Dburns Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 This was originally a rock that I thought looked like it was in the shape of a small hip bone or something. I collected it in Marlboro NJ a few years ago, but just recently got the urge to tinker with it. I started to dissolve some of the rock away. After about a quarter inch was removed I thought it looked like the upper half of a newborn or embryotic dinosaur that had been slightly crushed. I have been told it is just a concretion, but I am still convinced it is a baby dino. I have no idea how this would happen. However,. All the pieces are there Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, spinal cord, chest cavity, arms. I believe the large ear looking thing is the crest folded down. You can even make out little fingers and two lungs when looking at it in person. Let me know if anyone else sees this or if I am delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Hunter Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 The person who told you it was a concretion was correct. In no way shape or form does that resemble a dino embryo or any embryo. Sorry. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 55 minutes ago, Dburns said: I have no idea how this would happen I concur. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dburns said: This was originally a rock that I thought looked like it was in the shape of a small hip bone or something. I collected it in Marlboro NJ a few years ago, but just recently got the urge to tinker with it. I started to dissolve some of the rock away. After about a quarter inch was removed I thought it looked like the upper half of a newborn or embryotic dinosaur that had been slightly crushed. I have been told it is just a concretion, but I am still convinced it is a baby dino. I have no idea how this would happen. However,. All the pieces are there Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, spinal cord, chest cavity, arms. I believe the large ear looking thing is the crest folded down. You can even make out little fingers and two lungs when looking at it in person. Let me know if anyone else sees this or if I am delusional. Hi, i understand why you think that, but i agree with the others. With kind of shape, if it were an embryo would mean this is a vertebrate, so, an animal without external shell. An egg could be fossilized with the embryo inside, but that's obviously not the case here. Some animals like crocodiles for example have a skin so thick that it can be preserved but that can't be the case of an embryo envelop. So, the fossilization of your item would imply the preservation of soft tissue. This can occur in very, very rare locations and most of the time, the preservation is flat. I mean by that that when it is preserved, the skin looks like a halo around the fossil, the preservation in three dimension is an extremely, extremely rare exception. It can also be preserved, and there is only one kown case of dinosaur, in amber. Here is a foetus of Oviraptor found inside its egg (https://sites.google.com/site/luniverdesdinosaures/les-fossiles-et-la-palontologie?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1) : Here is a fossil of Sinosauropteryx found in China with its fluff. Edited June 5, 2021 by fifbrindacier 1 1 "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 5 hours ago, Dburns said: This was originally a rock Welcome to the Forum. It continues to be a rock. If this were indeed any kind of fossil, we would be the first to congratulate you. However, this looks like a rock . Possibly a concretion. The human mind has a great ability to recognize patterns and shapes. (Pareidolia) However, your item is just a geological oddity. If you look closely, there are no bone shapes, or texture. No bilateral symmetry. (It doesn't look the same on both sides.) No true anatomy. Just divots in vaguely similar locations to actual features. Even fossil baby dinosaurs in eggs have bones. The odds of a fetus being preserved in rock like this are astronomically against it. If you are still invested in this being an actual dinosaur embryo (again, billions to 1 odds of this) please take your item to a local museum or university. Have a paleontologist look at it. We have no interest in suppressing amazing finds. Yours just isn't one. I would keep it as a conversation piece, but realize it is not actually any kind of true fossil. 2 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 5, 2021 Author Share Posted June 5, 2021 Thanks for the response everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 5, 2021 Author Share Posted June 5, 2021 10 hours ago, Fossildude19 said: If you look closely, there are no bone shapes, or texture. No bilateral symmetry. (It doesn't look the same on both sides.) No true anatomy Here is the line of symmetry up the spine, some fingers, and texture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 For the reasons already stated, still a concretion or geological oddity, methinks. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted June 5, 2021 Share Posted June 5, 2021 48 minutes ago, Dburns said: Here is the line of symmetry up the spine, some fingers, and texture Okay. In answer to the title, I can see it now. But no. It would be too difficult to add all that up to be one creature I think. The apparent conflict in scale of the elements is hard to account for without arbitrarily dismissing some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 6, 2021 Author Share Posted June 6, 2021 2 hours ago, Rockwood said: Okay. In answer to the title, I can see it now. But no. It would be too difficult to add all that up to be one creature I think. The apparent conflict in scale of the elements is hard to account for without arbitrarily dismissing some of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 20 hours ago, Dburns said: I have no idea how this would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 No, don't see it. The comparative image is not all that comparative. There are no vertebral bones at all in your piece. The shape is only circumstantially similar to the image you posted, and even then quite disparate. It would be like saying a cherry is a basketball because they both have roundness. If I were you, I'd accept that the reasons why this is not a dino fossil far outweigh the very short list of why one would think it would be. As a scientific test of falsification and objectivity, please tell us in diagnostic terms why this is NOT a dinosaur fossil. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 6, 2021 Author Share Posted June 6, 2021 We will see. I have put it in some HCL. If there is bone underneath I will post an update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 36 minutes ago, Dburns said: We will see. I have put it in some HCL. If there is bone underneath I will post an update. Instead of aggressive acid treatments, why not bring this to your nearest natural history museum and post an update on what they say? ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagebrush Steve Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 53 minutes ago, Dburns said: We will see. I have put it in some HCL. If there is bone underneath I will post an update. If it really were an embryo there is no way you would want to dissolve it away to look for bones. You would be destroying a one-in-a-billion scientific breakthrough. Paleontologists have access to non-destructive ways to scan the interior, which is why you were asked to take it to a museum. But don’t worry, being as it is a concretion you have nothing to worry about. And if it wasn’t, it’s too late now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 23 hours ago, Dburns said: I started to dissolve some of the rock away. After about a quarter inch was removed I thought it looked like the upper half of a newborn or embryotic dinosaur that had been slightly crushed. Using acid is how it morphed from a "hip bone" to what you see now. As the acid continues to dissolve the rock, it may look like something else. Be safe using the acid and don't worry about dissolving a dino. 1 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 The method has been used. The method requires that the piece be preserved in just the right manner, and the process is slow and labor intensive however. As the others have pointed out, it is extremely unlikely to work on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 6, 2021 Author Share Posted June 6, 2021 If you still cannot see an arm and two hands let me know, and I can dissolve it further. And thank you all, I no longer need help identifying this.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dburns Posted June 6, 2021 Author Share Posted June 6, 2021 You all may think it was wrong to dissolve the tissue off of this thing's arm and hand, however it was useless before, because no one would believe what it was. You all lack imagination and a respect for the scientific method. When presented with evidence that contradicts what you have learned you reply with subtle sarcasm and demeaning attitudes. I regret destroying a part of this out of frustration and anger, because I knew what it was. As far as giving it to a museum, that will not happen. It was the Smithsonian that originally told me it was a concretion when I offered it to them. Now it will go to the highest bidder. And you all need to stop being so arrogant and closed minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 It's a shame you feel that way. Best of luck with your future plans. 3 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts