A New ‘T. rex’… with Feathers?

This is the brand-new Tyrannosaurus reconstruction at the American Museum of Natural History in New York–complete with feathers. Scientists “know” T. rex had feathers because “closely related species” about a twentieth his size have left fossils with traces of something that might be feathers. So that’s how they “know.”

Sorry, I’m not buying this. For one thing, it looks shabby–more like a “winosaur” than a “dinosaur.” I mean, really, Turok Son of Stone would’ve laughed himself silly if he ever saw a Tyrannosaur that looked like a worn-out feather duster. Or a worn-out 1960s celebrity trying to make a comeback on a 1990s TV talk show.

See the source image

Oh, well… If you can’t idly speculate about dinosaurs, what can you idly speculate about?

Make it idle enough and you just might win a chair at a prestige university.

About leeduigon

I have lived in Metuchen, NJ, all my life. I have been married to my wife Patricia since 1977. I am a former newspaper editor and reporter. I was also the owner-operator of my own small business for several years. I wrote various novels and short stories published during 1980s and 1990s. I am a long-time student of judo and Japanese swordsmanship (kenjutsu). I also play chess, basketball, and military and sports simulations. View all posts by leeduigon

17 responses to “A New ‘T. rex’… with Feathers?

  • unknowable2

    Much of these “findings” are simply speculation.

    • leeduigon

      Dinosaur skeletons set my imagination on fire. Nothing quite like being 10 years old in 1959 and standing there, looking up at the T. rex skeleton in the American Museum of Natural History.

      Somehow the high-tech, tarted-up, newfangled exhibits just don’t do anything for me.

      • unknowable2

        It’s become a fairy tale. I’ve watched some of these computer animated dinosaur shows and, as impressive as they are, they are no more real than a cartoon. They can derive some information from fossils, but detailed behavioral information is mostly conjecture.

        I have watched many science programs in my day, including Cosmos. There are some fine videos out there made by Christians who seek to explain matters from a biblical perspective and have come up with some impressive information. Frequently this is packaged as Intelligent Design, which is an attempt to simply prove the existence of a source for the design inherent in all of creation. They don’t seek to define God or turn this into a theological discussion, not because of a desire to deny God’s existence, but because they want to confine the discussion to the science behind evolution and, more to the point, the impossibility of natural selection providing the information necessary to design the elements of life.

        The Discovery Institute has some good videos and the Is Genesis History series has has presented some very interesting information on geology, The Flood and climate data related to The Flood.

  • stevescountry

    Amazing how they can put feathers on T. Rex without ever finding any proof of such. Interesting that when they find dino skin impressions it shows scaly skin, not feathers. And that fuzz they find sometimes certainly isn’t feathers! But they need some proof for their idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds! So they invent proof and people believe it because scientists said it. Sad. Enjoy your blog by the way!

  • evreilly

    One of my favorite books is “Tornado in a Junkyard.” It does a great job of showing how ridiculous it is to think that all this stupendously complicated creation came about by chance. Okashii-yo!

  • evreilly

    This is fun. I’d like to learn more Japanese. If I need a particular phrase, can I ask Joshua?

  • evreilly

    I’ll think of something!

  • Joshua

    Aaaaauuugghhh!!! Now THAT is a catastrophe of a caricature!!!

Leave a Reply to unknowable2 Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: