Montana's Mummy Dinosaur ~ Missouri River Country Home To Famously Preserved Leonardo

[Guest Nicholas]

A 77 million year old dinosaur fossil was found in Montana's Missouri River Country. What makes this dinosaur so exceptional is the preservation of skin and internal organs. Dinosaur enthusiasts are encouraged to visit the land Leo called home

Find the article HERE!...

[mommabetts]

Good read, thanks for posting.

[Boesse]

Actually (as I've said before on this forum about Leonardo) there is no evidence for the internal organs - Nate Murphy made all that up.

There isn't any preserved skin either, or any soft tissue for that matter. There are impressions of the skin surface in the sediment around the fossil - but aside from the bones, there are no actual preserved 'soft tissues' with this specimen.

In actuality, there isn't really anything "new" about this fossil - there are already dinosaur "mummies" known - they are not mummified, and neither is leonardo; they simply have extensive skin impressions.

I should mention that there is a swelling of the skin in the neck region, which Murphy interpreted to be evidence for a crop - however, I suspect that it might just be a part of the carcass that filled with sand.

Moral of the story - don't take for granted anything in a popular article.

Bobby

[Guest Nicholas]

Actually (as I've said before on this forum about Leonardo) there is no evidence for the internal organs - Nate Murphy made all that up.

There isn't any preserved skin either, or any soft tissue for that matter. There are impressions of the skin surface in the sediment around the fossil - but aside from the bones, there are no actual preserved 'soft tissues' with this specimen.

In actuality, there isn't really anything "new" about this fossil - there are already dinosaur "mummies" known - they are not mummified, and neither is leonardo; they simply have extensive skin impressions.

I should mention that there is a swelling of the skin in the neck region, which Murphy interpreted to be evidence for a crop - however, I suspect that it might just be a part of the carcass that filled with sand.

Moral of the story - don't take for granted anything in a popular article.

Bobby

Boesse, please don't take me as being offensive but I was wondering if there are any sources to confirm what you say.

[Boesse]

The problem with this find is that there is one technical article about the fossil; I haven't read it, as it was by a commercial collector (Murphy) and not by a scientists, and it is a chapter in a book that wasn't peer reviewed. No actual scientists have confirmed the occurrence of any impressions of internal organs.

In fact, watch the NOVA special about it - they pretty much allude to the fact that the whole internal organ thing is just Murphy's 'hunch'. And the CT results they have - those don't show anything. The high tech imaging they conduct doesn't show anything inside leonardo, period.

Another problem is that Murphy is well known in the paleontological discipline as being a liar in the first place.

So, the issue is that there are no reputable sources for me to cite really, or Murphy for that matter. This all stemmed from me being skeptical, pure and simple.

In cases like this, the burden of proof is on nate murphy, not me; I'm the skeptic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - and all the evidence thus far has been rather ordinary and unsatisfying.

Bobby