REBOR 1:35 Utahraptor ostrommaysorum Museum Class Replica “Wind Hunter” [updated]

[tyrantqueen]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

[Concavenator]

Well, there is fossil evidence for Yutyrannus being a "chicken with teeth". And if I pay that much money for dinosaur figure, I want it to be accurate. So yes, I would rather buy Safari's Yutyrannus than the plucked chicken made by REBOR..not only more accurate, but also a lot cheaper.

Thats your choice,accuracy isn't important to me though i'd prefer it, how it looks is more important for me. Now one question do they know how many feathers and where they were on the body?

Yes because we have 3 good fossils to prove that.

[petebuster1]

Well, there is fossil evidence for Yutyrannus being a "chicken with teeth". And if I pay that much money for dinosaur figure, I want it to be accurate. So yes, I would rather buy Safari's Yutyrannus than the plucked chicken made by REBOR..not only more accurate, but also a lot cheaper.

Thats your choice,accuracy isn't important to me though i'd prefer it, how it looks is more important for me. Now one question do they know how many feathers and where they were on the body?

Yes because we have 3 good fossils to prove that.

Thats not really answering the question,where is this evidence?

[petebuster1]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

[tyrantqueen]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

Please answer the question. How is it lifelike?

[DinoLord]

I think he is referring to lifelike as in being detailed in a manner that looks like it could be a real animal, as opposed to being lifelike by being true to the scientifically supported real life appearance for the animal. Probably similar to how many of the Papo figures appear lifelike in a sense.

[CityRaptor]

Suspy already posted the answer regarding the feathers:

Sorry Petebuster1, but the REBOR Yutyrannus is considerably less realistic than the Wild Safari one due to its bare minimum of feathers, and there is fossil evidence to prove it:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus

The feathers covered various parts of the body. With the holotype they were present on the pelvis and the foot. Specimen ZCDM V5000 had feathers on the tail pointing backwards under an angle of 30° with the tail axis. The smallest specimen showed 20 centimetre (7.9 inch)-long filaments on the neck and 16 centimetre (6.3 inch)-long feathers at the upper arm. Based on this distribution, they may have covered the whole body and served in regulating temperature, given the rather cold climate of the Yixian with an average annual temperature of 10°C (50°F). Alternatively, if they were restricted to the regions in which they were found, they may have served as display structures. In addition, the two adult specimens had distinctive, "wavy" crests on their snouts, on both sides of a high central crest, which were probably used for display.

This isn't to say that the REBOR Yutyrannus isn't well-sculpted. It definitely is. But it's not as realistic as Wild Safari's.

So yes, even if Yutyrannus was not completely covered, the REBOR Version is plucked...

[tyrantqueen]

Well, there is fossil evidence for Yutyrannus being a "chicken with teeth". And if I pay that much money for dinosaur figure, I want it to be accurate. So yes, I would rather buy Safari's Yutyrannus than the plucked chicken made by REBOR..not only more accurate, but also a lot cheaper.

Thats your choice,accuracy isn't important to me though i'd prefer it, how it looks is more important for me. Now one question do they know how many feathers and where they were on the body?

Yes because we have 3 good fossils to prove that.

Thats not really answering the question,where is this evidence?

Phylogenetic bracketing. Microraptor is a dromeosaurid and we have fossilised remains of its feathers. Since Utahraptor is more closely related to Microraptor it makes sense to depict it with feathers. Rather than the proto fuzz it has been given here.

[petebuster1]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

Please answer the question. How is it lifelike?

resembling or simulating real life which has nothing to do with accuracy, if could equally refer to a model of king kong

[petebuster1]

Well, there is fossil evidence for Yutyrannus being a "chicken with teeth". And if I pay that much money for dinosaur figure, I want it to be accurate. So yes, I would rather buy Safari's Yutyrannus than the plucked chicken made by REBOR..not only more accurate, but also a lot cheaper.

Thats your choice,accuracy isn't important to me though i'd prefer it, how it looks is more important for me. Now one question do they know how many feathers and where they were on the body?

Yes because we have 3 good fossils to prove that.

Thats not really answering the question,where is this evidence?

Phylogenetic bracketing. Microraptor is a dromeosaurid and we have fossilised remains of its feathers. Since Utahraptor is more closely related to Microraptor it makes sense to depict it with feathers. Rather than the proto fuzz it has been given here.

Are they feathers on the body? different type?

[tyrantqueen]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

Please answer the question. How is it lifelike?

resembling or simulating real life which has nothing to do with accuracy, if could equally refer to a model of king kong

And yet King Kong looks like an oversized gorilla. The creators of the Peter Jackson film studied real gorillas in the wild.

What real life animal does this Utahraptor resemble? Rebor stated they used birds of prey as a reference. No bird of prey has integument of this kind, nor does it stop at the underside of the tail and belly and then turn into scales.

[petebuster1]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

Please answer the question. How is it lifelike?

resembling or simulating real life which has nothing to do with accuracy, if could equally refer to a model of king kong

And yet King Kong looks like an oversized gorilla. The creators of the Peter Jackson film studied real gorillas in the wild.

What real life animal does this Utahraptor resemble? Rebor stated they used birds of prey as a reference. No bird of prey has integument of this kind, nor does it stop at the underside of the tail and belly and then turn into scales.

resembling or simulating doesn't mean it has to be of an actual real thing, in model terms its creating something that looks real even though it isn't whether it be a tiger, dinosaur or Frankenstein. I hope that clarifies. Sideshow models look lifelike but very few are of anything that actually exists

[tyrantqueen]

maybe you don't understand what i mean by lifelike your refering to accuracy again, i'm not

Lifelike how? It doesn't resemble the real animal so how is it lifelike? If it resembles a fantasy creature then it's not life like because it never existed. In fact, it doesn't really resemble any real animal, except maybe a dog with mange. Sorry to sound harsh, but there you go.

No you obvoiusly don't understand what i mean  and your comments are a bit ridiculously exaggerated

Please answer the question. How is it lifelike?

resembling or simulating real life which has nothing to do with accuracy, if could equally refer to a model of king kong

And yet King Kong looks like an oversized gorilla. The creators of the Peter Jackson film studied real gorillas in the wild.

What real life animal does this Utahraptor resemble? Rebor stated they used birds of prey as a reference. No bird of prey has integument of this kind, nor does it stop at the underside of the tail and belly and then turn into scales.

resembling or simulating doesn't mean it has to be of an actual real thing, in model terms its creating something that looks real even though it isn't whether it be a tiger, dinosaur or Frankenstein. I hope that clarifies

Oh, so you're agreeing that it is a fantasy monster after all? Glad we agree then (I'm not being sarcastic). Although I don't believe it's a particularly good or realistic one, but each to their own.

Btw, it's Frankenstein's monster. Frankenstein was the creator.

[petebuster1]

I'm not getting drawn into Frankenstein though not many called it monster, not having seen a real utahraptor i really couldn't say

[tyrantqueen]

You brought it up.

It doesn't have a name, but it is more accurate to call it  "Frankenstein's monster" rather than "Frankenstein" because that was the doctor's name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster

[petebuster1]

You brought it up.

It doesn't have a name, but it is more accurate to call it  "Frankenstein's monster" rather than "Frankenstein" because that was the doctor's name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein%27s_monster

i dont give a dam to be honest, go to another forum if you want discuss Frankenstein, i was simply giving an example

[DinoToyForum]

Let's not turn this into another feather debate thread. If it must be revisited, please direct the discussion to an existing thread dedicated to the topic Thanks! 

[DinoToyForum]

petebuster1 banned for continued rudeness after multiple warnings.

[sauroid]

i'm afraid he'll come back under another name... 

[tyrantqueen]

I misinterpreted his words when he said "not many have called it monster". I thought he was talking about the Frankenstein monster, and was attempting to discuss it further. But nevermind