-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Buddy Davis's Excellent Alaskan Adventure (Potholer54)
- Thread starter mick1le2pick
- Start date
I'm not trying to be picky, but you're posting a lot of videos of people most of us are subscribed to already. In fact, I doubt anyone here isn't subscribed to potholer...
Is there any specific issue you want to talk about or are you just posting for the sake of it?
Is there any specific issue you want to talk about or are you just posting for the sake of it?
Well, since the video is posted here now, I thought I would comment on it here, rather than on youtube. Hopefully this won't get confusing.
My issue is with the supposed Lambeosaurus jawbone, if it actually is a jawbone, but I'll deal with that later. The picture I found in their book was poor quality even at a large size, but I'll work with it. First, I want to discuss their interpretation of the jawbone itself. They wrote in their book that they believe the animal it once belonged to was at least 40 feet long. Two problems with that: 1) Even if we agree that it is one of the two known Lambeosaurus species (L. lambei and L. magnicristatus), neither of them reached 40 feet as an adult. Subtract 10 feet and you'd have a more accurate estimate. The only explanation for this that I can think of is that there was previously a potential third species called L. laticaudus, which could grow to 40 feet in length, and was recently renamed and moved to a different genus called Magnapaulia. So, they could not have known this at the time. However, while claiming that Lambeosaurus is the largest Hadrosaur, they included a picture of the smaller L. lambei . Also, Shantungosaurus is the largest known Hadrosaur, as it was prior to the publication of their book.
2) I'm not sure if they believe their jaw is complete or a fragment, so I'll consider both. If complete, what they found isn't all that big. Looking at the picture I linked above, they included a sharpie for scale. An adult would have a jaw at least twice as long, meaning that this would have belonged to a much smaller animal. The vast majority of Hadrosaur fossils found in the Liscomb bed area are of juveniles (more specifically late juveniles and subadults, when you read the scientific literature), and this is even mentioned in the book. If fragmentary, it still doesn't preclude a massive animal or an astonishing new find, especially in consideration of the presence of subadults.
This brings me to my second point. Speaking of the types of Hadrosaur fossils found at the Liscomb fossil beds, none have ever actually been attributed to Lambeosaurus. Researchers document that Edmontosaurus is by far the most common fossil found in the area, as well as the only Hadrosaur. If these creationists did manage to find a jawbone, chances are it belongs to an Edmontosaurus. So, which is it? Honestly, I'm not sure it's either.
Third point. With the picture I provided, admittedly it was difficult at first to tell what I was looking at. What I believe they want us to see is the right outer or left inner side of an intact mandible. In Hadrosaurids, the mandible is comprised of the predentary (basically the tip of the mouth), the dentary (the largest bone which houses the teeth and articulates with the upper jaw by means of the coronoid process), and the surangular (back of the jawbone). Here's a drawing of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus skull, which came from here (it's restricted access, so I had to find another source for the picture). The mandible is of course the lower jawbone and is labeled like this: pd = predentary, d = dentary, and sa = surangular. Take note of the protrusion on the dentary that's behind the teeth and sticks up into the bones labeled m and j (maxilla and jugal, in case you're wondering). This is the coronoid process. And for good measure, here's a good picture of a host of Edmontosaurus skulls from wikipedia :link. As a side note, juvenile maxillae don't deviate significantly in appearance from those belonging to adults.
So, there's your basic Hadrosaur jaw. Does that look anything like the jaw that was found in the video and included in the book? Alright, I'll allow that it's a similar shape to some extent, but other than that, no. Even if we say that the jaw was severely deformed during the fossilization process, or if it's just a broken fragment of the dentary, there are some major problems. The shape of the dentary is all wrong, even if it were compressed or squished in some way. Anything resembling a premaxilla and surangular seems to be absent. In fact, in the place where the surangular or its point of attachment would be (immediately behind the coronoid process, which I interpreted as that little piece that 'sticks up'), is instead an odd, large, and rounded extension of bone. Also, you can see a row of parallel lines on the bottom of the "jaw", which could in some way resemble a dental battery (essentially a set of tooth rows). Apart from it looking a little too straight, the main problem is that it extends far past the supposed coronoid process, which it absolutely should not. Even a piece of it has broken off, the coronoid process itself is positioned too far forward. I suppose someone may argue that this is all due to severe deformation and breakage, but all of these pieces appear to be firmly attached as a single element. So here you have a supposed consolidated jawbone, and yet things are out of place.
Based on this, I could make a couple of conclusions. This jawbone could be nothing more than a case of mistaken identity, and it's little more than an interesting result of weathering on the rock it's supposed to be embedded in. Afterall, the inside of the rock seems to be the same colour as the jaw. It could also be a forgery. Or, I could be misinterpreting the photos and it could indeed be a jaw as they say it is.
