[The Cajun]

measured 85 feet (26 meters) long and weighed about 65 tons

A walking whale.
It had to be pushing the size limit of what's possible on land from the anatomical physics alone.

[SMARTY]

He could have the Brazilian rain forest for a lunch salad

[Windflier]

It had to be pushing the size limit of what's possible on land from the anatomical physics alone.

I was just saying the same thing. I've thought for some time now, that Earth's gravity had to have been weaker in that time, or the planet itself had to be smaller to support such gigantic beasts.

Those are heretical thoughts, I know, but nothing else makes sense to me.

[BroJoeK]

The Cajun: "A walking whale. It had to be pushing the size limit of what's possible on land from the anatomical physics alone."

Windflier: "Per simple logic, gravity had to have been weaker in those times, or the planet itself was smaller."

Windflier: "Those are heretical thoughts, I know, but nothing else makes sense to me."

Here we go again...

Whole books have been written pro & con such lunatic ideas.
The "con" arguments take considerably more effort to understand, but I recommend it.

Here's the pro from 2010:

The Paradox of Large Dinosaurs (The New Science Book 2) [Kindle Edition]

And here is the con, from 2011:
Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: Understanding the Life of Giants (Life of the Past) [Kindle Edition]