On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai
yahoo.com.tw> wrote in
h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 21, 11:42Â pm, Augray
wrote:>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai
>>
yahoo.com.tw> wrote in
>> <9765e31d-5ab7-441c-abf3-dd44616fe...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>>>>>On Mar 20, 1:43Â am, Augray
wrote:>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:04:43 -0700 (PDT), Lin Liangtai
>>>>
yahoo.com.tw> wrote in
>>>> x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :>>
>>>>>The following links show a mummifieddinosaurcalledLeonardo, which
>>>>>is the world's best-preserveddinosaur.
>>>>>The most remarkable thing about thedinosauris that on the left side
>>>>>of its ribcage, each rib lost its upper halves while the lower halves
>>>>>are still covered with intact skin.
>>>>>Is there any natural instance like this? Is there any skin as
>>>>>obstinate as this one, except humans?
>>
>>>>>Photo 1: the wholedinosaurduring excavation.
>>>>> Â Â Â Â Note the skin still covers the remaining lower halves of its
>>>>>ribs.
>>
>>
>>>> The section within the rectangle never had any ribs. It's above the
>>>> point where the ribs articulate with the vertebrae.
>>
>>>It's not above, but below, the point where the ribs articulated with
>>>the vertebrae.
>
>Distorted was the remains of Dinosaur Elvis, which was totally
>different from the undistorted Dinosaur Leonardo.
Where is Elvis distorted?
>Look at the right
>side of Leonardo's ribcage, and you will find yourself defeated by
>your own tendency for unreal things for your vested interest.
There's a certain irony in that statement.
>I have
>given you too much time to repent, but you are still as obstinate as
>Leonardo's skin. That's why 90%% of people go to hell and stay there
>for a long time. OK, back to the topic. Can you find your "tendons"
>network between frills and ribs on the right-hand side of the
>ribcage?
Who said that there were any tendons on the right-hand side of the
ribcage?
>Let me quote your source article:
>Week of Oct. 19, 2002;
>
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021019/fob2.asp
>"Much of the left side of the dinosaur was relatively flattened, with
>skin drawn taut against ribs and other bones."
>quote says Michael J. Everhart of Fort Hays State University in Hays,
>Kansas. "Something had to shut down the normal process of
>decomposition within just a few days," he notes. "It's difficult to
>explain." end of quote
So?
>Another quote from the caption of Kodak's X-ray photo:
>
> "Radiographic and photographic images of Leonardo's ribcage.
> There is no evidence of healing around the broken ribs, suggesting
>they occurred post-mortem."
And?
Also note that the same page states that "the mummification process
also preserved a network of tendons..."
>Leonardo's flattened left side was clearly spread out in my following
>new pictures
We can't see his left side, because he's laying on it. All of your
pictures show Leonardo's *right* side.
The arrows supposedly pointing to vertebrae actually seem to be
pointing to parts of the ribs.
The object that you identify as a scale is in fact the top of a neural
spine of one of the vertebrae.
Well, *some* flattening has obviously taken place, unless you're going
to claim that Leonardo was only three or four feet wide while alive.
>Leonardo's left
>side was not flattened below its right side. If it was below its right
>side, how does one know it was "flattened" when no CT was done on it ?
Because he was dug out of the ground, and they had to remove whatever
was below him to get him to whatever building he's now housed in. Just
as a side-note, Leonardo was found with the right side of his body
facing down. The pictures we see present him upside-down in relation
to how he was buried.
>Where do you think its vertebrae/spine was?
The parts that you identify as part of the "frill" are the tops
(neural spines) of vertebrae, and the small towers of bone are
Transverse Processes of the same vertebrae. Does that give you an
idea?
>Let's not talk about your "tendons" claim, as it does not concern the
>subject.
It does if you're going to claim that they're really blood vessels.
>>>Intact skin is found in the area above/around the
>>>rectangle.
>>>The rectangle area is now a depression ( a hole cut by Cretaceous
>>>men).
>>
>> Why men? Why not some other intelligent creature? (Assuming, of
>> course, that your interpretation of deliberate removal of ribs is
>> correct.)
>>
>>>The rectangle area is below the level of the skin around the
>>>depression. This rectangle area shows in many of the photos I
>>>mentioned, including the X-ray photo taken by Kodak Co. The Kodak X-
>>>ray photo caption identifies "damaged bones", which lie in the
>>>rectangle area.
>>
>> How do you know that it's in your rectangle area? I'd suggest that
>> it's elsewhere. Also, note that the caption states that the ribs are
>> "broken", and not "removed".
>>
>>>> Even if I accept
>>>> thatribswere there, you've presented no evidence that they were cut
>>>> by men.
>>
>>>There has never been  any natural case in which many ribs were broken
>>>in half, with the upper halves missing and lower halves still covered
>>>by intact skin.
>>
>> You haven't demonstrated that this is the case.
>>
>>>Only humans could do it.
>>
>> Why? Why couldn't some other intelligent form of life do it?
>>
>>
>>>> The features you claim to have been blood vessels are in fact tendons.
>>>How could tendons contain numerous mostly erythrocyte-like objects?
>>
>> You haven't demonstrated that there are any erythrocyte-like objects
>> present. See the end of this post.
>>
>>>Tendons contain mostly collagen ( I have just checked tendon histology
>>>images on the web).
>>>It's bigger dinosaur called Alvis, not Leonardo.
>>
>> I know. I was simply offering a more encompassing view of the anatomy,
>> as well as pointing out that Leonardo was not unique in that regard.
>>
>>>Do you know the
>>>diameter of dinosaurs' erythrocytes? They were round and concave with
>>>a diameter of 18-25 microns, almost four times those of human
>>>erythrocytes.
>>
>> In other words, you could line up 40 of them within a millimeter,
>> correct?
>>
>>>Dinosaurs' blood vessels could thus be very large,
>>
>> What does that have to do with the size of dinosaur blood vessels,
>> other than the fact that 18-25 microns would be their minimum
>> diameter?
>>
>>>visible when taken with high-resolution cameras, especially when the
>>>original image has been expanded 400%% (see the Kodak original image in
>>>Photo 4's pdf file named "Expandable original Kodak photo in PDF"
>>
>>
>>>> How is that relevant to your claim?
>>
>>>The caption under the Kodak X-ray photo confirms the bones (ribs) were
>>>damaged to the left of the frills and the right ribs.
>>
>> It doesn't say where the x-ray was taken on Leonardo.
>>
>>>>>Photo 4: Kodak photos, expandable to 300%% of their original sizes,
>>>>>show remains of blood vessels and red blood cells in the area where
>>>>>ribsare missing. These blood vessels remains are still visible to
>>>>>all
>>>>>visitors to the Houston museum which houses the fossil at present.
>>
>>>> How big would red blood cells have to be to be visible to the naked
>>>> eye?
>>
>> Well?
>>
>>
>>>> I see no evidence of red blood cells. Nor do there appear to be any
>>>> blood vessels visible.
>>>Did you expand the PDF file to 400%% and see the last second photo with
>>>my arrows pointing to small oval/round dots? Â I thought you had good
>>>eyesight before.
>>
>> I do, and I don't see any evidence of red blood cells.
>>
>> Let's do some math: If you blow up your "Expandable Original PDF photo
>> of Kodak Co..pdf" to 1200%% while looking at the photo in question
>> (which is just above the radiograph on page 2), you can see individual
>> pixels. Assume for a moment that each pixel is the size of an
>> erythrocyte, 25 microns in diameter. This would mean that 1 millimeter
>> would be 40 pixels long, and, since the photo is roughly 600 pixels
>> wide, the entire bottom of the photo shows an area only 15 millimeters
>> wide. Since several ribs are visible in the background, that
>> conclusion is obviously ludicrous, since each rib would then be only a
>> few millimeters distant from its neighbor.
>>
>> However, since each pixel was assumed to be the size of a erythrocyte,
>> that would mean that in reality each pixel covers an area *larger*
>> than 25 microns, and so there's no way that erythrocytes can be seen
>> in this picture.
Can I assume that you agree with this?
