Talk:Tyrannosaurus/@comment-151.229.227.92-20150717174315/@comment-28123829-20170821100933

Now you are just looking like someone who either can't bare to be wrong, or doesn't know of any conflicting evidence and so simply accepts it as true regardless as you are offering no rebuttal to my statements just a "you are wrong". Most people who I have witnessed use this behaviour have multiple different authors/ commenters giving them reasons for how they could be wrong or why they are, yet these people fail to give a rebuttal and just say "you are wrong" . If I am wrong tell me, how come the video you saw has info not mentioned anywhere else in the scientific community yet is regarded as true, all I can find on UCMP 137538 that dates to the 2016/2017 period are papers casting doubt on UCMP's assignment to T. rex or bringing up issues with scaling again another quote from a different source based on the second issue: "But the fact we only have metatarsals makes scaling impossible, since some specimens, like BHI 3033, actually have larger feet than FMNH PR 2081's despite being 10.9 metres (for BHI 3033). I don't think we should try scaling this specimen, we only have the metatarsals that don't look much like FMNH PR 2081's metatarsals, and we don't know their exact placement therefore making scaling unreliable, further remains may be needed to sort this issue out."

The main problem they have highlighted in this paper is that Tyrannosaur individuals have very different metatarsals to each other (despite being the same species, an example of individual variation at work) so comparing a single metatarsal to only a single individual to scale up from is unreliable, which is what they did for UMCP they scaled up FMNH PR 2081 until the metatarsal's matched in size, despite BHI 3033 having similar sized metatarsals to UCMP while only being 10.9 m in length.

So even with UMCP accepted as a Tyrannosaurus rex (although there is still debate on this as there is on most things in the palaeontological community) [if you're wondering about the spelling of palaeontology v paleontology, palaeontology is the one used here in the UK and is more accurate to the true meaning (the word coming from the Greek palaeos meaning ancient)], the 50 feet long estimates may not be accurate for UCMP based on individual variation of the feet of T. rex the only specimen sized up for the 50 feet long estimate is Sue as if it is definite that UCMP belongs to an individual with the same proportions as Sue when it is not certain due to lack of remains.

If there are no rebuttals in an argument or discussion from one side, that side is usually the weakest and fails as most people will ridicule such commenters (I don't ridicule them, I do try to tell them that the way they comment comes across as such). The fact that you are not rebutting my statements or even providing links to the video you saw this info on so that I can see whether or not the video uses reliable sources makes it seem (to me and possibly to others reading the conversation) that you have never been engaged in an argument or discussion where the other author/commenter has given a detailed rebuttal with quotes from scientific papers that have been published in the community (which is quite hard to do actually only half of all scientific papers actually get published those that do get published having been checked for accuracy, bias [preventing bias that is], etc.)(although I have trouble linking them in as you will have seen above with [PMID 24802911]. This link works on Wikipedia and other websites such as Prehistoric Wildlife, Wikispecies, etc.. (although I rarely use such websites, I have been on them and have seen this publication linked from said websites and added them onto other articles on the websites [Wikipedia especially]). Also, might I ask as to why you are not rebutting my arguments and are merely stating that I am wrong (which can kind of be unproductive as the argument or discussion often ends with both sides agreeing to disagree at this point).