Ignorant, self acclaiming, blowhard!

The first half of the book is actually a very pleasant listen. The author uses a very enjoyable style, and the reader conveys the book so that the listener readily looks forward to the next part. However this only applies to the first half of the book devoted to background history of dinosaur discovery.
In the second half, the author gives his reasonings for his hypothesis (not a theory as he expounds) that dinosaurs were aquatic. His main points include that dinosaurs would’ve been too heavy to live on land, too big to mate on land, and to heavily cites the lack of evidence of tail tracks. his basic premise is only supported by the incorrect hypothesis that dinosaurs had slow metabolisms/ were “cold blooded”
He seems very ignorant of the direct connection between birds and dinosaurs. Instead of looking at very obvious comparative anatomy of bone structures between birds and dinosaurs, he relates dinosaurs to the much more distantly related crocodilians and even lizards! Fossil evidence has shown that possibly all dinosaurs had some sort of proto-feathers, with many of the later theropod dinosaurs experimenting with true feathers and flight. Additionally he ignores the similarities of the lungs unique to birds and dinosaurs evidenced by connections in the the thoracic cavity. This combined with the air sacs present in dinosaur bones, also in congruence with birds, allowed dinosaurs to be lighter and intake much more oxygen for metabolic activity. These are hard proofs against his “theory”, which is just a fanciful story without any non-circular evidence.
His premise that the planet was covered in shallow seas is ridiculous, lacking what would be obvious evidence from from what must’ve been abundant aquatic plant and animal species at the same time if he was correct, and doesn’t allow areas for terrestrial eggs.
He repeats his main four arguments again and again in a circular self feeding logic without giving evidence. He does give various anecdotes about how one person can be right against an establishment view, however with his lack of evidence, he must be constrained as a conspiracy theorist. Much of the second half of the book is him complaining about being “wrongfully” put down by experts in the field, however he fails to point out why their theory which has abundant evidence is wrong beside his incorrect assumptions based on mass. He whines incessantly about both the pettiness of scientists and how he didn’t want to write this book because he was waiting for someone else to come to the same conclusion! However in the same long winded breathe, he explains how he pulled out of a group submission paper, throwing a fit because his name wouldn’t appear first!! He doesn’t care about the advancement of science; he had an idea once and has warped everything to fit his own agenda, ignoring the multitudes of evidence. It seems he only wrote this to “toot his own horn”
If you insist on reading/listening to this, I urge you to also read/listen to “The Rise and the Fall of the Dinosaurs” by Steve Brussate. If is a much more informed and eye opening literature.

47 people found this helpful

Awful

Can't refund because I preordered it. This book is pseudoscience trash. Run far, far away.

44 people found this helpful

Not worth your time and money

Spelling out “Professor” in the byline is a giant red flag. Ford’s insistence that the entire field of Paleontology is wrong is not only insanely narcissistic but is also false. His claim in the first pages that the metabolic requirement for maintaining tail posture, while on the surface is worth a listen, does not hold up, and if he is as educated as he claims he ought to have immediately seen the flaws in it.
Don’t waste your time or money on this book, it’s garbage pseudoscience. Ford just wants attention and thinks he is smarter than the rest of the planet.
“The Rise and Fall of Dinosaurs” is a far far better use of your resources.

11 people found this helpful

I couln't get past the opening chapters.

This material is simplistic, overly verbose and full of conjecture with very little actual science. For example, many people might not know that the Chinese legend of "dragons" has been linked to Chinese discovery of dinosaur fossils in ancient times. But telling us that this is so does nothing to further Dr. Ford's premise and wastes the time of those of us who already knew it.

Dr. Ford's conjectures might be correct for all I know, but I wasn't convinced by the opening chapters to spend 20 hours trying to find out.

8 people found this helpful

S*** sandwich

s*** sandwich.

i have to right fifteen words for a review of this pompous, to be kind, miss-informed.....book.

6 people found this helpful

A Hard Book to Follow

The problem with following this book is not that it has a complex plot, but more of it being so boring that you zone out too easily.

The first half of the book is the history of paleontology, you will keep hoping that the next chapter will stop the slow spewing of cold boring facts. But it wont be until late in the book that you actually get to hear the theories that you probably bought the book to hear. After a quick summary of the Aquatic Dinosaur Hypothesis (ADH), you then have to bear with the recounting of his hardships of trying to publish the hypothesis. It is just when you are starting to get momentum and excited about his ADH, that you are subject to his retelling of science politics, which is about as interesting as the first part of the book. Overall the story telling process that this book takes ruins the ADH, instead of diving deeper into the ADH he spends most of the book giving personal or personnel background that you most likely will find boring and are not necessary to the plot of the book.

If I were to actually question the ADH, I would find it impractical in most ways. Not to go into too many details but I don't see why this theory would hold up except in the largest of the dinosaurs. Only in the largest sauropods and theropods would this theory be applicable. But even then, the hypothesis is that they waded in the water, not swimming but only for a small amount, and not leaving the water but only to lay eggs, which would mean sauropods of species (which I believe Ford states averaged about 14 feet at the shoulder) would be stuck living around the lake where the water is roughly at their shoulders, any deeper and they would be forced to swim the entire time or sink and have the water pressure complicate their lung function. If they strayed into the shallows then the dinosaur's weight wouldn't be supported by water then they aren't receiving the benefits of an aquatic lifestyle. So basically this hypothesis limits the dinosaurs to bodies of water that have roughly the same dept of water that the dinosaur is tall at shoulder height, and this is what I find too limiting to the ADH.

The book does make some interesting points but they are only made in roughly 2 hours of listening across the second half of the book.

4 people found this helpful

I am surprised this got published

The author is full of s***. The book sounds like the ramblimgs of a narcissistic fool. Waste of money!

24 people found this helpful

I wish I could return this mess

This is one of the worst booksI've ever tried to listen to. I feel taken for a very unpleasant ride. It reads like a long whine from a failed student. Little science to back up his claims, and a lot of complaining.

16 people found this helpful

Too poor to even care.

I tried to listen to this. I tried. But 3 hours in and I've learned more about geology than I had about dinosaurs. I felt like I was being unfair and continued onward when I began to notice some strange details about the author's view on dinosaurs. Scientifically minded, I was willing to listen to an opinion outside the scientific standard view. But this isn't really science. It's really bad conjecture. The author Brian Ford isn't even a paleontologist. Some basic Googling on the author shows there are very real doubts about the scientific validity of his 2012 research into the hypothesis that large dinosaurs had to be aquatic to not crush their own bodies with their weight ignoring the more common perception that large dinosaurs were probably much lighter than early 19th century estimates which were already exaggerated so discoverers could claim finding the largest ever dinos. The arguments contained within are so poorly contrived I will actually ask for a refund on this book and highly advise you don't waste your time with this title. If I could give it 0 stars, I would.

Yup, it's the Sex Lake Book, Better than thought

While Ford's book is a great history of Paleontology, his arrogant framing of concepts and insistence that his theory is just being stifled by foundless out of touch paleontologists comes across as more akin to the communication style of Alex Jones than David Attenborough.
it's sad because I'd genuinely like to read a discussion between the two theories done by two scientists who aren't arrogant.