Volcanic fossils

[Midwest fossil]

So I have found fossils in the Nebraska that are definitely embryos the shell layer is now silver ash I have sent it to the university of Nebraska to be tested. I have found what I think are raptor skulls or some type of gator. I find tons of snake heads.  It looks like they were flash burned.  Some look like lava or hot molten ash hit them. So I think also when people say they can see skin they mean the impression of the skin. I have many of those and they are not concretions. I have concretions I picked up from my acreage that was deposited from the glaciers. Check out the Ash fall fossils in Nebraska some of the dinosaur still had fossilized food in their mouth and babies in their belly. Some of them I have started cleaning the ash away slowly as to not damage the fossil.

Pictures bellow 

 

1 is a skull  and the last 6 Pictures go with the first they are all the same fossil.

 

2,3 and 4 is the embryo that was covered with silver ash. I picked it up because it looked like a monkey skull or something lol. It as really round. Probably some type of bird. 

 

The other pituitary a snake heads maybe some type of small dinosaur. 

[Kane]

I am not seeing any evidence of raptors, embryos, gators, or snake heads in the photos you have shown us. One would expect to see distinct morphology including bone texture. I would be curious what the university says once they have completed their tests.

[FossilDAWG]

Sorry, I can't agree with your identifications.  I see nothing even suggestive of snake heads, raptor skulls, or gator heads, or eggshell.  I see several examples of weathered limestone and other rocks.  What sort of a "test" are they going to do at the University of Nebraska?  There isn't a "test" for snake skulls, you just have to look for the appropriate skeletal structure, texture, and teeth. 

 

Don

[jpc]

Time Out.  Before I even got to the photos.... I noticed this: 

 

"Check out the Ash fall fossils in Nebraska some of the dinosaur still had fossilized food in their mouth and babies in their belly." 

 

These are not dinosaurs, they are mammals, from about 50 million years after the dinos died out.  Secondly, the plant remains found in their mouths are hard glassy pieces of grass and, yes, easily fossilize, but are not soft tissue.  And third, yes some have babies preserved, but again, bones, not soft tissue. 

 

I agree with the others, these are not fossils.  I am sure the U of N museum folks will agree.  

[Paleorunner]

I agree with the companions, I do not see in any of these stones, morphology similar to their identifications.

[Midwest fossil]

I will post it when I get it back. None of the pictures I posted were gator if you zoom in on this you can't miss the bone

 

I know soft tissue itself is not usually preserved but under the correct circumstances it can be just like a mummy,

however soft tissue is usually an impression not the actual tissue.  Yes they are out there. 

 

 

 

 

 

[hadrosauridae]

No. Nothing you have identified is correct.  You have rocks that you want to look like certain things, but they are not.

[Ludwigia]

I'm already starting to get the feeling that we're going to have to close this topic sooner than later.

[Midwest fossil]

Wow ok maybe I am IDENTIFYING them as the wrong species but they are fossils. I was only meaning to give a characterization of what i thought they could be based on what i could see and know. I did not post the complete collection only a picture of of 2 I have sent out to be confirmed. Have an open mind we could learn something new. I will post an update after I get the results back. Thank you for your OPINIONS on what have. 

[Top Trilo]

4 minutes ago, Midwest fossil said:

I will post an update after I get the results back.

If the results turn out to be, what we all said here, a rock, would you accept that assessment? Many of the members here work with fossils as part of their job including some that have responded to this topic.

[Kane]

Having an open mind would also mean being open to the possibility that these are not fossils, but interesting geologic phenomena.  

[JohnJ]

43 minutes ago, Midwest fossil said:

Have an open mind we could learn something new.

 

I learn new things on this Forum everyday. 

 

Still, I ask that you please keep in mind this Forum does not operate like most social media that flails aimlessly amid the wild, unsupported speculation those venues encourage.  Many members are professionals, specialists, and knowledgeable amateurs; and they comprise a worldwide cross section of Paleontological experience.

[digit]

Agreed. These are all non-fossil rocks, some with interesting mineral inclusions that you are interpreting as a variety of fossils.

 

3 hours ago, Midwest fossil said:

I find tons of snake heads.

This is a clear indication that your pareidolia is working overtime. Pareidolia is a phenomenon of "perceiving" images of recognizable things in random patterns. It is a byproduct of our advanced pattern-matching capabilities that allow us to "see" things in cloud formations or rock profiles.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia&tbm=isch

 

We see a number of new members who have found rocks that are vaguely diamond shaped that they are interpreting as "snake heads" but they are NEVER actually so.

