Dinosaur 13 Reflection


Jacob Bostick
Dr. Bonnie Lenore Kyburz
ENGL 308
8 September 2018
Dinosaur 13: Reflection
                Dinosaur 13 was a documentary about Sue the T rex. I had originally thought that it would be about some scientific facts about Sue and how much of a fantastic discovery she was to the paleontology community. I was so wrong with my prediction. What ensued was a tug of war litigation battle between three sides and really is a roller-coaster of a ride.
                Two specific scenes really stood out for me. When the FBI showed up to seize the fossils and take sue away. To only throw her in a warehouse for the time being. I felt anger during this process in the documentary. The FBI stripped the black hills institute of their remarkable discovery for science. They spent roughly 17 days just extracting her from the ground making sure they got every piece possible. They put all the countless hours in and took 2 years to fully restore and preserve the fossils. Experts taking extreme caution with the fossils to protect them. Just for the FBI to come knocking on the door and telling them they had to surrender her to the government after the team put all the effort into discovering her and taking care of the skeleton. I had so many conflicting angry emotions with during this scene. The team was so sad and angry that they were losing Sue just after they discovered her and did all the leg work, the only thing they could think about was making sure Sue’s fossils weren’t destroyed in the move by a bunch of national guardsmen that probably couldn’t care less. So they went at it and did everything in their power to take protective measures to make sure Sue stays safe and undamaged. Another scene that really upset me is when Black Hills Institute lost the court case to Maurice Williams for the ownership rights to Sue. Sue was found on the very edge of Cherokee Indian reservation land which that specific area was owned by Maurice Williams. Maurice Williams won the litigation battle and proceeded to do what he wanted. He moved Sue to New York and had her auctioned off to the highest bidder. I was so incredibly disappointed because there was a possibility that such an incredible fossil would be auctioned off to a private collector and would never be studied by science or enjoyed by the public like it would be at a museum. Thankfully things did turn around and a little good was shown in the world at the auction. Entities which include Mcdonalds, Disney, the California state university system and several private donors ponied up $8,362,500 and won the bidding contest for sue and pledged it would go to a place where she can be studied and enjoyed. They went and donated her to the Field Museum in Chicago where she has been a permanent exhibit there for the public to enjoy and for scientists around the world to come and study. Which was such a heartwarming ending. The team that discovered Sue even mentioned that they were still disappointed they didn’t have her anymore but were content that at least she can be in the public eye and studied which is all they could ask for now.
                This whole documentary was a surprise. Thinking that it was going to be about how Sue was discovered and all the cool science that came from studying her. Yet, it turned into an incredibly confusing litigation battle between multiple sides for the ownership of Sue and actually set a legal precedent in the eyes of U.S. law concerning fossils and who owns them. The precedent that stands today is whoever’s land a fossil is found on has ownership of it.
                My biggest question I have about the film is why does it have to come down to land ownership? Why does a scientific discovery of such great magnitude have to be tied up in legal battles with greedy intentions behind them? The feelings I have after are very conflicting because it ended up working out but there was a significant chance for disaster and it was merely driven by greed. Discoveries such as Sue that can have significant contributions to the scientific community should transcend the law and greed for the betterment of society.  

Comments

  1. Maria GonzalezSeptember 12, 2018 at 7:41 PM

    I haven't watched this film, but I certainly understand and agree with your feelings about those obstacles with Sue! I can't imagine Sue being stored in a warehouse or being sold at an auction. Legal complications are something I never really thought about regarding paleontology or archaeology. I'd always assumed there were designated areas of land set for digging and whatever was found there could be used and collected with no second thoughts. I also find your perspective ("Discoveries such as Sue...should transcend the law and greed...") interesting. It's unfortunate that there probably are other instances similar to Sue, where the end result did not turn out as we may have liked. After reading your review, I have a new appreciation for Sue and museum/archival work in general. Now, whenever I go to museums or look upon fossils, I'm sure I will think about how they were collected and if there were any complications involved in preserving such items.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Robyn RogersSeptember 15, 2018 at 8:02 PM

    This sounds so interesting! I had no clue that Sue had such a backstory. I think this story is unique and so sad. Your comment about people who couldn't care less coming in and taking Sue from those who discovered the fossils is so sad to me. In my mind, this is something that should be cared about, and it reminds me of tones from the documentary I watched. People just don't care, and that's sad. I, for one, do care about this discovery. I am thankful that this was resolved in such a way that at least allows for other to come and study Sue and for the public visiting the museum to see such a discovery. You raised an interesting question at the end, about ownership of what is found on one's property. It's interesting because we place the meaning of owning land onto such a priceless thing that one wouldn't know they are getting when purchasing property. I think that when such a different case comes up, we do our best to interpret the law. This might not always result in the answer that is right, or that is best for an individual, group, or country, but it is their decision based on the interpretation of the laws with which we are governed.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pg. 14 infograph exercise analysis

1.) The audience for this document are american citizens. This document would be on display in education buildings such as elementary schools, high schools, and college/universities along with health care buildings such as clinics and hospitals. 2.) The infograph appears to have 2 main purposes that being physical activity is important and why physical activity is important. These two purposes are shown from all the statistics that are given about diseases and what physical activity can help prevent these statistics. It does try to convince it's audience to make a change and motivate them with a list of benefits to oneself and even the community. 3.) The document is addressing the lack of physical activity culture in the united states. The document does not state any clear solutions besides saying physical activity is good for yourself and others. Maybe an argument can be made that the images show various physical activities being performed such as biking and playing tennis or ...
Read more

Ch. 4 Document Analysis assignment

Jacob Bostick Ch. 4 Document analysis The Tone of the comments are kind of degrading in my opinion. The use of “you” as a finger pointer at the writing I could care less for. Along with calling things useless. They could be improved by being constructive and talking about the actual writing. The collaborator does well in the second and fifth comment but the first, third, and fourth the collaborator provides no help really. The collaborator addresses the writer more than the writing. Some of the comments would bother me if I was receiving them. Three out of five comments are kind of pointless and out of place in a professional environment. The first has the right Idea but something like,   “I didn’t really understand what you were saying here and maybe others will have a problem too. Could you clear it up a bit and explain more?” would be better than the original comment. The collaborator did a poor job keeping comments focused on the goal of the document and did...
Read more