

As I continue to review how I was "taken to task" We fall upon the discussion about the Battats. I made note that you did not review the thread or you would have found the comments I was referring to but yes...someone posted the new Battats were epic fails and monstrosities.

Alright, I believe that someone said that but the way you worded it sounded like you took that as the memberships consensus as a whole. I cannot speak for another specific member so why you would bring up their comment in this thread is beyond me. Their opinions are their own. I don't know their opinions regarding Jurassic Park vs. dinosaur toys. PM them if you want to know it, otherwise you're just muddying up this debate. If you want to take me to task for something I said, or anyone else in this thread for that matter it's another thing.

Again, as with the bans, I am sure if you expend the effort you will see the postings yourself. Those things were said ....From what you wrote I am guessing you are attempting to somehow atribute those ideas to me which is not the case.

No, that is not the case. But I feel like you're attributing those comments to me and the other participating in this debate. If not, it's really a moot point to be posting that stuff at all. Your argument seems to be "because member X disliked the Rebor model and member Y likes the JP dinosaurs it must mean we're all hypocrites".

The attempt to then suggest that it is a pattern I did with the rebor thread and this matter becomes a poorly considered fail, perhaps owing an apology .

Without checking the Battat threads (because there are many) all I can do is infer that you're blowing the situation out of proportion as that's what it seems you're doing with the REBOR thread (which I did check). That's my honest opinion of what's happening here, I see no reason to apologize.

My definition I took the effort to post was from Merriam and Webster and defines accuracy as , precision, mistake free, and exactness. I am unsure where you got yours, but surely you cannot seriously be stating that something cannot be either accurate or inaccurate? Trying to create a hundred levels of accuracy to justify your argument is not sound. There is a word, accurate, which means correctness, precision, and mistake free , per the dictionary. There is the word inaccurate , which means contains mistakes, is not precise, and does not have exactness. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are inaccurate. All the hedging, and word splitting and so forth do not resolve that.

The Marriam & Webster web site also defines accuracy as follows..."degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value." So I don't know why you're deliberately choosing the definition that best fits your argument. There ARE standards of accuracy.

In a previous posting you stated the raptors from the movie were accurate....what? What about the hands? In all of the pictures you posted the dinosaurs were wrong........mistakes are mistakes period. If they are not right, they are wrong. Trying to go in and then evaluate which mistake is more glaring or matters more is personnal taste, not science. Science, says they are WRONG. It does not try and defend a favorite because one set of mistakes is better than another.

The hands? The pronated hands? We didn't know about hand posture in 1993. That is why they're wrong. You can fault the movie for what it got wrong based on what we knew in 1993 but not based on what we know today. That's hardly fair. And for the record, I'm not a scientist. I don't see why bringing that up is relevant. I'm not grading the movie from the view of a scientist, just a dinosaur enthusiast. But yes, based on my personal opinion the dinosaurs in JP are more accurate (but still inaccurate) than the dinosaurs from any other dinosaur movie up until 1993. That also happens to be the opinion of most of our members and yes...the scientific community it would seem. They still take issue with the inaccuracies. Those problems still bother us. But we don't all live in your black and white world were things are either this or that. As with EVERYTHING, there are varying degrees of grey in between. I'm not going to stand here and say that "Jurassic Park broke their raptor hands, therefor the dinosaurs are crap" and completely disregard it based on that or any particular minor error.

Again, says who?  it is far more likely that by now someone else would have done something similar if not far better and more intelligent. You indeed cannot make that comment, as it is an inference based on negative evidence. We wont ever know of course because we got this version over something that might well have been far better, and tried to stick to facts .

We don't live in that world. We live in a world where dinosaurs were brought to the public forefront (for better or worse) by Jurassic Park. You talk about negative evidence but then speculate about a different, better movie that was never made. I know what movie it would have been actually. "Dinosaurs Attack!" based on the Tops trading card series. Tim Burton was set to direct it but when JP came out he backed out because he didn't want to compete with it. He made "Mars Attacks!" instead.

I find that to be one of the most cynical, elitist and poorly considered remarks given in this entire sermon.

You wouldn't be the first to call me cynical. I'm already aware of it.

