DINOSAURS LARGER THAN THEY SOULD BE IN JP TLW AND JP///:
(IN APPEARNCE:)
Velociraptor: 6 feet in JP and TLW, 5 feet in JP3. In Jurassic Park, The Lost World, the raptors were two feet larger than they should be. JP3's raptor was only one foot off.
Brachiosaurus: 10 feet off, in each appearnce.
TRICERATOPS: Don't even think that he was larger than he should.
T-rex: Nope.
Spino: yes.
Pterandon: Who the Charchardontosaurus would he wasn't larger than he should be: Quetzicoatli sized.
STEGO: Fine.
ANKYLO: Too small
Ceratasaurus: WAY WAY too big.
from Alpha Male Deinonychus, age 9, Worker Village (coming soon), Isla Sorna NO MAN'S LAND, South America; September 29, 2001

Its stupid how in all the jurrasic parks the raptors and T Rex (JP3 hasn't come out in New Zealand where I live yet)And its stupid how they make Dilophosaurus spit poison and have a big frill.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

"It doesn't look like Utahraptor is built for speed."

I didn't think so too, in fact, I doubt the ability of this animal to be capable of swarming their prey like their smaller counterparts suposedly did at all! In fact, I doubt they can even jump much to be of any use, and at such weights, a fall could be deterimental to their health anyway. No wonder their forelimb claws were more blade-like, prehaps, an adaptation for a more forelimb-centric way of hunting prey, the limb would have been used much less.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 27, 2001

"The length of the Utahraptor tibia was somewhat of a surprise to the senior author as it did not measure at twice the length of the tibia from Deinonychus [Ostrom, 1969, 1976]. However, it was noted that the maximum proximal dimension was approximately twice that of Deinottychus.

Bakker [personal communication] has suggested that this measurement is compatible with an animal of twice the size of Deinonychus, but suggests that the tibia may have been relatively shorter. This suggests a tibia of approximately the same length as the femur, as in other large theropods and diffeting from Deinonychus, which has a shorter femur [Ostrom, 1976].

Currie [personal communication] reports that this is not surprising as the length of the tibia increases with negative allometry in comparison with the femur in both ontogenetic and interspecific series of theropods."

Kirkland, Gaston, and Burge, 1993.

It doesn't look like Utahraptor is built for speed.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 26, 2001

"The Utahraptor has a max. speed of 80 miles per hour, they were smart as chimpanzees, they had groups called flocks."

Both those estimates are a little _over_estimated, to say the least.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 25, 2001

Alpha Male Deinonychus: The science forum is for science, not wild speculation.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 25, 2001

"Gloman don't be stupid".
It is u who is stupid.U shouldn't insult me because of my Human post post.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.That is childish!If u are going to attack and insult me for one post,then I am not interested in your opinion.This makes me very mad!
P.S.I'm sure JC would agree with me.
from An angry Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 25, 2001
Yes, I'd like to see all personal attacks stopped. If someone disagrees with something someone says, they should counter with a better a argument (if they can). JC

I've noticed this in the dinoart section:

Honkie Tong/ Billy Macdraw

Heh heh...though there has been some speculation as to if we are really the same person, and though we do work together when planning the dino stories, we are really two different people. I would prefer it if the dino pictures were simply stated under my name solely. It would do go to clear up any confusion. Mainly Bill does the stories while I do the graphics.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 20, 2001

Ouch. How come is it, you are probaly thinkin' is it that Double G is everywhere in this Web Site. I'm just actin' like a real JP nut. Mr. Joel W. the JP/// raptor is Deinochus. Allow mau to take out some text from a Dinosauria book I have...: "DEINOCHUS (dyn-on-ik-us) A mean-looking Early Cretaceous THEROPOD. Blah, blah, blah, biped was IX (nine feet) feet long, V (5, cripes! you have to learn Roman Numrals!) feet tall and weighed 175 lbs (pounds)." Ah... NAH! JP///'s Raptor was 5 feet tall, 9 feet long, and 175 to 500 pounds. Right JC? So do argee that JP///'s raptor is a Deinochus?
P.S: JP1 and 2's raptors were UTAHRAPTORS.
Double PS: Who has the JP/// soundtrack??? I do. Birthyday present. See ya' later! If Double G lives to become stage 2, Alpha Male Deinochus...!
from Gojira/Godzillasaurus, age 9, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

