Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity

That doesn't look like galloping to me. It looks like kneeling, like it's injured.

Your problem appears to be that you're looking at the wrong kind of architecture. Here's your seismosaur skeleton again:and here's a cantilever bridge:Hrm, how about that? High arched back supporting a neck cantilevered by tendons connecting it to the tail. Of course the seismosaur isn't an arch. That's only evidence for lesser gravity if, like the Romans, your architectural thinking is stuck in the Bronze Age.

No, it's supported by the ligaments and musculature that one would have to be totally ignorant of anatomy not to infer from the creature's skeleton.In other words it's supported by the tail.

I'm rockin' Firebird under XP; your links just give 403 errors. NAT routing, chief.

Here's a picture of a typical urban construction crane:The arm of that crane is considerably longer than any sauropod's neck, not to mention heavier, especially loaded. So according to your argument the torque involved must be intense - hundreds/thousands of times what you claim it must be for the dinosaur.Now, I'm looking, but I just can't find the hundreds of battleship engines holding the arm up. Can you point them out to me? Thanks.

To the contrary, it did have suspension cables - tendons, ligaments, and musculature cantilevering the neck by the tail.You don't just get to say "nuh-uh!" and expect that to carry any weight. Let's hear some evidence that you couldn't hold a sauropod's neck up by it's tail.