Hey, that video you just linked. Is proving that image is wrong. Spinosaurus could walk on two legs if it had it's head in the s-shape. It probably walked on all fours getting out of the water then curling it's neck back too get on to it's hind legs. The only reason I thought of that was because I remembered a funny image of spinosaurus head on a duck. Then it got me thinking that ducks curl there heads back. Then it led me to swans.
I'd like to point out that what the most recent papers say is basically: "It's difficult to tell whether the Spinosaurus fossils analyzed by Ibrahim et al were in fact composed entirely of Spinosaurus material." Not to put all too fine a point on it, the jury is still out on this one. The paper that many claim discredits the Ibrahim et al one on Spinosaurus' quadrupedality mostly just notes that some of the vertebrae in the Ibrahim et al reconstruction might have come from Sigilmassasaurus.
TLDR: It's unclear what fossils should be considered Spinosaurus, odds are quadrupedality is correct.
That video was featured in a 2015 documentary by BBC. They don't use things that are most likely false. I'd say that until a complete skeleton of either dinosaur is found, we can't be sure of anything. We can't say that this is true and this isn't and that one was right and the other was wrong. For now at least. We assume to much,
But now is 2016, and apearantly the 2016 version now says that that is a juvenile spino and Blair Blair Blair. I wish the arguing about what spinosaurus looked like would come to an end, it's been going on for to many years were someone didn't know this and someone else had to point out that, and then someone else comes in to say this and that. And the experts are all disagreeing with each other and for all we know we will be arguing about if they had a hump instead of a sail
If they start to argue about the hump-sail thing, then I will lose all faith in humanity. Oh wait, I already did...
Anyway, I don't understand the whole thing about Sigilmassasaurus. They only found bits and pieces, and now they're questioning if all the Spinosaurus bones they've are really Sigilmassa. They also found water chemical traces in Spino bones that say that it was aquatic. They also found Onchopristis bones in Spino jaws. I don't understand the problem there. The size, can't all the bones be from different ages of Spino, not Sigilmassa. I doubt Sigilmassa is even real.
If someone wants to argue hump vs sail, here's a pretty good refutal. At any rate, the main issue with the Spinosaurus vs Sigilmassasaurus is that it's just unclear whether various spinosaur bone collections are just from one species or several lumped together accidentally.