_ (Continued from Part 1)
...Then there's the 'mystery'. The stampede theory has been around for at least 20 years. The only thing new about this documentary is the supposed villain of the piece: Australovenator wintonensis. And throughout the rest of the documentary, it feels like the evidence is being made to fit the suspect.

Using footprint dimensions, ichnologists can calculate hip height and running speed of dinosaurs. These same formulas were used to calculate the running speed and size of the smaller bodied track makers. The documentary team were fine with the conclusions reached: some 30 mm tall (at the hip) dinos running at 14 km/h. When these formulas are applied to the larger footprints, they predict a much larger hip height than the suspect, A. wintonensis! Well not to worry, we'll say that in this case the formula is incorrect, and just assume it was the much shorter A. wintonensis with very large feet. But we'll still use the formula to calculate running speed, and suprise suprise, it was moving very fast, at 17 km/h! So what is the final proof that it was A. wintonensis? Fitting the foot in the footprint.

The computer generated model of the A. wintonensis metatarsals and tarsals are mapped onto a scan of 'its' much larger footprint. Have a look at the pictures below. It appears that the fleshed out model suddenly grows to fit the track! And then the reconstructed life size model (using this blueprint) is created and brought back to Lark Quarry where it *gasp* fits the print! Amazing!

Here's an overlay of the two (kindly provided by the documentary team): note the position of the toes...

I watched the documentary Dinosaur Stampede on ABC on Tuesday night, and I can't say I'm very impressed with the scientific rigor (or lack thereof) displayed. The documentary focuses on The Dinosaur Stampede National Monument: a dinosaur trackway site containing thousands of dinosaur footprints, at Lark Quarry in central-western Queensland. The original interpretation for this site was that it represented a stampede, with a larger bodied theropod pursuing smaller bodied ornithopods and theropods. 

I have to mention my personal bias from the outset: I know the authors who wrote a rebuttal to this stampede story, who claim that the larger bodied track maker was not a theropod, but an ornithopod, perhaps similar to Muttaburrasaurus langdoni. Even so, I think there were some obvious misinterpretations that even an unbiased viewer would have noticed.

The documentary glosses over the first interesting piece of evidence: that the trackway of the larger bodied dinosaur heads in the opposite direction of the smaller bodied dinosaurs. Why would the stampede head toward the supposed threat? Attempts to fit this into the stampede story (here and here) seem awkward and complicated. And it feels like the evidence is being forced into a shoe that doesn't fit (more on that in Part 2). I am a big believer of parsimony: that the simplest explanation is often the most correct. For example, the larger track maker may have passed through before the smaller dinosaurs (heading in the opposite direction) passed through. You can even see some smaller dinosaur footprints inside the larger footprints.

The final CGI movie of the stampede shows the predator chasing the prey, which would have resulted in all tracks heading in the same direction. Why wasn't this problem examined in the documentary?

Keep an eye out tomorrow for Part 2: Australovenator was framed, we need justice!

This film of two women in a canoe watching these amazing starlings in flight is, well, amazing! Breathtaking! And very hypnotic. And they never seem to collide, only merge gently and continue on... the starlings, not the women.

I was only able to watch a small portion of the BBC documentary 'Frozen Planet' last night, but I watched a sea lion chase a penguin in crashing waves, then on the water's edge, then onto a beach. As both animals lumbered around, with the sea lion catching then losing the penguin twice before finally killing it in its third attempt, Sir David's velvety voice announced,"Never have the roles of hunter and hunted been played with so little skill." Brilliant!

I've looked at the first episode of Planet Dinosaur (by the same team who created Walking with Dinosaurs), and the CGI looks impressive! I also liked the method of showing bits of evidence: what the fossil material looked like, where it was found etc... There was even a simplified oxygen isotope graph in there! There aren't too many obvious errors, apart from stretching the truth a little here and there. It probably wouldn't make for a solid viewing experience if the entire doco was littered with 'probablys', 'maybes' and 'mights', but then the viewers won't know which postulations are backed up with (relatively) solid evidence and which aren't.

Planet Dinosaur appears to have much better CGI and walking mechanics than Dinosaur Revolution. I don't really care much about that stuff normally, but the anthropomorphication of the dinosaurs along with the over-the-top action WAM BAM! voice-over made me like Dinosaur Revolution less and less. Even the female

Who knows? As I continue to watch these shows/docos, my opinions might change...