Jump to content

Paleontologist discovers site showing first hours after dinosaur-killing asteroid hit


Mojo Hand

Recommended Posts

On 3/29/2019 at 9:48 PM, Mojo Hand said:

This is astounding and almost beyond belief... 

I agree with this. I'm going to need to see the paper before I can really comment. Those are some sensational claims. He's going to need some pretty sensational evidence. Even if he actually does have an impact, it's going to be tough to tie it directly to the Chicxulub impact. 

Many of the important conclusions from this are going to rely on his field notes and mapping of things as they were excavated. He's going to need excellent field methods, mapping and notes to support that claim. 

I assume Steve Brusatte has seen an advance copy and I agree with his comment that if DePalma is claiming to have dinosaur fossils from this deposit, it is extremely disappointing that the paper apparently doesn't mention them. It's irresponsible to talk to the press about them if he has no intent to put them in the paper. Given he mis-identified turtle bone as dinosaur bone in a previous paper, we need to see these "dinosaur" fossils to make sure they are what he claims. They would be a very big deal. If they're legit, they're the highest and therefore youngest non-avian dinosaur fossils ever found. I'm very skeptical of this claim. given the fossils aren't in the paper. 

It doesn't sound like he's being very transparent so far either. That's not a terribly good sign. 

Edited by Pods
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Pods said:

I agree with this. I'm going to need to see the paper before I can really comment. Those are some sensational claims. He's going to need some pretty sensational evidence. Even if he actually does have an impact, it's going to be tough to tie it directly to the Chicxulub impact. 

Many of the important conclusions from this are going to rely on his field notes and mapping of things as they were excavated. He's going to need excellent field methods, mapping and notes to support that claim. 

I assume Steve Brusatte has seen an advance copy and I agree with his comment that if DePalma is claiming to have dinosaur fossils from this deposit, it is extremely disappointing that the paper apparently doesn't mention them. It's irresponsible to talk to the press about them if he has no intent to put them in the paper. Given he mis-identified turtle bone as dinosaur bone in a previous paper, we need to see these "dinosaur" fossils to make sure they are what he claims. They would be a very big deal. If they're legit, they're the highest and therefore youngest non-avian dinosaur fossils ever found. I'm very skeptical of this claim. given the fossils aren't in the paper. 

It doesn't sound like he's being very transparent so far either. That's not a terribly good sign. 

When you read that whole article it’s exciting til the end then begins to really fall on its face.  I still want to believe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Pods said:

I agree with this. I'm going to need to see the paper before I can really comment. Those are some sensational claims. He's going to need some pretty sensational evidence. Even if he actually does have an impact, it's going to be tough to tie it directly to the Chicxulub impact. 

Many of the important conclusions from this are going to rely on his field notes and mapping of things as they were excavated. He's going to need excellent field methods, mapping and notes to support that claim. 

I assume Steve Brusatte has seen an advance copy and I agree with his comment that if DePalma is claiming to have dinosaur fossils from this deposit, it is extremely disappointing that the paper apparently doesn't mention them. It's irresponsible to talk to the press about them if he has no intent to put them in the paper. Given he mis-identified turtle bone as dinosaur bone in a previous paper, we need to see these "dinosaur" fossils to make sure they are what he claims. They would be a very big deal. If they're legit, they're the highest and therefore youngest non-avian dinosaur fossils ever found. I'm very skeptical of this claim. given the fossils aren't in the paper. 

It doesn't sound like he's being very transparent so far either. That's not a terribly good sign. 

How bad was the turtle bone mistake?  On a scale from something like that can easily happen to he must completely suck to have made that mistake.

Do you know anything about the other authors on the paper that would support its credibility? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pods said:

I agree with this. I'm going to need to see the paper before I can really comment. Those are some sensational claims. He's going to need some pretty sensational evidence. Even if he actually does have an impact, it's going to be tough to tie it directly to the Chicxulub impact. 

Many of the important conclusions from this are going to rely on his field notes and mapping of things as they were excavated. He's going to need excellent field methods, mapping and notes to support that claim. 

I assume Steve Brusatte has seen an advance copy and I agree with his comment that if DePalma is claiming to have dinosaur fossils from this deposit, it is extremely disappointing that the paper apparently doesn't mention them. It's irresponsible to talk to the press about them if he has no intent to put them in the paper. Given he mis-identified turtle bone as dinosaur bone in a previous paper, we need to see these "dinosaur" fossils to make sure they are what he claims. They would be a very big deal. If they're legit, they're the highest and therefore youngest non-avian dinosaur fossils ever found. I'm very skeptical of this claim. given the fossils aren't in the paper. 

It doesn't sound like he's being very transparent so far either. That's not a terribly good sign. 

Well, there goes my dinosaur boner.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I like pods coming in to deflate everyone’s excitement about science. It’s about the most sciencey thing a scientist can do.

Ive got a hot little investment opportunity for you, called Theranos. Cutting edge science, no technical scientist bullshit.  

Edited by SydneyCarton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

But ocean front property was dirt cheap.

Speaking of which, after reading pods' post, maybe the guy's trying to lipstick-pig up some cheapo real estate in N. Dakota.  I mean, North Dakota and all... you ever been to North Dakota?

Edited by phdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2019 at 12:49 AM, ImissWallyPryor said:

This Steve Brusatte guy sounds like a little bitch.

Steve is actually a really awesome dude. One of the nicer, more humble guys in our field and very bright. He could hang at an old school shag happy hour just fine and y'all would like him. He recently wrote a dinosaur book. I picked it up at an airport book store and its pretty good. You won't need much background knowledge to read it, but you will also enjoy it you already know a lot too. 

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Dinosaurs-History-World/dp/0062490427

On 3/31/2019 at 11:01 AM, Dennis Taylor said:

Maybe this article was supposed to come out monday

Definitely should have. 

On 3/31/2019 at 11:33 AM, Mojo Hand said:

How bad was the turtle bone mistake?  On a scale from something like that can easily happen to he must completely suck to have made that mistake.

Do you know anything about the other authors on the paper that would support its credibility? 

Honestly, I can sort of see why he called it that. The turtle bone does superficially resemble the wishbone of that type of dinosaur. I might have thought that at first too. Granted, I have the benefit of hindsight, but the ridging on the edge is completely unlike any other wishbone I've ever seen and that would hopefully have given me pause. Those ridges indicate a suture (junction with another bone) that is long and gradually sloped. Another bone overlapped it for the entire length of those ridges. The wishbones are fused clavicles (our shoulder bones). They don't attach to anything gradually. 

That ridging is really noticeable and they probably should have caught that. It superficially looks like the sutures commonly found on fish bones. Not everyone gets a really broad comparative anatomy background, so it's a somewhat understandable mistake. Fundamentally, it doesn't change anything else about the fossil. 

Here's the figure from the paper comparing it to other wishbones. His fossil is labeled A. Note the weird ridges on the right that don't appear on any other specimen in the image. 

f06_01.jpg

Here it is compared to turtle plastron pieces, which it is. 

fig-1-2x.jpg

 

 

Quote

Do you know anything about the other authors on the paper that would support its credibility?

I am friends with Phil Manning and I know Pete Larson in passing. Phil can be a brilliant scientist, but he's out on the edge a lot, which can be boom or bust. He's also a really good hype man, so you have to keep that in mind with his stuff. 

Edited by Pods
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...