When he said "Humans have the highest stamina point of any creature on earth".He also meant that we are harder to kill than an elephant.He thinks that one shotgun blast can kill an elephant,while it takes more than one shotgun blasts to kill us.I know for a fact that elephants have a very thick hide and need a special kind of gun to kill.I think if someone shot me with one shotgun blast I'd die.
P.S.Thank u for agreeing with me.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

"Humans have the highest stamina point of any creature on earth"

He could be right. In terms of land animals, Humans do rest on the higher side of the stanima scale. That means, they can keep moving at a rate beyond their normal walking speed for quite some time (this rate need not be very fast). Humans certainly have a lot more stamina than your cheetah or lion (in the long race, humans will always catch up and outpace any predatory cat). But before we start boasting however, a typical wolve or horse, dedicated long range runners, have far, far more stanima than us. And aquatic mammals have even more. Let's boast about our intelligence instead.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 19, 2001

How has the information on fossils helped scientist better understand the enviroment.
from Wassi.h, age 15, sydney, ?, Australa; September 19, 2001

I have a friend who says "Humans have the highest stamina point of any creature on earth".Wats^ with that???
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 18, 2001

"the new version of the 'raptor seemed really big. were they larger than the previous versions, or was it just me?"

I think it was just you because the old raptors were bigger, I think they had to make the new raptors smaller because of the complaints about the size.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

Sorry brad but I don't have any action figures.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

"The raptors were to big the spino was to big and the t-rex may of been to big and all of them were to smart, especially the raptors and the spinosaurus's head was shaped wrong wasn't it?"

You're talking about JP3, right? Those 'raptors were huge, although they probably weren't too big for Utahraptor. Unfortunately, Dr. Grant never tells us what type of 'raptor the new breed is.

If all of the dinosaurs were too big, maybe the humans were just too small? :) (Compare JP1 and JP3 Dr. Grant action figures) :)

The Spinosaurus head might have been made wider and more robust in the movie for the puurpose of T. rex killing, but I don't know much about the skull of the real Spinosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 17, 2001

You aren't kidding Brad. Those raptors weighed atleast 4 times more than regular raptors and were twice as tall, do you guys think they may have even been near that smart though.
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 17, 2001

"The raptors were to big the spino was to big and the t-rex may of been to big and all of them were to smart, especially the raptors and the spinosaurus's head was shaped wrong wasn't it?"

You're talking about JP3, right? Those 'raptors were huge, although they probably weren't too big for Utahraptor. Unfortunately, Dr. Grant never tells us what type of 'raptor the new breed is.

If all of the dinosaurs were too big, maybe the humans were just too small? :) (Compare JP1 and JP3 Dr. Grant action figures) :)

The Spinosaurus head might have been made wider and more robust in the movie for the puurpose of T. rex killing, but I don't know much about the skull of the real Spinosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 17, 2001

The raptors were to big the spino was to big and the t-rex may of been to big and all of them were to smart, especially the raptors and the spinosaurus's head was shaped wrong wasn't it?
from Chris.W, age 15, Gwinnett, Georgia, USA; September 16, 2001

DILOPHOSAURUS MUST HAVE BEEN VERY INTELLIGENT BECAUSE T-REX WAS FAIRLY SMART.
from BA, age 9, MCKINNY, TEXAS, USA; September 15, 2001

"Well, okay you are right but still... if they are Utahraptors they would not be that smart."

IMHO, it is unlikely that any real dromaeosaurid behaved like the 'raptors in JP3. We don't know how smart Utahraptor was relative to Velociraptor, because the braincase of Utahraptor isn't known. When I watched JP3, the new version of 'raptor seemed really big. Were they larger than the previous versions, or was it just me?

"Raptors are smart, but not that smart."

Are you talking about the Dromaeosauridae, or modern predatory birds?

"After all, Troodontids are the smartest. With Velociraptors mouth, he should be classified as a Troodontid."

Don't base classifications on the vocabulary of a movie monster. Remember, troodonts are named for their teeth, and the mouth of Velociraptor holds dromaeosaurid, not troodont, teeth.

"Oh, and humans are the dominant species because of our intelligence.
Intelligence rules, not brawn."

Dominant species? Hey, this is the age of arthropods! (Gould 1989)

"If the extinction did not happen, we would still dominate."

We would probably not exist if the K-T extinction event had not happened.

"The Dinosaurs would evolve eventually into birds, and the herbivores would propably be hunted for sport!"

Dinosaurs had already evolved into birds by the Jurassic period. I wouldn't expect every theropod family to eventually repeat that.
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; September 11, 2001

Well, okay you are right but still... if they are Utahraptors they would not be that smart.
Raptors are smart, but not that smart. That is my point.
An extended vocabulary like that is very, very uncommon.
Oviraptor could speak like a parrot or cockatoo with that mouth.
After all, Troodontids are the smartest.
With Velociraptors mouth, he should be classified as a Troodontid.
Oh, and humans are the dominant species because of our intelligence.
Intelligence rules, not brawn.
If the extinction did not happen, we would still dominate.
The Dinosaurs would evolve eventually into birds, and the herbivores would propably be hunted for sport!
if the extinction did not happen, we would have huge 15 meter birds flying everywhere.
hehehehe. Remember, Evolution is always happening every second you speak.
Humans will in a few million years, evolve.
We will rule forever!
Just watch out for that comet.
from Joel W, age 12, Wodonga, Victoria, Australia; September 10, 2001

Jurrasic park \\\ couldve been much more accurate . Velociraptors were over sized , in all jp movies they were bigger than adult humans they are smaller. They also made velocirapters smart . Sure theres no proof they were not smart but brain size to body weight they were dumber than a troodon which were as smart as a modern day bird . They over sized the spinosaurus because the movie guys ran out of ideas . It was a fisher . They couldve at least made his teeth fall out . In real life t-rexs lived in north america and asia . Spinosaurus lived in africa so they couldnt of fought each other anyway . They showeshowed procompsognathus for about a split second and they undersized it like in jp2 .

jp is all fake . Could someone tell me what else is fake and what kind of pterasaur was in jp\\\ .
from Bill k, age 11, toronto, ontario, canada; September 10, 2001

"ABout the raptors in JP3:

Velociraptors..."

I don't recall anyone referring to the 'raptors in JP3 as Velociraptor. They just as likely may have been Utahraptor*.

*Forgetting for the moment that they don't really exist!
from Brad, age 14, Fenelon Falls, ON, Canada; September 10, 2001

ABout the raptors in JP3:

Velociraptors, as you all should know, are feathered dromaeosaurids
as large as a fairly large dog (one metre tall, two metres long).
It could communicate (propably), but I think it could only produce
a series of chirps or growls. It propably could'nt make the "twa twa"
sound, and something that small could'nt possibly make the sound that it makes when trapped in the wire (you know, "he's calling for help").
Also it had a long, slender flat snout. Disney deserves a round of applause because of the raptors in "Dinosaur". See their snout?
That is what I am talking about. Ofcourse, their size is bugered.
Utahraptor IS the JP3 raptor, but bigger still. Lets hope they have a accurate Utahraptor in Raptor Red.

Spinosaurus.

Good old Spinosaurus in JP3 dissapointed me. Yes, itwas the largest therepod in the Mesozoic era. But it would loose all teeth trying to crack good old rexy's neck! And if it rammed into a fence like that, it would come close to cracking all bones in it's body! Tyrannosaurus would rip the holymoly out of SPino with jaws like that. Oh Jack Horner, you dissapoint me. He did'nt even have a say on Raaptor size at all! Jurassic pak should belong to another paleo. So forget Spino, T-rex, Giganotosaurus and carcharodontosaurus kane the world of carnivorous reptiles!

But everyone remember, these were the largest LAND carnivores. Liopleurodon rules!
from Joel W, age 12, Wodonga, Victoria, Australia; September 9, 2001

Thats all this about super markets , we still use weopons to kill animals. a supermarket saves you the dirty work . Humans would be very weak without brains thats probably why we evolved them.
from bill k, age 25, bkfjghslkfj:LJ, ghjfgukflgiyl, canada; September 9, 2001

"Using wepons doesn't make u advanced.Or a smart guy.It is very rare to see someone kill big game with thier bare hands instead of useing the help of other things like weapons and supermarkets."

We humans are the most advanced species to walk this Earth. We are the smartest, the most resourcesful, and have the most complicated thinking skills of all animals. Everything uses a weapon to take something down, whether it's natural or advanced or not.
from Jason, age 13, Dayton, Ohio, USA; September 8, 2001

I'm just wondering.Will Humans still be Humans in 1 billion years?Evolution does continue.Just a thought.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 7, 2001

Sorry about my last post,I was wrong.I meant to say that without supermarkets and weapons Humans would be weaker.I still think that supermarkets are not that advanced and will get better in the future.
P.S.Thank you for pointing out that I was wrong.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 6, 2001

Thanks for pointing that out for me Brad. By the way I did mean the theropod gigantosaurus, but you and Chandler are right, they really should come up with a better name for it.
from Skeptic, age 13, ?, ?, Canada; September 5, 2001

""Gigantosaurus", unfortunately, is a dubious sauropod genus. It's been used to cover Pelorosaurus, Barosaurus, Malawisaurus and Janenschia, and has no validity in modern paleontology. Maybe you're thinking of the theropod Giganotosaurus? Don't worry, it happens all of the time. Giganotosaurus really needed a more unique name."

I agree. It's easy to read "Giganotosaurus" and accidentally interpret it as "Gigantosaurus" or "Giangosaurus" or something. Maybe it should have been called "Carolinisaurus giganteus" or something, hehe.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 5, 2001

"Gigantosaurus was a monster, with a 6 foot long skull and long, slim teeth. He was 12 feet tall at the hip and 43 feet long. Gigantosaurus was truly a force to be reckoned with, king to all he surveyed, and was powerful enough to take down even some of the largest creatures on earth, the Titanisaurs."

"Gigantosaurus", unfortunately, is a dubious sauropod genus. It's been used to cover Pelorosaurus, Barosaurus, Malawisaurus and Janenschia, and has no validity in modern paleontology. Maybe you're thinking of the theropod Giganotosaurus? Don't worry, it happens all of the time. Giganotosaurus really needed a more unique name.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; September 5, 2001

I think I going to stick to this message board because the Dino talk one is getting crowded with all this wrestler talk. Anyway.

"Question, skeptic. What was the most dangerous non-tyrannosaurid? Note that this is a trick question."

Well, a trick question, eh? I'll have to think real hard about it. Actually, in my eyes this is really more of a matter of opinion. There is a wide selection of strong theropods other than the tyrannosauridae (though none are as strong as our champinon, Tyrannosaurus Rex).

First, there's the dromeasaurs, which include Velociraptor, Utahraptor, Megaraptor, etc. (though I've noticed that there have been some indescrepancies of the classification of these animals). These magnificent creatures are well noted for the fact that they were highly intelligent, head and shoulders above most dinosaurs in terms of E.Q. (except the Troodontids, which were as equally as smart if not smarter than the raptors). Some people may underestimate the importance of intelligence in a species so lets keep in mind that we humans are where we are today because of our own intelligence.

In addition to this, it is also thought that raptors live in packs (though we aren't positively sure). Now, if this is true, this could have made raptors much more dangerous than if they were solitary predators. If they were capable of communicating and getting along in groups, then raptors may have been able to take down large herbivores like a ceratopsian, which normally could have even given a tyrannosaurid a hard time.

Even on their own, though, raptors were ferocious creatures. They were quite fast and highly agile, which would have helped them escape the grasp of larger super predators. They were also armed with sharp claws (especially on their feet) and serrated teeth, making them one of the more effective and superior carnivores of the mesozoic. The most important part of the raptors, however, was the fact that they had the brains sophisticated enogh to use their weapons correctly and effectively.

In particular, though, probably the most dangerous of the raptors was Megaraptor, if it is as large as we think it is. If these things lived in packs, the possibilities could be endless.

In the end, though, when you look at it, all theropods would have been dangerous towards humans, had they ever encountered any.
from Skeptic baby!!!, age 13 baby!!!, Toronto baby!!!!!!, Ontario baby!!!!!!, Canadian and unimaginably proud baby!!!; September 5, 2001

I don't like it when people mis-quote me and then attack because of it.I'm gone from this website for good
from Gloman, age 12, ?, New York, USA; September 5, 2001

I wasn't talking about Humans useing mental strength to get to the top of the food chain.I was talking about the lack of use of physical strength to get to the top of the food chain,you're mis-quoteing me!JC could you block these guys their mis-quoteing me too.Stop it!Stop it!Stop it!Stop it!Stop it!Stop it!.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 5, 2001

Actually Gloman, I think Humans are the most dangerous animals around. They can wipe out entire species, kill whatever they want, and now, with the capability to produce enough nuclear weapons that can destroy the world 20 times over, cause mass extinctions around the world, aka. blast things back to simple organisms. If that's not a dangerous predator I dunno what that is. We decided to kill with our brains, that was how we managed to climb to the top of the food chain. We are the champions of the world, for now that is.
from Spike, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 5, 2001

Gloman, don't be stupid. We didn't invent weapons to be lazy, be did it to overcome our natural shortcomings. That is advanced. Here, you want to be tough? go live like the !kung bushmen.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 5, 2001

I would disagree Gloman, because of our greater knowledge we have been catapulted to the absolute pinnacle of the food chain. We can, and will, eat anything on the planet with ease.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 4, 2001

Question,skeptic. What is the most dangerous non-tyrannosaurid? Note:this is a trick question.
from Sean S. ("the witch burner"), age 13, ?, ?, U.S.A. ,and proud of it; September 4, 2001

"I've heard everyone talking about humans lately, so here's what I have to say: I agree with Honkie Tong that humans do need their toes, but that's not what I have to say. I think that humans are not at the top of the food chain. Don't you need to be a predator to be at the top of the food chain? Humans have never been predators. They just go out and get their food at a certain location, pre-killed and packaged.
In my opinion that isn't advanced. That's just lazy. Even in ice age times they used weapons. Using weapons doesn't make you advanced. Or a smart guy. It is very rare to see someone kill big game with their bare hands without things like weapons and supermarkets. My point is that if we didn't use weapons and supermarkets, humans wouldn't be so weak. That's all I have to say for now. I'll be back."

I think you don't understand the point of the humans sophisticated brain. You see, we weren't made to take down big game with our bare hands. Our brains have evolved from more primitive ones to allow us to use weapons which we build to our advantage. Trying to kill something with your bare hands isn't a sign of power, it's a sign of stupidity. T. Rex was built to kill with natural weapons like 6 inch teeth, large muscles and sharp claws, not humans. We have none of these wepons, except maybe muscles, but even a chimpanzee is 3 times stronger than a man. We weren't built to kill with our bodies, but with our minds. We use our brains to help us create weapons, which can give us an edge over other animals.

And yes, we are at the top of the food chain. In a one on one, large predators like polar bears and tigers can easily kill us, but our resourcefulness can help us overpower other creatures and climb to the top of the food chain.

I also think that humans are predators. You may say that we don't kill, we just go to a store to get pre-killed meat, but who killed that meat? It wasn't scavenged, nor did we have other animals do it for us. Yes, other humans killed it, using tools created from our own ingenuity.

In the end, the reason why humans can rarely kill big game like other top predators can with their bare hands isn't because we're weak and lazy, it's because our design wasn't made for that. We were built to use our brains to kill, not brute force like virtually every other animal on this planet. Through using our brains, we learned to make tools, which allowed us to kill other animals and climb to the top of the food chain, so we could rise to the top, dominating all earth's creatures and Earth itself.
from Skeptic, age 13, Toronto baby!!!!!!!, ?, Proud to be Canadian; September 4, 2001

I've heard everone talking about Humans lately,so heres what I have to say: I agree with Honkie Tong that Humans do need toes to survive,but thats not what I have to say.I think that Humans are not at the top of the food chain.Don't u need to be a predator to be at the top of the food chain?Humans have never been predators.They just go out and get thier food from a certain location,pre-killed and packaged.

In my opinion that is'nt advanced.Thats just lazy.Even in ice age times they used wepons to help them catch prey.Using wepons doesn't make u advanced.Or a smart guy.It is very rare to see someone kill big game with thier bare hands instead of useing the help of other things like weapons and supermarkets.My point is that if we did'nt use weapons and supermarkets,Humans wouldn't be so weak.Thats all I have to say for now.I'll be back.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 4, 2001

what's with this T-Rex vs. Spino thing? everyone knows T-Rex would like win against any Dino ever to live in the world. about JP/// when the Spino and T-Rex fought. i mean he made Spnio win? Spinosaurus couldn't win against T-Rex even if his life depended on it! oh yeah i hope this proves it Spino fans! when it comes to battles T-Rex is like all over it! T-rex rocks!
from Renamon, age 8, ?, ?, ?; September 4, 2001

Fiction and Fact:
Spinosaurus was a 60ft long,25 ft high,9 ton monster.Fiction.

Spinosaurus was a maximum of 50 ft long,15 ft high,4.7 ton whimp.JP3 made him look bigger,because they thought the people would like it that way.

Spinosaurus had a crocadile-like jaw that was mainly designed for fishing.Fact.

If Spinosaurus did try to hunt he would have broken his teeth.T-rex on the other hand had a bone-crushing jaw that was designed for both hunting and scavengeing,but was primerily a preditor.

T-rex bit onto Spinosaurus's neck in JP3,but it didn't even faze him.Fiction.

In real life when T-rex bit onto Spinosaurus's neck he would have taken 85% of his neck off.JP has been inaccurate for 8 years.

That is the difference between fiction and fact.
P.S.Megaraptor is a dromeosauride.
from Gloman, age 2222222223, ?, ?, ?; September 1, 2001

"Spino vs. Rex. Rex tries to bite Spino. he fails. Spino tears rex's head off."

T.rex would not miss any more than your typical Crocodylus porosus would, whom if I recall, rarely misses whatever it targets. Given its better agility due to having a more flexible, stonger neck and being bipedial, not to mention having the added advantage of steroscopic vision, I'd dare say T.rex would even have a higher hit ratio than Crocodylus porosus.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 1, 2001

Well...the evidence points heavily toward Tyrannosaurus having the advantage over Spinosaurus in this case. You can't really argue for Spinosaurus doing as much damage to Tyrannosaurus as Tyrannosaurus could do to Spinosaurus without ignoring some pretty blatant expects of their morphlogy. As much as you'd like to post "Dinofight" stories to help booster your case, they are not going to help you if they are scientifially incorrect, people are going for the facts here, not how well you could make a story up! You could put a lot of cool stuff in your story (Like Spino pulling heads off and being able to bite through bone) but if Spinosaurus could not do anything like it in real life, the story only defeats itself and in anything only hurts your case. And the people watching here are non-T.rex fans, plenty of which have turned against you for the very reason of your hell-bent on winning attitude no matter the facts. You can be hell-bent on winning, but if you disregard the facts, expecially in the case where this is supposedly a scientific debate behind the scientifically impossible fight, you'll only defeat yourself. Simply look at the negative feedback you have been getting from non-T.rex fans irrate with your style.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; September 1, 2001

I read this posts and couldn't resist:

"All you T. Rex fans have done is focus on the strong points of T. Rex, and not Gigantosaurus. Not everything I post is a myth! There is no debate here we already know Gigantosaurus could beat T. Rex ( are you guys so dense, or am I going to have to draw a picture for you) If you love sue so much, marry her! Anyway, I'm going to do some research, but I'll be back."

Alright, "Witchburner," you want someone to look at the strengths of Gigantosaurs? I will, then. Gigantosaurus was a monster, with a 6 foot long skull and long, slim teeth. He was 12 feet tall at the hip and 43 feet long. Gigantosaurus was truly a force to be reckoned with, king to all he surveyed, and was powerful enough to take down even some of the largest creatures on earth, the Titanisaurs. In my personal opinion, though, he didn't stand a chance against the fearsome Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Though Gigantosaurus was bigger, this gave him no advantage over T. Rex. Gigantosaurus was lightly built, with a large but fragile skull and had a brain smaller than T. Rex's (and the fact that he's bigger makes him even less intelligent in comparisson to T. Rex). Gigantosaurus was really more of a hit and run Dinosaur than anything else. His teeth were sharp and designed to cut flesh. If they hit bone they snapped. The rim of his skull ight also have been damaged if he bit that hard. So basically, Gigantosaurus method of predatation was to run in, take a large bite of his prey, then run to a safe distance and watch as the Prey died from loss of blood.

Tyrannosaurus, on the other hand, ran in at top speed surprising the prey, Then administered a bonecrushing bite which would have been fatal more often than not.

What made Tyrannosaurus so much more deadly than Gigantosaurus was not only his powerful and deadly jaws and legs, but the fact that Tyrannosarus had the sophisticated brain which allowed him to use these characteristic to his advantage.

In comparisson, Gigantosaurus was a big wimp who surprised his prey with an unexpected attack, then hid until it bled to death. Tyrannosaurus, on the other had, would administer one fatal, crushing bite to tackle his prey. T. Rex was also muscular and powerful, while Gigantosaurus was slim and fragile. So who was more likely to win in a fight? I think the question answers itself.
from Skeptic, age 13, ?, ?, Canadian and proud; September 1, 2001

"T. Rex vs. Spino: Since Spino was lighter it would be more agile, so the Spino has a strong bite, but T. Rex goes for a clean kill, see, the Spino would dodge T. Rex, goto the side, cut his belly the bite T. Rex's head, pull it off then eat it."

Sorry, but you're wrong. Spinosaurus was not faster nor more agile than T. Rex. Being lighter doesn't make you faster. T. Rex had powerfully built legs for catching up to herbivores like hadrosaurs. Spino had frail little legs that weren't designed for moving quickly, though they may have helped swimming. The part that Spinosaurus could dodge T. Rex's gaping mouth is laughable. T. Rex had a powerful neck to hold up that head, and it is a fact that T. Rex could uses his head to hit and bite things accurately and decisively. All T. Rex needs in that battle in one bite to Spino's neck and Spino won't know what hit him.

"Spino vs. Rex. Rex tries to bite Spino. he fails. Spino tears rex's head off."

Like I said above. T. Rex wouldn't miss. So let's re try this fight in reality: Spino vs. Rex. Rex tries to bite Spino in the neck. SNAP. He suceeds. Spino drops to the grund, limp and lifeless. In any event, Spino's jaws weren't strong enough to snap T. Rex's neck. They have gotten stuck in T. Rexes neck when pino pulled back and fallen off in a couple of minutes.

"Rex and Spino are evenly matched. They are after all equal in size, so I'd call it a draw."

I know you're trying to be civil, but Spino would stand no chance against T. Rex. Many scientific facts like the ones I have already stated point to a win for the Tyrannosaurus.
from Skeptic, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 1, 2001

I think than a fight between ten gigantosaurus' and a T. Rex would end up being a free for all. The Gigantosaurus' would squabble among themselves and fight eachother. That's why T. Rex would be the last one standing.
from Thunderbird, age ?, ?, ?, ?; September 1, 2001