I will tell you why...people do care. I spend a lot of my time helping our local mineral society in giving free programs to people to raise the awareness of earth science and yes, dinosaurs. I regularly do programs, presentations, and work for this cause. I am not paid nor am I given expenses...I do it because I enjoy the change to help people learn and understand.  I have been published several times, and won national awards for photgraphy, poetry and factual writing about dinosaurs ...

Museum volunteer here too, typically talking about dinosaurs. But I also work in retail. So there is that too. I also have published articles and photographs but not pertaining to dinosaurs. What's the point?

all in this process. I can tell you people do care and do want to know...but there are many who cannot afford to run out and buy the books, who lack a car or a license to drive to a library, people who live on fixed incomes , or do not possess computers because they are of that generation prior to the common use of computers. yes many of them are older people, or shut ins, and still others are either physicaly handicapped or lack the resources to purchase books, computers or science papers. We try to help them learn and understand earth sciences.....to raise their awareness and to teach scientifically sound information.

And for those people, I feel deep sympathy. Those are not the people I encounter daily working in retail. The people I work with buy an animal they know nothing about on impulse without giving a hoot as to how to properly care for it and with no desire to research it beyond asking whatever associate it on hand (who may or may not know much about it). Those are the people I see, those appear to represent the majority of society, they're the ones who fill movie theater seats and take everything they see in the movies, on the internet and on television at face value. You call me cynical, but we all know they exist.

At any presentation or program on dinosaurs, much of the misinformation related to the Jurassic Franchise tends to surface . Because these are not the dinosaur geeks, as you put it. These are not the people who can get out to a museum, or college to learn unless we take them. Yes they care, and further they want to know , and it has nothing to do with their mind set.

You almost make them sound like victims here, yes; victims of a 22 year old science fiction movie. Save me the heartbreak please. Anyone who wants access to information pertaining to a particular topic and cannot access it has my sympathy but you know as well as I that they're few and far between. 87% of the United States has internet access (internetworldstats.com) and every town has a library. Even my home town with a population barely pushing 1,000 has a town library. On Amazon.com I can buy the recently published "Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" for $12.00 or "Dinosaur Odyssey" used for $3.99.  You're attempt at using the less privileged to push forth your argument is very off putting. 

I will tell you quite clearly what i do not expect if that helps. That is for these people who according to you are so beset with their productions of movies, to take the time and produce documentaries and write books and do interviews where they state over and over the dinosaurs in the movie are the most ACCURATE dinosaurs to ever appear on the screen, when there is nothing accurate about them. For them to make claims knowing they are false to sell movie tickets. In other words to intentionally mislead people about their product. That is not helpful, useful and benefits noone.

Nothing accurate about them huh? Absolutely nothing? I'm amazed that you can say that. But yes, they are the most accurate. And since we already determined what accurate means I feel comfortable saying that.

Finally your last shot...a movie that is made to the level of accuracy I seek....there are many, but some of my favorites are movies like....
Blackhawk Down
Gettysburg
Of Gods and Generals
A Bridge Too Far
The Great Raid
All of these movies demonstrate a great level of accuracy with little if anything exaggerated, altered or manipulated to sell tickets. They are factual representations using the known events as they happened. Are they perfect? I am not sure, but I know there have to be small errors contained......were they intentional and grounded in greed to make a few bucks? doubtful. I dont think that is too much to ask of a movie.

You don't think that is too much to ask of a movie and present me with a list of five movies that pass your high level of critique. You tell me I sound elitist, but you're views on "Jurassic Park" show me that you sir, sound elitist.

[Gwangi]

It became forgotten during a discussion that better needs its own thread.

Sorry for the hijacking but was there anything else left to be said about the Bakker/Utahraptor issue? It seems like we pretty much came to a conclusion on that topic.

[Doug Watson]

  Another thing I found interesting in Doug's comments is his view that people in general were not given misinformation or bad science from the movie, and then opted to suggest because most people in a dinosaur toy forum would recognize the flaws it is not an issue.

Amargasaurus, I have to take issue with your comment concerning my post. I just reread my post and I can't find any quote from me saying "that people in general were not given misinformation or bad science from the movie" or anything similar. I even checked my post in the JP4 dialogue and I have consistently acknowledged the inaccuracies in the movies. What I did say in my post here is that with the resulting public lectures, books and wide audience TV documentaries that dealt with those inaccuracies the public was given ample opportunity to get the facts as they were at the time.
As for the continuing debate since you don't accept the distinction we on the other side see between "accurate and most accurate to date", I think we should all just agree to disagree and drop it since there is no moving off that point. But that's just me.