That brings me to my final point. If it is indeed a genuine dinosaur fossil, that's not necessarily good news for the authors of this book. The collection of any vertebrate fossil from federal or state land without a permit in Alaska is illegal. So I decided to see who owned the land around the Liscomb bone bed, which is on the Colville river. If I understand correctly, it's included in the NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska), which means it's owned by the federal government: BLM. I also looked over the requirements for a permit. I don't think the members of the Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure qualify. In short, you basically have to be a degreed paleontologist. So, unless I've misunderstood something, which is entirely possible, this may be one of the reasons why there hasn't been any further information published on this jawbone or the other 200 pounds of fossil material they collected. ???? :|
The end.
Edit: made some additions and a few minor corrections.
My issue is with the supposed Lambeosaurus jawbone, if it actually is a jawbone, but I'll deal with that later. The picture I found in their book was poor quality even at a large size, but I'll work with it. First, I want to discuss their interpretation of the jawbone itself. They wrote in their book that they believe the animal it once belonged to was at least 40 feet long. Two problems with that: 1) Even if we agree that it is one of the two known Lambeosaurus species (L. lambei and L. magnicristatus), neither of them reached 40 feet as an adult. Subtract 10 feet and you'd have a more accurate estimate. The only explanation for this that I can think of is that there was previously a potential third species called L. laticaudus, which could grow to 40 feet in length, and was recently renamed and moved to a different genus called Magnapaulia. So, they could not have known this at the time. However, while claiming that Lambeosaurus is the largest Hadrosaur, they included a picture of the smaller L. lambei . Also, Shantungosaurus is the largest known Hadrosaur, as it was prior to the publication of their book.
2) I'm not sure if they believe their jaw is complete or a fragment, so I'll consider both. If complete, what they found isn't all that big. Looking at the picture I linked above, they included a sharpie for scale. An adult would have a jaw at least twice as long, meaning that this would have belonged to a much smaller animal. The vast majority of Hadrosaur fossils found in the Liscomb bed area are of juveniles (more specifically late juveniles and subadults, when you read the scientific literature), and this is even mentioned in the book. If fragmentary, it still doesn't preclude a massive animal or an astonishing new find, especially in consideration of the presence of subadults.
This brings me to my second point. Speaking of the types of Hadrosaur fossils found at the Liscomb fossil beds, none have ever actually been attributed to Lambeosaurus. Researchers document that Edmontosaurus is by far the most common fossil found in the area, as well as the only Hadrosaur. If these creationists did manage to find a jawbone, chances are it belongs to an Edmontosaurus. So, which is it? Honestly, I'm not sure it's either.
Third point. With the picture I provided, admittedly it was difficult at first to tell what I was looking at. What I believe they want us to see is the right outer or left inner side of an intact mandible. In Hadrosaurids, the mandible is comprised of the predentary (basically the tip of the mouth), the dentary (the largest bone which houses the teeth and articulates with the upper jaw by means of the coronoid process), and the surangular (back of the jawbone). Here's a drawing of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus skull, which came from here (it's restricted access, so I had to find another source for the picture). The mandible is of course the lower jawbone and is labeled like this: pd = predentary, d = dentary, and sa = surangular. Take note of the protrusion on the dentary that's behind the teeth and sticks up into the bones labeled m and j (maxilla and jugal, in case you're wondering). This is the coronoid process. And for good measure, here's a good picture of a host of Edmontosaurus skulls from wikipedia :link. As a side note, juvenile maxillae don't deviate significantly in appearance from those belonging to adults.
So, there's your basic Hadrosaur jaw. Does that look anything like the jaw that was found in the video and included in the book? Alright, I'll allow that it's a similar shape to some extent, but other than that, no. Even if we say that the jaw was severely deformed during the fossilization process, or if it's just a broken fragment of the dentary, there are some major problems. The shape of the dentary is all wrong, even if it were compressed or squished in some way. Anything resembling a premaxilla and surangular seems to be absent. In fact, in the place where the surangular or its point of attachment would be (immediately behind the coronoid process, which I interpreted as that little piece that 'sticks up'), is instead an odd, large, and rounded extension of bone. Also, you can see a row of parallel lines on the bottom of the "jaw", which could in some way resemble a dental battery (essentially a set of tooth rows). Apart from it looking a little too straight, the main problem is that it extends far past the supposed coronoid process, which it absolutely should not. Even a piece of it has broken off, the coronoid process itself is positioned too far forward. I suppose someone may argue that this is all due to severe deformation and breakage, but all of these pieces appear to be firmly attached as a single element. So here you have a supposed consolidated jawbone, and yet things are out of place.
Based on this, I could make a couple of conclusions. This jawbone could be nothing more than a case of mistaken identity, and it's little more than an interesting result of weathering on the rock it's supposed to be embedded in. Afterall, the inside of the rock seems to be the same colour as the jaw. It could also be a forgery. Or, I could be misinterpreting the photos and it could indeed be a jaw as they say it is.
That brings me to my final point. If it is indeed a genuine dinosaur fossil, that's not necessarily good news for the authors of this book. The collection of any vertebrate fossil from federal or state land without a permit in Alaska is illegal. So I decided to see who owned the land around the Liscomb bone bed, which is on the Colville river. If I understand correctly, it's included in the NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska), which means it's owned by the federal government: BLM. I also looked over the requirements for a permit. I don't think the members of the Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure qualify. In short, you basically have to be a degreed paleontologist. So, unless I've misunderstood something, which is entirely possible, this may be one of the reasons why there hasn't been any further information published on this jawbone or the other 200 pounds of fossil material they collected. ???? :|
The end.
Edit: made some additions and a few minor corrections.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Isotelus said:
If you are correct and Buddy Davis and his gang of creationists did not have the proper permits, then I hope Canada prosecutes them to the full extant of the law. Antiquity theft is a real problem and should be dealt with harshly.
he_who_is_nobody said:
Well, even if we wanted to, Canada couldn't prosecute them as Alaska isn't a Canadian province
. In either case, it does all seem very odd, doesn't it? I mean, I suppose it's possible they got the permit, but I read through a good chunk of the thing. It's intensely specific for the requirements, which are pretty harsh. But what if they didn't get it? Did they actually find anything, or did they make it all up? If they did find fossils and remove them, where are they now? It's just so bizarre.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Isotelus said:he_who_is_nobody said:
Well, even if we wanted to, Canada couldn't prosecute them as Alaska isn't a Canadian province
In either case, it does all seem very odd, doesn't it? I mean, I suppose it's possible they got the permit, but I read through a good chunk of the thing. It's intensely specific for the requirements, which are pretty harsh. But what if they didn't get it? Did they actually find anything, or did they make it all up? If they did find fossils and remove them, where are they now? It's just so bizarre.
:facepalm: Oh dear, I miss read that bad last night. I am going to blame that on it being so late at night. However, the sentiment I have is the same. I hope the U.S. takes Buddy and his gang of creationists down for this.
mumblingmickey
New Member
Inferno said:
Ohh but this one is really funny...
As I mentioned on the YT thread and will repeat here its a heart warming story.
5 men setting out on an adventure... all friends together... who face the dangers of overturning boats, wild and vicious rabbits who came from nowhere and forced their small craft to overturn in three feet of water... and find themselves having to snuggle up together in musty and soggy sleeping bags in the dark to keep warm, In the mountains, dressed as cowboys...
Five creationist men, with several distorted sexually prohibitive ideologies... let loose and free.
The excuse 'But we were just cuddling' springs to mind with memories of Brokeback Mountain.
Buddy there likely explained to his wife later he was so sure his friends were gay... because clearly there was a funny taste off their nobs!
Because after all how stupid can Buddys wife be? Shes never going to believe they were looking for fresh dinosaur bones. Its clearly a cover story for rampant bareback action in the woods!
Its not the story... its the reading between the lines....
WOW I think I'd make a super creationist.... If I had the balls to brain myself with a pen up the nose that is!
I'd say Buddy ended up walking like a wealthy street hooker.
Ohh yes... buddy got the bone alright!
lol
mumblingmickey
New Member
Well, even if we wanted to, Canada couldn't prosecute them as Alaska isn't a Canadian province
No but I'm pretty sure the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), would be interested in this little expedition...and Buddy had better hope he can persuade them he's just a stupid cretin trying to cash in on creationist nonsense.
Should we give it a bash and call them..... anyone here from the US that might offically complain as a citizen? I'm Irish so they won't give a rats arse what I complain about.
Isotelus said:he_who_is_nobody said:If you are correct and Buddy Davis and his gang of creationists did not have the proper permits, then I hope Canada prosecutes them to the full extant of the law. Antiquity theft is a real problem and should be dealt with harshly.
Well, even if we wanted to, Canada couldn't prosecute them as Alaska isn't a Canadian province
In either case, it does all seem very odd, doesn't it? I mean, I suppose it's possible they got the permit, but I read through a good chunk of the thing. It's intensely specific for the requirements, which are pretty harsh. But what if they didn't get it? Did they actually find anything, or did they make it all up? If they did find fossils and remove them, where are they now? It's just so bizarre.
Oh dear, I miss read that bad last night. I am going to blame that on it being so late at night. However, the sentiment I have is the same. I hope the U.S. takes Buddy and his gang of creationists down for this.
Ha, I figured you had just misread it
.You know, I just thought of this. They took their trip over a decade ago, and nothing about these bones has ever shown up. What if they already were 'taken down' for this and their fossils confiscated? Is that possible? Or, they didn't actually collect any fossils. I mean, they mistook some driftwood for a dinosaur bone. It's all so very odd.
But I'm curious, seeing as you have experience with archaelology/paleontology, what is your opinion on their Lambeosaurus jaw?
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Isotelus said:
Those are a good points. One could only hope.
Isotelus said:
I must say, that I cannot make heads or tails out of the picture they provided in the book. It does rather resemble a tooth battery, but I would not be able to identify what species, let alone type of animal, from the picture provided. It would be nice to see the fossil without the matrix around it. Furthermore, it would not surprise me if you were correct and they mistook wood for fossils or, as potholer54 points out, they mistook un-fossilized mammoth bones for dinosaur fossils. Either way, it would display a creationists amount of ignorance if either one of those possibilities were true. However, even taking wood off BLM land is illegal without the proper permits.