• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

The Moon (and Dinosaurs)

Cerez

Baroness of the High Seas
Storm Modder
Time and time again nature proves that people are wrong in their assumptions and oversights in measurements when it comes to science.

Recent evidence shows that the moon is still far from the dead rock people thought it was. It is not only shrinking, but also expanding! As an astronomical body, just like a very small planet, it is moving and alive!

 
So it's breathing! (Maybe not exactly, but still.)

We humans will continue to learn things forever, and in the process we have to rethink a few stuff.
 
It's in a cozy, deep slumber -- turning and stretching from time to time. xD

stock-illustration-46341972-cartoon-moon.jpg
 
Meanwhile, the sun either hates us and will explode on the far future.

Or it is sorry that it will cause all this destruction, in the place it helped make, and gave life to it. (No sun, no life.)
Though now that I think about it, it could hate us for this, seeing as we are destroying the Earth.

m8n3YTW.jpg


azrbBwj_460s.jpg

117232_0.jpg
 
Meanwhile, the sun either hates us and will explode on the far future.

Or it is sorry that it will cause all this destruction, in the place it helped make, and gave life to it. (No sun, no life.)
Though now that I think about it, it could hate us for this, seeing as we are destroying the Earth.
Life and death. :shrug It's the cycle of life. The sun does not discriminate. When it dies, a new life and new galaxy is born. Space, too, is in constant motion and change, just as life on Earth.

People seem to think everything revolves around them. :p If the sun could think and speak, it would be laughing at us.
 
Yep, everything has an ending. :yes

On a similar note.
Thinking that no aliens exist is foolish and egocentric.

Are we so lucky that conditions that allow life happened only on Earth?
If the universe is so large, this makes absolutely no sense, and if it did I would be a dam shame.
 
I find that thinking about space in general is a bit impractical in that even if there is life on other planets, the chances of us ever meeting that are very close to zero. We should be focusing on the one world we know -- the one that bore us and that we are connected with.

Life in space would actually disconnect us from our living environment -- leading to sickness and depression. No-one ever seems to think about this. Nature makes us healthy. We can't just leave Earth for good, unless we take a part of it with us. We'd have to take the animals, the plants, and the earth itself with us, and create a spaceship that has its own ecosystem. That's the only way we could stay healthy, and survive living in space.

And if we eventually did find life in space, we would find much the same patterns repeating in it as on Earth, and our "aliens" would be new micro-organisms, plants, and animals.

People seem to think they are the only creature on Earth that thinks. Far from it. We are no different from our fellow living beings on this planet -- we are animals, too. Other animals see this about us, we don't.

I've watched ravens calmly study us in their daily life, and scratch their heads about what it is we are really doing -- how senseless it all is! :rofl

We're not as smart as we think we are. :p Technnology did not make us more advanced -- not by nature's standards. All it really accomplished is that it disconnected us from life around us, isolated us in our own little safe (and not-so-safe) bubble(s). The more we "advance", the more we exist (in an empty/imbalanced state) and the less we live -- if that makes sense. ;)

We can't run away from our own nature, from nature within and around us. We are connected to it from the moment we are born, and even before that. Our bodies were created from this life, to be a warm part of it, to embrace it. Unconditional love bore us, that we chose to reject and turn our backs on.

Ultimately, we are ungrateful, selfish creatures as a species by our actions/behaviours, and what we are doing we are doing to ourselves, and to the part of nature connected to us.

Nature will go on, no matter what we do, no matter the mess we create. It's we that will suffer as a result of our own imbalanced actions.

Fools, that's what we are -- not the highly smart beings we believe ourselves to be. :p

That's why the sun would be laughing at us -- especially if it knew how highly we think of ourselves. ;)
 
Last edited:
By the way, you know the dinosaurs that science claimed were giant lizard-like monsters that looked and behaved so different to how our world is today? It's fiction -- utter and complete human nonsense, imagination. :no

New research findings now show that life then was not at all that much different to life today. There were a lot more larger animals, but they looked and behaved much like the animals that surround us today. They had feathers, they had fur. Their internal makeup, too, bore similar patterns. They were part of the same life-force that makes the world go round today.

latest

a035db4f2db6e1b790f9fc0c86253b5e--paleo-the-babys.jpg

That first one is your fearsome Velociraptor! :rofl Far from the dangerous monsters we depicted them to be.

