Theres always been guesswork and extropolation. The dino example you used would have been extrapolated from depth of the print,the likely condition of the soil at the time,other better understood or shall i say better known dinos with greater historical records. Its not scientific method with repeatable results but its the best that can be done with the information available.
If the best that can be done with the information available is nothing better than guesswork, then I think it ought to be kept in the lab until such time as it is more mature. Science should be about known results which can be repeated and verified. Those results should be published. The results which are simply guesswork should be held back.
But it's all about the grants. Having a fancy theory based on almost no data is a fine thing to publish and make some noise. Afterall, if it's the best that can be done with the information available, then you can get A for effort.
But I consider it more Creative Writing than Science.