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/111010-snake-head-or-rock/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/114764-petrified-snake-head/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/113658-snake-head-or-rock/

 

41 minutes ago, Midwest fossil said:

Have an open mind we could learn something new. I will post an update after I get the results back. Thank you for your OPINIONS on what have.

We are often told to "think outside the box" or "have an open mind" when the original poster does not receive confirmation of what they believe their rocks to represent. This is a science based forum where we use facts and logic to discuss fossils and determine identifications. We do not accept theories of unknown and frankly impossible fossilization processes like "flash burning".

 

If you have come here to learn about the rocks you have found then you have received a valid assessment of your finds. If you have come here to hear unsupportable theories supported then you have not found the right forum for you. Unlike most social media which is filled with rude behavior and drama, we aim for polite discussion of fossils. You have received polite replies and INFORMED OPINIONS from both amateur and professional paleontologists. Sadly, we cannot corroborate your concept of what these rocks represent because our determination (based in facts and logic) cannot agree with your assessment.

 

You may choose to have an open mind and learn from the combined experience of are large and diverse membership or you may choose to adhere to your preconceived determination--the choice is entirely yours.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

I'm actually a bit surprised it took this long for pareidolia to be mentioned, as it's obviously not enough for OP to be told these are just geological specimens and pareidolia explains why they still think their finds might be.

 

I mean, there is indeed no doubt about the preservational qualities of volcanic ash (which, to my knowledge, by the way, is the only type of volcanic environment capable of preserving biological matter). The aforementioned mammalian fossils in the ash falls of Nebraska are one example, archaeological sites like Roman Pompeii, Minoan Akrotiri and the Mayan village of Cerén in El Salvador others. So it's certainly not impossible for fossils to be found in the conditions OP describes.

 

However, I agree with the collective knowledge already expressed here that I do not see any fossils in what has been presented here, although I do see what looks like the head of a sauropod dinosaur in the picture below. Thing is, though, that it couldn't be, as the ash falls from which these rocks are supposed to have come are much too young to preserve dinosaur remains. Something else must therefore be going on here, that something else being the aforementioned pareidolia. Over the course of evolution, our brain has developed impressive pattern recognition skills to help keep us out of danger, by quickly giving an impression of the environment around us. However, not everything that looks like a sabretooth tiger is a sabretooth tiger. And such is the case with the sauropod-head here.

 

On 2/22/2022 at 8:28 PM, Midwest fossil said:

 

I, myself, am also very curious what will come out of the university analyses that have been suggested for some of OP's specimens, as there is indeed no test that will claim a fossil is a certain kind of fossil, unless by visual inspection alone - which is exactly the same technique applied by our forum members, if a bit harder to do from photographs then from holding a specimen in your own hands. If a chemical analysis, I really wonder whether it'll have any other outcome then indicating the composition of the rock sample provided - which would not be able to show the presence of bone.

 

On 2/22/2022 at 11:06 PM, Midwest fossil said:

Have an open mind we could learn something new.

 

The problem with having an open mind is, unfortunately, that it works both ways. It's not just the people who evidence is provided to who need to have an open mind to the evidence, but also the evidence-provider, who needs to be willing to accept their evidence may not be what they thought it was when evidence of the contrary is presented. This is quite simply how science works: nothing is fact, everything is hypothesis, with theory only being those hypotheses that have withstood debunking for prolonged periods of time. Yet, this doesn't mean that theories are holy or ever-lasting, as new evidence may come along that will completely turn what we thought we knew upside down. In that sense, science is a continuous dialogue where new arguments can always be built to change the course of the narrative. But it's a dialogue, meaning that both parties need to recognize when an argument holds or not. In the case presented here there's simply not enough evidence to support the claim brought before us, yet there is strong counter-evidence to reject it.

 

In this, OP is certainly not unique, as we all suffer from pareidolia from time to time. However, this is part of the problem, as many people that come to the forum showing us cases of pareidolia are not open to counterarguments, which makes many members weary of each subsequent case. All I want to say is that, while many of us do try to keep an open mind, it helps to keep one yourself as well, so that presented with the right counterarguments you can learn and grow and deepen your understanding of the geological past.