Worms and giant tortoises existed then the same as today -- same species, pretty much the same look. So when you next meet an earthworm, consider that might as well be straight from the era of dinosaurs! xD

New research also shows that animals experience depression and mental illness the same way as we do. :shrug Many animals also have complex languages that we do not yet understand. Crows have proven to have different dialects from region to region, and to not be able to communicate with one another if they are from different regions.

So I hate to break it to "civilised" human society, but we are not that special. :razz We need to get off our high horses.

(Actually, pretty much the only thing we are special at is making up nonsense and deceiving ourselves. That is our big legacy. :facepalm)
 
Last edited:
This is what meeting an "alien" will feel like, if and when we do meet them: ;)


Edit:

And for you guys (and anyone not living in Australia), like this:



(Fun fact: people would behave no different if they were adopted by, unconditionally loved, and nurtured by another animal. We'd be just as curious to them, just as speechless, and just as loving and content. Yet we treat other animals as inferior to us.)
 
Last edited:
I find that thinking about space in general is a bit impractical in that even if there is life on other planets, the chances of us ever meeting that are very close to zero. We should be focusing on the one world we know -- the one that bore us and that we are connected with.
It is impractical, but it is really interesting. ;)
Humans are curious creatures, so we explore; even if it isn't always practical.

Though if you know where to look, Earth is equally as interesting; and brimming with life. :)

Life in space would actually disconnect us from our living environment -- leading to sickness and depression. No-one ever seems to think about this. Nature makes us healthy. We can't just leave Earth for good, unless we take a part of it with us. We'd have to take the animals, the plants, and the earth itself with us, and create a spaceship that has its own ecosystem. That's the only way we could stay healthy, and survive living in space.
If we go to space, without animals then count me out. :no

And if we eventually did find life in space, we would find much the same patterns repeating in it as on Earth, and our "aliens" would be new micro-organisms, plants, and animals.
Yep, people think of humanoid aliens. But how can you know that life has or will evolve like this for them?

People seem to think they are the only creature on Earth that thinks. Far from it. We are no different from our fellow living beings on this planet -- we are animals, too. Other animals see this about us, we don't.

I've watched ravens calmly study us in their daily life, and scratch their heads about what it is we are really doing -- how senseless it all is! :rofl

We're not as smart as we think we are. :p Technnology did not make us more advanced -- not by nature's standards. All it really accomplished is that it disconnected us from life around us, isolated us in our own little safe (and not-so-safe) bubble(s). The more we "advance", the more we exist (in an empty/imbalanced state) and the less we live -- if that makes sense. ;)

We can't run away from our own nature, from nature within and around us. We are connected to it from the moment we are born, and even before that. Our bodies were created from this life, to be a warm part of it, to embrace it. Unconditional love bore us, that we chose to reject and turn our backs on.

Ultimately, we are ungrateful, selfish creatures as a species by our actions/behaviours, and what we are doing we are doing to ourselves, and to the part of nature connected to us.

Nature will go on, no matter what we do, no matter the mess we create. It's we that will suffer as a result of our own imbalanced actions.

Fools, that's what we are -- not the highly smart beings we believe ourselves to be. :p

That's why the sun would be laughing at us -- especially if it knew how highly we think of ourselves. ;)
As I always say we are just an animal, and that is not bad.
The sooner we accept this the better.

:thumbs1

By the way, you know the dinosaurs that science claimed were giant lizard-like monsters that looked and behaved so different to how our world is today? It's fiction -- utter and complete human nonsense, imagination. :no

New research findings now show that life then was not at all that much different to life today. There were a lot more larger animals, but they looked and behaved much like the animals that surround us today. They had feathers, they had fur. Their internal makeup, too, bore similar patterns. They were part of the same life-force that makes the world go round today.

latest

a035db4f2db6e1b790f9fc0c86253b5e--paleo-the-babys.jpg

That first one is your fearsome Velociraptor! :rofl Far from the dangerous monsters we depicted them to be.

Worms and giant tortoises existed then the same as today -- same species, pretty much the same look. So when you next meet an earthworm, consider that might as well be straight from the era of dinosaurs! xD

New research also shows that animals experience depression and mental illness the same way as we do. :shrug Many animals also have complex languages that we do not yet understand. Crows have proven to have different dialects from region to region, and to not be able to communicate with one another if they are from different regions.

So I hate to break it to "civilised" human society, but we are not that special. :razz We need to get off our high horses.

