> I think they meant 70 tons not 7 and the answer they are looking for is
> the Brachiosaurus. I called and e-mailed the station and they informed me
> in no uncertain terms that they had double and triple checked their facts
> and that I was mistaken not them. After all I've only written one book on
> dinosaurs and they are a news television station.
The stupid! It burns!
That said, 70 is close to the upper extreme of published estimates. Try half
that for a realistic number.
7 tons, on the other hand, is equivalent to a reasonably large bull
elephant...