[HD-man]

Sorry for the hijacking but was there anything else left to be said about the Bakker/Utahraptor issue? It seems like we pretty much came to a conclusion on that topic.

To be fair, I brought up some points that hadn't been considered in previous posts. Otherwise, I understand what you're saying.

[Gwangi]

As for the continuing debate since you don't accept the distinction we on the other side see between "accurate and most accurate to date", I think we should all just agree to disagree and drop it since there is no moving off that point. But that's just me.

Yes, I agree. And I regret getting wrapped up in this despite my hesitance. I'm trying hard to keep out of arguments these days but there is always something written that I just cannot seem to ignore. I at the very least regret feeding into all the offshoot arguments instead of focusing on the core debate "Jurassic Park and accuracy". A debate for which no side will obviously alter the opinion of the other. Like I originally said, Armargasaurus has had 22 years to form his opinion and nothing I can say will change that. Apparently I had more sense a few days ago than I did last night or today.

So to try to get back on topic. HD-man, what didn't make sense to me was this issue regarding "the big female". Now it has been a long time since I read "Raptor Red" but as I recall it Bakker implied that the big female in JP would be significantly larger than the other raptors. That the big female was made valid by the discovery of Utahraptor. I was young when I read the book but every time I've watched JP I've failed to see any obvious size difference between all the raptors and yes, I know Muldoon calls her "the big female". They all seem to have had Deinonychus-like proportions.

[laticauda]

Let me see if I can finish all the fun arguments and positions that have been put forth in this thread.  I asked the highest authority I could find on short notice.  It will cover Bakker/Raptor Red, and JP Accuracy. 

"What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history ? A fable agreed upon."  Thank You Mr. Napoleon for your insights. 

If we want to delve into the definition of accuracy  Let's look at in black and white terms.  Using merriam-webster mind you lets look at the definition. 
Accuracy: freedom from mistake or error : the quality or state of being accurate : the ability to work or perform without making mistakes
Full Definition of ACCURACY
1: freedom from mistake or error : CORRECTNESS
2a: conformity to truth or to a standard or model : EXACTNESS
b: degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare PRECISION

Well not quite black and white.  The three forms of accuracy: correctness, exactness, and percision. 

Lets take a moment, let that soak in, and see how it applies to everything that has been mentioned on this thread. 

"Among so many conflicting ideas and so many different perspectives, the honest man is confused and distressed and the skeptic becomes wicked ... Since one must take sides, one might as well choose the side that is victorious, the side which devastates, loots, and burns. Considering the alternative, it is better to eat than to be eaten."  Again Thank You Mr. Napoleon for your thought and insights. 

I probally just confused everyone with this post.   

[Dinoguy2]

Regarding Dan's therizinosaurs sculpt, nobody said it's the most accurate to date because it's not. Other therizinosaurs had already, at that date, been released which might not have been as nicely sculpted, but we're just as accurate in terms of posture and anatomy and more accurate in having feathers. Dan's was more accurate than the 1992 Safari Therizinosaurus but less accurate than say the Collecta or newer Safari models (see how a sliding scale works?).

I see how inserting personnal bias can be done using inaccurate terminology yes. Is not what you are doing , weighing individual factors that make the sculpts inaccurate,or accurate, one against the other based on your own personnal bias to rank them?  for instance ....."which might not have been as nicely sculpted,"   that is a personnal judgement, not a scientific observation. Further complicated by another series of personnal judgements here " but we're just as accurate in terms of posture and anatomy and more accurate in having feathers" ( I assume you meant were not we're for the record, perhaps an auto correct feature in overdrive)None of the things you are using to rank the figures can be quantified, measured or given consistency from one observer to the next, which means they are personnal criteria .That is where the problem is in trying to create fifty shades of a term like accurate...it is based on personnal opinion rather than science.   

All three models, Terra, Safari, and Collecta, don't have any obvious anatomy problems compared to known skeletal material. That is quantifiable, just make a point for point comparison. Two of the models have feathers, which is accurate, one doesn't. That makes the Terra the least accurate of the three. The old DoC therizinosaur has anatomical issues compared with known skeletons of today and also lacks feathers, making it less accurate than Terra's.

And yes, when I said the Terra still has the best sculpt that's my personal opinion.