(Actually, pretty much the only thing we are special at is making up nonsense and deceiving ourselves. That is our big legacy. :facepalm)
Yep, we are not so knowledgeable after all. :no

This is what meeting an "alien" will feel like, if and when we do meet them: ;)
I have read about this animal, real shame to see it extinct. :(

And for you guys (and anyone not living in Australia), like this:
One of the cutest animals I have seen, from the so called deathtrap named Australia. :rofl

People really do exaggerate sometimes.
 
Though if you know where to look, Earth is equally as interesting; and brimming with life. :)
Living organisms that can survive near-boiling temperature water, and thrive in it. Animals that live without light in the depths of the sea. Animals that think and communicate in ways humans can't even begin to imagine! Yep, I would very much say so. :yes

Not to mention that bugs/insects can get infected through a wound and catch an illness (the same as we do), that spiders are afraid of falling, and that plants have amazing immune systems, and can feel to various degrees as well (some even touch)!

And this is all life we are directly connected with, and share in.

Yep, people think of humanoid aliens. But how can you know that life has or will evolve like this for them?
There is a fundamental problem with this line of thinking: people are expecting a human-like species to develop in an entirely different, remote environment. Nature and genetics do not work like that. Even if we find another animal species that meets, rivals, or surpasses our type of thinking/intelligence, we will likely understand them as little as we understand the animals we live with on this planet. Dolphins, crows, ravens, elephants -- even cows: these are all animals that meet and/or surpass us in various social and thinking capacities (to name just a few), yet we treat them as inferior to us, and still do not truly understand their thinking and language!

People are very arrogant. We think ourselves to be above nature, so we blind ourselves to the truth. And part of that truth is that other sensible and intelligent beings are living with us right here on Earth, and that our form of intelligence is not all superior, and not the only form of intelligence that is valuable.
 
Last edited:
Recent evidence shows that the moon is still far from the dead rock people thought it was. It is not only shrinking, but also expanding! As an astronomical body, just like a very small planet, it is moving and alive!
Oh crap! Doctor Who was RIGHT!!
Kill the Moon (TV story)

Meanwhile, the sun either hates us and will explode on the far future.

Or it is sorry that it will cause all this destruction, in the place it helped make, and gave life to it. (No sun, no life.)
Though now that I think about it, it could hate us for this, seeing as we are destroying the Earth.

m8n3YTW.jpg


azrbBwj_460s.jpg

117232_0.jpg
AAAAAAAAGH!!!!
That Teletubbie sun is really one of THE single most creepy things humanity ever invented!!

That first one is your fearsome Velociraptor! :rofl Far from the dangerous monsters we depicted them to be.
So much for the Jurassic Park approach!

I do love those films; and there's something truly RIGHT about those designs.
But even the filmmakers themselves knew they weren't being quuuiiite realistic there.
In Jurassic Park III, they actually added some feathery bits to their raptors as a reference to their own wrong-ness. :rofl

I didn't have a clue raptors had wings though!
That's a new one. :shock

New research also shows that animals experience depression and mental illness the same way as we do. :shrug Many animals also have complex languages that we do not yet understand. Crows have proven to have different dialects from region to region, and to not be able to communicate with one another if they are from different regions.

So I hate to break it to "civilised" human society, but we are not that special. :razz We need to get off our high horses.

(Actually, pretty much the only thing we are special at is making up nonsense and deceiving ourselves. That is our big legacy. :facepalm)
WHY am I not surprised?
That makes far more sense than us being these magical better-than-other-creatures.
 
I didn't have a clue raptors had wings though!
That's a new one. :shock
The word "raptor" means "bird of prey" in Latin (or more specifically "thief"). Their skeletal structure has always suggested they were birds, from the very beginning. They were also a lot-lot smaller than depicted in Jurassic Park (about less than a third in size), which makes sense with their skeletal structure and wings. Essentially, Velociraptors were birds of the Late Cretaceous period of Earth's history.

Also, one of the most realistic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, the cobra-like, spitting one, is a complete fabrication. Steven Spielberg invented it specifically for that scene in the film, so he could have something small and cobra-like hide in the car. :wp

I still love Jurassic Park as a film, but like Spielberg's earlier film, Jaws, it paints a very unrealistic and socially harmful picture of wildlife. Unlike Jaws, though, it has a nice message about nature's power: life prevailing. And about humankind's ignorance when it comes to nature -- somewhat ironically. :p

Edit:

Also, the fearsome T-Rex was most likely a scavenger -- quite docile/shy -- not as depicted at all. Its big, piercing but round teeth and jaw are built for tearing, not for lethally wounding a prey. It used its massive size to scare off other scavengers, and it had a powerful sense of smell by which it navigated and searched for food (carcasses) to feed its big body.

Chances are that if you were a small animal the size of a human being standing next to a T-Rex in that period, the Tyrannosaurus would welcome/tolerate your presence. It would have no intention of eating you. Even if it were a predator -- which it most likely wasn't -- there would be very little to gain from that. If you approached its food, it might chase you away, but essentially it would have been a peaceful and gracious animal.

The Allosaurus, about half its size, was a much more dangerous predator. The Allosaurus was much like a land shark -- at least what we know of it so far. Its teeth were just like a shark's, too -- razor-sharp and jagged, built for lethally wounding. And to the Allosaurus you would have been a perfectly sized small meal when it was hungry.

2nd Edit:

Most dinosaurs were also warm-blooded, and covered in feathers and fur, just like today's animals. The Earth was a little warmer then, so many species evolved to a larger size and had less fur and feathers than today's animals have to adjust to that world climate (or rather vice-versa -- we became hairier and more feathered as the climate grew colder).

Here's more context on this:
Donna Fernstrom's answer to How much of a dinosaur can be found in a chicken’s DNA? Could a whole dinosaur be created one day? - Quora

It includes another more accurate depiction of a Velociraptor -- proving my earlier stated point that it was what a bird looked like back then:

main-qimg-b76a869a236089eefed1e3d53ddfa4e9


Furthermore -- this is very interesting:
Patrick Croley's answer to If dinosaurs had feathers, why are there no feathered reptiles today? - Quora

It shows how the protective coverings the body produces have the same origins.

And any of these are currently valid artistic interpretations of what a Tyrannosaurus may have looked like:
d7pmir4-f8502344-1c86-4edd-bddf-744dd3cd3582.jpg

suetrexfin_by_thedragonofdoom-daccc07.jpg

IMG_0152.jpg

Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk.png

Tyrannosaur%2BWitton%2B2017%2Bdetail%2B2.jpg

I particularly like the last one -- although from what we know, while Tyrannosauri had social lives, they preferred to live solitary, and not travel in a pack.

(One thing people keep emphasising is the teeth always sticking out, like a crocodile's, but there's nothing that suggests this is the case. It is more logical that skin would have covered their teeth and formed a mouth they could fully close.)

We'll never know for sure, because skin, fur, and feathers don't preserve as well as bones do, and they lived so long ago that coming to precise genetic conclusions is also very difficult. But, based on both paleontologic evidence and nature's balance/rules throughout the animal kingdom today, it is quite reasonable to assume that the T-Rex may have had fur covering parts of its body in a fashion that shows an early development of what bears and other mammals have these days, for example. It may have even looked quite pleasing, soft, and non-threatening (when not angered). Similarly, it may have had mammalian, warm eyes.

Personally, I keep thinking of a large bear when I think of a fully grown T-Rex moving around with its big body. I believe it would have moved quite gracefully, and conserved energy, given its diet and enormous size.

If you look at animals that are so large today (hippos, giraffes, elephants, whales, etc.), they all generally move slowly and gracefully, conserving their energy. Much more than smaller animals.
 
Last edited:
Also, one of the most realistic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, the cobra-like, spitting one, is a complete fabrication. Steven Spielberg invented it specifically for that scene in the film, so he could have something small and cobra-like hide in the car. :wp
How is it "the most realistic" then? :rofl

I still love Jurassic Park as a film, but like Spielberg's earlier film, Jaws, it paints a very unrealistic and socially harmful picture of wildlife. Unlike Jaws, though, it has a nice message about nature's power: life prevailing. And about humankind's ignorance when it comes to nature -- somewhat ironically. :p
Indeed Jaws is not realistic on sea sharks at all.
It's LAND sharks are much more believable though.
("Shark? What shark? It hurts the economy!")

He did try to show the dinosaurs more as animals than as monsters though.
Which I believe he succeeded at relatively well. Neither the T-Rex nor the Raptors come across as being needlessly evil.
They just do what they do because they're hungry.

Also, the fearsome T-Rex was most likely a scavenger -- quite docile/shy -- not as depicted at all. Its big, piercing but round teeth and jaw are built for tearing, not for lethally wounding a prey. It used its massive size to scare off other scavengers, and it had a powerful sense of smell by which it navigated and searched for food (carcasses) to feed its big body.
Makes sense.
Hunting like that must've been quite inconvenient.

I wonder though how there could be enough carcasses around to feed all those Rexes...

The Allosaurus, about half its size, was a much more dangerous predator. The Allosaurus was much like a land shark -- at least what we know of it so far. Its teeth were just like a shark's, too -- razor-sharp and jagged, built for lethally wounding. And to the Allosaurus you would have been a perfectly sized small meal when it was hungry.
At first sight... kind-of does look like a Rex:
b5SxqiWwufyfTdgbi9UwHE-1200-80.jpg


It includes another more accurate depiction of a Velociraptor -- proving my earlier stated point that it was what a bird looked like back then:

main-qimg-b76a869a236089eefed1e3d53ddfa4e9
Imagine the exact same Jurassic Park film; but with the Raptors looking like that.
It'd become a COMEDY! :cheeky

And any of these are currently valid artistic interpretations of what a Tyrannosaurus may have looked like:
Those look SO WEIRD!
But you have to take into account that I was exposed to Jurassic Park (specifically the second) at a very young and impressionable age.
I loved it then; and I reckon it strongly influenced my taste for film and aesthetics.

At the same time, that's all it is; just a film. For entertainment.
I might learn some stuff about its metaphors here and there; but at the same time, there's a lot of complete nonsense in there as well.

One thing people keep emphasising is the teeth always sticking out, like a crocodile's, but there's nothing that suggests this is the case. It is more logical that skin would have covered their teeth and formed a mouth they could fully close.
But... but... but... Just think of the COOLNESS of those teeth sticking out!
Rule of Cool - TV Tropes

We'll never know for sure, because skin, fur, and feathers don't preserve as well as bones do, and they lived so long ago that coming to precise genetic conclusions is also very difficult. But, based on both paleontologic evidence and nature's balance/rules throughout the animal kingdom today, it is quite reasonable to assume that the T-Rex may have had fur covering parts of its body in a fashion that shows an early development of what bears and other mammals have these days, for example. It may have even looked quite pleasing, soft, and non-threatening (when not angered). Similarly, it may have had mammalian, warm eyes.
Could very well be.
Absolutely no way to know at all.

It does make sense that animals back then were more similar to now.
We, as humans, have probably depicted them as far more alien than they were.
People's imagination can be quite vivid!
 
How is it "the most realistic" then? :rofl
By behaviour/movement? Closest to nature? :oops:

He did try to show the dinosaurs more as animals than as monsters though.
Which I believe he succeeded at relatively well. Neither the T-Rex nor the Raptors come across as being needlessly evil.
They just do what they do because they're hungry.
Except that their appetite is never satisfied -- which effectively turns them into killing machines and monsters. Compare Jurassic Park's Velociraptors and T-Rex with a lion or tiger, and you get the picture. It's just as bad a representation as that of sharks in Jaws.

I wonder though how there could be enough carcasses around to feed all those Rexes...
This would be why there were so few of their remains found, and always alone. It wouldn't have been easy for them, but this is why they developed an incredible sense of smell (the biggest part of their brain was dedicated to processing smell), and with so many big predators around then, there would have been way more carcasses than you find even in the African wilderness today.

They would have had to traverse large distances daily, following their sense of smell, to find food. So, in this way, they were trackers more than hunters. ;)

At first sight... kind-of does look like a Rex:
:yes Except with arms to grab and cling on to his prey, a lot smaller, and way more aggressive/vicious.

4a5cbeaf48772e106c475644fcd193909755c29d_hq.jpg


48c0bf709debc6fb96a95cacc1dcad5702129981_hq.jpg


b1354fb6a1cc1ae0678e5113437aa329398ca808_hq.jpg


Allosaurus | Wiki | Dinosaur Planet Amino

Though some facts still don't add up with what we know about the Allosaurus (in particular about its diet with relation to its jaw structure). I imagine it was less of a monster/killer than we imagine it to be -- just like with sharks (when we are not talking about accidental bites).

Spielberg chose to use the T-Rex instead just because it was larger (and sounded cooler).

Imagine the exact same Jurassic Park film; but with the Raptors looking like that.
It'd become a COMEDY! :cheeky
Exactly. :p "Look at the little raptor birds. Mum, can I feed them?"

I dare you to watch Jurassic Park again and try and take Dr. Grant seriously when he's talking about how dangerous raptors are at the beginning of the film. :rofl The funny thing is the kid was actually right: Velociraptors were in effect a bit larger, meat-eating turkeys. xD

Spielberg's Velociraptors are actually a lot closer to a Deinonychus than a Velociraptor. And they, too, were birds of prey -- but about the size of Spielberg's raptors.

latest


Those look SO WEIRD!
But you have to take into account that I was exposed to Jurassic Park (specifically the second) at a very young and impressionable age.
I loved it then; and I reckon it strongly influenced my taste for film and aesthetics.
:yes Precisely. Anything we're not used to looks "weird".

But... but... but... Just think of the COOLNESS of those teeth sticking out!
Rule of Cool - TV Tropes
:facepalm

We, as humans, have probably depicted them as far more alien than they were.
People's imagination can be quite vivid!
Yep!! There are so many testaments to this. The problem is we live so far removed from nature that even our imagination is imbalanced, blown way out of proportion. Worse yet, we begin to believe what we imagine, completely deceiving ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Also, dinosaurs were not all covered in scales and thick reptilian skin as we are used to seeing them portrayed. Most of them had the same kind of skin animals today have.

There is evidence that suggests people may have misinterpreted dried-up bird-skin for scales in many of the finds that contain imprints of the dinosaur's exterior coverings. When certain birds' skin dries up, it looks much like scales.

There were dinosaurs that were mammalian (with hair/fur), there were dinosaurs that were birdlike (with feathers), and there dinosaurs that were reptilian (with scales) -- just like today. The only difference is that these groups of animals back then looked a lot more alike, structurally -- seeing as we all came from the same source in terms of evolutionary development: fish.
 
It does make sense that animals back then were more similar to now.
We, as humans, have probably depicted them as far more alien than they were.
People's imagination can be quite vivid!
Here's a quick test(-ament) of human social deception and belief you may find interesting:

How many (pairs of) ribs does a human being have?

(Answer it by what you know from learning.)
 
Exactly. :p "Look at the little raptor birds. Mum, can I feed them?"
:rofl Maybe they even taste like turkey, or chicken. xD

I dare you to watch Jurassic Park again and try and take Dr. Grant seriously when he's talking about how dangerous raptors are at the beginning of the film. :rofl The funny thing is the kid was actually right: Velociraptors were in effect a bit larger, meat-eating turkeys. xD
Kid 1/Scientist 0 :rofl

Also they look suspiciously cuddly.
Bears and big cats have the biggest danger to cuteness ratio. Maybe dinosaurs should be added to the list. xD

Spielberg's Velociraptors are actually a lot closer to a Deinonychus than a Velociraptor. And they, too, were birds of prey -- but about the size of Spielberg's raptors.

latest
So they are not raptors but they are closer to Deinonychus, and the design is wrong anyway; because both had feathers.
Maybe they should remaster the film with more accurate dinosaur designs.

Jurassic Park: Attack of the Big Turkeys!

Here's a quick test(-ament) of human social deception and belief you may find interesting:

How many (pairs of) ribs does a human being have?

(Answer it by what you know from learning.)
We have 12 pairs of ribs, don't we?
 
While we wait for Pieter's answer to the question, guess how Hollywood makes dinosaur and other monster roars/sounds.

They mix the alarmed and angry cries of various animals together, so that you end up with a lion, and a bear, an elephant, and a whole bunch of other animals roaring and crying out at the exact same time. This is why they sound so otherworldy and yet real, causing you to instinctively be alarmed.

We instinctively/intuitively understand when other animals are sounding distress and/or hostility. This is because we all share a common nature.

If they were to artificially produce a new sound, it would be very hard for them to get it to a level that it would alarm us and make us feel that the monster is truly dangerous.
 
Maybe they should remaster the film with more accurate dinosaur designs.

Jurassic Park: Attack of the Big Turkeys!
xD I don't know about you, but I'd actually love to see a film, or even a realistic animated film featuring a more true-to-life depiction of dinosaurs as larger prehistoric animals, many of whom share a common link with today's animals.

It would make it no less dangerous to be, say, a human walking around among them, but it would breathe so much more life into the animals themselves. And when the human characters are attacked, there would be very good reason why. They would have to explore and learn about their new environment, all the while trying to survive (and get home).

To me, there's something alluring about being a part of nature in this way -- finding yourself in the middle of the food chain, connected.

Walking among dinosaurs would be a bit like having been magically shrunk to the size of a small rabbit, and having to navigate the wildlife in the grass, avoiding predators, and all the while experiencing the wonders of nature, connecting with nature -- experiencing life.

You remember that warm scene in Jurassic Park with the Brachiosaurus, up in the tree? There would be moments like that, but 10 times more real, and so much more of them -- adventure and exploration, not just senseless, endlessly exhilirating action.

jurassic-11.jpg


I would love to see a world like that presented in a book, a video game, or on screen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top