I think even scientists from the 80’s and 90’s were able to tell where some connective tissue would have been. So while they got the skin wrong, the overall shape wouldn’t be TOO far off. Also, Jurassic Park is what Hollywood thought dinosaurs looked like, not necessarily palentologists.
To me, this article feels more like “We have an extremely limited idea of the amount of knowledge scientists have. Here’s what a bunch of animals would look like if they were drawn by an idiot like we believe palentologists to be.” Like, some of those are clearly trying to deliberately get it wrong, like the house cat.
Then again, it is BuzzFeed. It’s not like they base their “journalism” on anything except feels.
The original Jurassic Park had a lot of support from paleontologists, and then deviated a bit but not enough for changing how “dinosaur” look in general.
Yes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/natashaumer/dinosaur-animals
a response
I approve of friend-shaped T-Rex.
such a fluffy boi
If friend shaped, why devouring me whole?
Sure…“friend.” I think upon meeting one, you would find how friendly the worm finds the songbird.
I think even scientists from the 80’s and 90’s were able to tell where some connective tissue would have been. So while they got the skin wrong, the overall shape wouldn’t be TOO far off. Also, Jurassic Park is what Hollywood thought dinosaurs looked like, not necessarily palentologists.
To me, this article feels more like “We have an extremely limited idea of the amount of knowledge scientists have. Here’s what a bunch of animals would look like if they were drawn by an idiot like we believe palentologists to be.” Like, some of those are clearly trying to deliberately get it wrong, like the house cat.
Then again, it is BuzzFeed. It’s not like they base their “journalism” on anything except feels.
The original Jurassic Park had a lot of support from paleontologists, and then deviated a bit but not enough for changing how “dinosaur” look in general.