Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This one caught my interest because of the shape, texture, and coloring. It looked very similar to some sauropod embryos I had seen on the internet. I have a few more roughly the same size and shape...

16506710854255296922022637944193.jpg

16506711022139101798553346045066.jpg

16506711194537635087263857322296.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first one is geological and the rest look like ironstone concretions to me, definitely no embryo.

  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/22/2022 at 7:25 PM, Lone Hunter said:

I think the first one is geological and the rest look like ironstone concretions to me, definitely no embryo.

 

The first one is geological you said, but definitely no embryos. If it's not an embryo, than it's a hatchling. It seems to small and in the wrong shape for that, so I say embryo. It appears to be Ankylosaurus to me, but I could also be wrong about that. This want an easy thing to bring out either. It was long, tedious, painstaking hrs of cleaning sediment. Very frustrating, but look what came out...

It appears this thing is missing half of itself, but with further inspection I realized it is actually not. The whole thing is there, but it appears to have been compressed at an unprecedented ratio. The patterns on the concaved side match the other...

IMG_20220616_145335484.jpg

IMG_20220616_145311322.jpg

IMG_20220616_145219129.jpg

IMG_20220616_145211131.jpg

IMG_20220616_145206088.jpg

IMG_20220616_145149500.jpg

IMG_20220616_145019111.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but it's neither a hatchling nor embryo from anything, you have altered it's shape into something you perceived.

Edited by Lone Hunter
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was extremely careful to not do that. Not spending more putting more effort into any certain area because of what I thought I saw. In fact I had no idea what this was til today. That was a very mindless accusation though as I could in no way have altered most of the detail on this thing. As difficult as it was too get it to this point, it would've been impossible to carve, chisel, brush, erode the detail in that well. This is a very special piece which you will soon see, and the fact that you were wrong while were so confident in your ID will be remembered. I know what this is and I know what I have done to show others and it was extremely frustrating for me to get there, but thank you for your time nonetheless. It is appreciated as most members have ignored or even belittled me in some cases. Including yourself. I am excited though, because this little guy is awesome...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'm glad your happy with the results, since you didn't know what it was when you started chiseling also means you didn't know what you were doing.  You need to know what you have in order to properly prep it and chisels usually aren't used on delicate fossils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kfinn0319 an observation was made regarding how you altered the first piece in your post.  You claimed it was an embryo or hatchling with absolutely no evidence to support your claim. That is also an observation, not an accusation.

 

Challenging your unsupported assertions about this rock is not equal to belittling you.  From the observable details in your photos, there does not appear to be anything to conclude it is an embryo or hatchling.  If you are going to make amazing identifications, you need to back it up with a detailed rationale.  No offense intended.

  • I found this Informative 2

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't use a chisel not would I ever use a chisel on what I thought was a fossil. I was only making the statement that there is no way it could have been done. I have spent the last months dry brushing this thing with a brush, with the occasional soft water pressure from my shower. I did, however, give it a bath in a muriatic acid solution for a brief time. I followed an example of how to do so by someone with much more experience than myself. Your accusation is hurtful as you have not even seen this in person or held it in your hand, but you say these things to me with arrogance like there is no way that this is a fossil and I must have altered it's appearance to something I perceived is unbelievable to me. That, not even for one second, could this be anything, but a rock that I altered. That's frustrating and hurtful to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was but referring to this post as belittling. I was just declaring on previous posts on other subjects. I am not making an outlandish claim as I am holding it right now and have shown it to random people who see the same thing without me suggesting anything to them. We have seen the same thing. The head and mouth are the most obvious parts. My pictures may not be off the best quality, but that is something to say instead of an outright shooting down of my own Id and then claiming I changed a rock into something else I perceived. I'm sorry, but that is very much an accusation. If you have not held something in your hand or even seen it in detail, how could you possibly even make the"observation" it is not real, but a product of what I perceived with absolute confidence. You should at least make the inference of the possibility first before making the full"accusation!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not say you altered the piece, but I am not seeing evidence of a fossil in what appear to be intriguing geologic phenomena — but unfortunately not likely to be fossils. That said, making identifications from photos alone may not tell the whole story, so it might be a good idea to bring these in hand to your nearest earth sciences department or natural history museum to see what they say.

  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 1

...How to Philosophize with a Hammer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't mean to hurt feelings just being factual, and didn't say it couldn't be something just not an embryo. Hate to see people waste time and effort on something since I have done that myself, and with all the very knowledgeable people on here someone would have spoke up if there was anything discernable there.

  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kfinn0319 said:

That, not even for one second, could this be anything, but a rock that I altered. That's frustrating and hurtful to me...

It was meant to be informative, in the sense that you would consider offering support for your claim to what it is. 

 

How you interpret that is up to you...as are your perceptions.  

 

Showing it to random people does not constitute proof of what you think it is.  Brushing it, rinsing in a shower, and bathing it in muriatic acid have significantly altered it.  I disagree with your conclusions about what it is.  

 

As @Kane mentioned, take it to a professional paleontologist close to you in Arizona.  

