Jump to content

Raptor skulls? Permineralization? From meteor impact? Heavy as heck?


Kodysheeran55

Recommended Posts

  • Kane changed the title to Raptor skulls? Permineralization? From meteor impact? Heavy as heck?

Regrettably, this does not seem to be a skull of any sort. It lacks bone texture, symmetry, and the area in which this was found is not a geologic fit for dinosaurs. In future, you may wish to use a ruler or tape measure to indicate scale. 

  • I Agree 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is also, unfortunately, just a rock and not a skull.

  • I Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kodysheeran55

3rd skull

4 minutes ago, Kane said:

Regrettably, this does not seem to be a skull of any sort. It lacks bone texture, symmetry, and the area in which this was found is not a geologic fit for dinosaurs. In future, you may wish to use a ruler or tape measure to indicate scale. 

It's instant Permineralization by meteor. Skeleton structure is there you just need to look. And i think this thing was either amphibious or trickled down from the thaw of the glacier and landed in my yard. Along with a large variety of other specimens. Examine skull two, I believe it to be same species as skull #1. Also has splatters of gold hew blotches. Also crystals seem to be traced with hint of gold as well.

IMG_20211011_154033050.jpg

IMG_20211011_154112627.jpg

IMG_20211011_154042983.jpg

IMG_20211011_154141623.jpg

IMG_20211011_154135258.jpg

IMG_20211011_154147678.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are rocks that usually have curious shapes, and they tend to awaken our imagination, believing we see things that are not, but are still rocks.^_^

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking, and there is nothing at all diagnostic of fossil skull/bone material of any sort in these pieces. This may be an instance of pareidolia. The addition of meteor strike seems highly unlikely as well (the impact would destroy a fossil). Occam's Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is likely the correct one. The presence of gold might be suggestive of pyrite.

 

Some of our osteo- and dino experts will be along to provide their input shortly, no doubt.

 

 

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry but there is absolutly no evidence of fossils of any kind in these rocks.

no bones, no shells, no anything…..

  • I Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Kodysheeran55

How do you explain the mapping of the brain cortex on the reverse side of skull #1? Or the identical bone structure between #1 and #2? Even the outlining of the eyes display correct layout. I've had multiple geologists direct me to paleontologists due to lack of an answer as to even what it is.. also forgot to mention IT'S MAGNETIC! All three. Skull 1 and two are just half a skull. #2 is entire skull with flesh and skin still frozen in time it seems. If this were to be what it seems then yes this would be a first for this area to be discovered. I've got an extensive collection I've built up of what I believe to be species petrafied the same way in the same general area. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kodysheeran55

Also there are no bone in these specimen, all crystalized matrix. And also thought pyrite to be culprit but I don't think pyrite can splatter.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FranzBernhard
12 minutes ago, Kodysheeran55 said:

I've had multiple geologists direct me to paleontologists

Direct, first hand-examination by paleontologists needed!

Here on the screen, I don´t see any evidence of being these fossils of any kind.

Franz Bernhard

  • I Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are  proposing something that has never happened before in this world.  In your own collection you can label it as you think best.

  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kodysheeran55 said:

How do you explain the mapping of the brain cortex on the reverse side of skull #1? Or the identical bone structure between #1 and #2? Even the outlining of the eyes display correct layout. I've had multiple geologists direct me to paleontologists due to lack of an answer as to even what it is.. also forgot to mention IT'S MAGNETIC! All three. Skull 1 and two are just half a skull. #2 is entire skull with flesh and skin still frozen in time it seems. If this were to be what it seems then yes this would be a first for this area to be discovered. I've got an extensive collection I've built up of what I believe to be species petrafied the same way in the same general area. 

Reading your comments, and guessing the answers of other forum members, I invite you to show your findings to a paleontologist for examination.

 

I don't think anyone in this forum will give you an answer that will convince you or satisfy you.;)

  • I Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

A meteor would incinerate and obliterate anything it struck due to incredible heat and force velocity, and that definitely includes anything organic. What you are suggesting would go against physics itself, I’m afraid.

 

Did these geologists offer to test the pieces in terms of composition?

  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kodysheeran55 said:

It's instant Permineralization by meteor. Skeleton structure is there you just need to look.  Also crystals seem to be traced with hint of gold as well.

We are looking and we see no bone.

Gold = pyrite?

Permineralisation by meteorite? Umm.... a chunk of nickel/iron (or silicates/nickel/iron or olivine crystals/nickel/iron etc) travelling at around 70,000kph big enough not to be slowed down much by the atmosphere doesn't instantly fossilise something in its way, it vapourises it.

If the meteor was small enough and the atmosphere slowed it down, after the fireball and the meteor broke in to many pieces they usually just fall harmlessly to the earths surface (at terminal velocity).

  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just claiming that something is what you think it is is unfortunately not a recognized scientific method. I'm just wondering how experienced your multiple geologists are who you claim were not able to give you an answer as to what it is.

  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly would be the mechanics behind "instant permineralization by meteor"?  :headscratch:

I have never heard of this from science.   What exactly are you basing your theory on?

 

As others have stated, meteor strikes result in obliteration, and incineration of ground zero for quite a distance around the impact zone.

 

Pareidolia is the more likely scenario here.

  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just hear us out real quick,

 

Here is our evidence supplied from members with decades of experience and ideas that have been worked out over centuries.

4 hours ago, Kane said:

It lacks bone texture, symmetry, and the area in which this was found is not a geologic fit for dinosaurs.

 

2 hours ago, RJB said:

Pareidolia

 

2 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

meteor strikes result in obliteration, and incineration of ground zero for quite a distance around the impact zone.

Also you are right that pyrite doesn't "splatter" but neither does gold. Pyrite is much more likely. You said it was magnetic which is not a good sign for fossils, there have not been found any magnetic dinosaur skulls.

 

I suggest you research the colored evidence above as you should quickly realize that your theory does not fit. If you are really interested in fossils, I would suggest researching what fossils have been found in your area, its a very fun hobby, good luck on your future finds. :)

  • I Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

can i add something to the above?

Those of us who are interested in vertebrate cranial kinesis will immediately feel sorry for your putative animal.

your hypothesis manages to defy the insights garnered about bone crystallinity,sampling theories,the completeness of the fossil record,megareptile anatomy,calcium phosphate phase diagrams, and temperature effects of astrobleme impact,et very many cetera

reason for edit:correction spelling mistake

Edited by doushantuo
  • I found this Informative 1
  • Enjoyed 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paleorunner said:

Reading your comments, and guessing the answers of other forum members, I invite you to show your findings to a paleontologist for examination.

 

I don't think anyone in this forum will give you an answer that will convince you or satisfy you.;)

I agree 90%.  Take this to another geologist, not a paleontologist.  Someone who specializes in igneous or metamorphic rocks.  This does not look sedimentary.    

Edited by jpc
  • I found this Informative 1
  • I Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • JohnJ locked this topic
35 minutes ago, doushantuo said:

while it is not my station: I move to close the thread

 

 

Thanks again for the informative patience this membership exhibits toward implausible assertions.

  • Thank You 3
  • I Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...