On Mar 25, 11:15Â pm, Augray
wrote:> 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:
>
>> Â "Radiographic and photographic images of Leonardo's ribcage.
>> Â 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.
You are making a world-class joke in claiming that all my pictures
show Leonardo's "right" side.
Where are the pictures of Leonardo's left side? Non-existent as you
claimed its left side lay below its right side? No. 1 deceiver making
a joke bigger than evolutionism.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>>Leonardo's belly could have been cut open by Cretaceous men. That's
>>why its left side was spread out as if flattened while its right side,
>>and many other 3D dinosaurs, was not flattened at all.
>
> 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.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