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

I will not say you altered the piece, but I am not seeing evidence of a fossil in what appear to be intriguing geologic phenomena — but unfortunately not likely to be fossils. That said, making identifications from photos alone may not tell the whole story, so it might be a good idea to bring these in hand to your nearest earth sciences department or natural history museum to see what they say.

Bite that is an answer I will accept. Not only did you not suggest anything negative about the effort I have it into this, you also gave me your observation as to you being in disagreement with my conclusion. You also gave me alternative options to move forward with instead of an outright denial of the possibility. You were respectful and also helpful. Thank you. Look, I am not some overly sensitive snowflake reacting to every little action I perceive as an injustice to myself. I am completely aware that I could be wrong in my own Id which is why I joined this forum. I wanted the suggestion and knowledge already attained by people more experienced and much more intelligent than myself. That means ask of you. I'm just curious at this point how anyone can be so sure of anything when it comes to a field where there is so little known about this subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Kfinn0319 said:

I know what this

I noticed your post was placed in the section labeled "Fossil ID". Yet I see you are the one telling the knowledgeable members trying to help you what your rock is.  This is backwards from what this section is intended to be. Please accept the advice of members graciously and just move on if you disagree. You have a suggestive rock from my perspective, though those who have responded already are much more learned than me. 

As @JohnJ says, take it to a professional paleontologist.

  

Mike

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

It was meant to be informative, in the sense that you would consider offering support for your claim to what it is. 

 

How you interpret that is up to you...as are your perceptions.  

 

Showing it to random people does not constitute proof of what you think it is.  Brushing it, rinsing in a shower, and bathing it in muriatic acid have significantly altered it.  I disagree with your conclusions about what it is.  

 

As @Kane mentioned, take it to a professional paleontologist close to you in Arizona.  

I am aware I have altered it's appearance. What are any of us doing when cleaning or removing sediment. I am just in complete objection of the accusation that I did so in a way as to alter it from what it is and into what I perceived. That's all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, minnbuckeye said:

I noticed your post was placed in the section labeled "Fossil ID". Yet I see you are the one telling the knowledgeable members trying to help you what your rock is.  This is backwards from what this section is intended to be. Please accept the advice of members graciously and just move on if you disagree. You have a suggestive rock from my perspective, though those who have responded already are much more learned than me. 

As @JohnJ says, take it to a professional paleontologist.

  

Mike

My goodness I would love to do that. I have been saying nothing else. I'm just saying give knowledgeable answers if you are so knowledgeable. Than give me other options to go forward with. Don't tell me I made it this way and that it is nothing when the possibility that you may not know everything about said subject should also be observed. Observations should not be made with such certainty when no such certainty could possibly even be reached about a subject which so little is actually known. Not just assumed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave the option open that someone else might be right where you may be wrong is all I am saying. Don't state it that you are right and I am wrong with absolute certainty when you could not possibly be certain. Especially when you are making the claim, with absolutely no factual evidence to said claim, that I altered something into something I perceived. Even if you are correct in your assumption, and I did make this into what I thought it was. Either consciously or not, it does not help me learn anything and progress with this area I am so interested in. I would be an absolute moron if I didn't challenge what I thought too be not fair or wrong. So please don't ask me to blindly accept everything you tell me to be true and say thank you and move on. I would never want to be part of that group and should part ways now if that's what you want. I'm sorry I sound like a jerk who is stubborn and prideful, even though sometimes that's exactly what I am. I don't mean to be is what I'm saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The advantage of science is that there is always room for doubt and further reconsideration. :) We can speak in terms of probabilities,  not certainties and absolutes. The use of hedging words such as might, may, could, likely attest to that scientific spirit. :hammer01:

...How to Philosophize with a Hammer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, minnbuckeye said:

I noticed your post was placed in the section labeled "Fossil ID". Yet I see you are the one telling the knowledgeable members trying to help you what your rock is.  This is backwards from what this section is intended to be. Please accept the advice of members graciously and just move on if you disagree. You have a suggestive rock from my perspective, though those who have responded already are much more learned than me. 

As @JohnJ says, take it to a professional paleontologist.

  

Mike

I do however live how you purposefully tried to throw a hurtful jab at me by saying "your rock!" Thank you for being that way. Enlightening!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here is trying to belittle you or "throw a hurtful jab" at you.  Please do not presume negative intentions by others that disagree with you.

 

What large towns are closest to you in Arizona?  Other members might be able to get you in contact with the closest paleontologist.

The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true.  -  JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand wanting to get information on your find.

What I will say is this:

Soft tissue preservation is extremely rare, and most often not 3 dimensional, but 2 dimensional and carbonized.

I see no evidence of bilateral symmetry in any of your items. I see no evidence of bone, skeletal structure, or any kind of biological origin to these items.

 

It is difficult to ID things from photographs. However, there is a lot of knowledge and experience here on the Forum with fossils.

We are pretty good at figuring things out.

 

We get a number of posts, just about every week, with people claiming incredible fossil preservation and stupendous finds, that actually are just rocks.

Very interesting and intriguing items, but rocks, none the less. We get accused of being jealous, not wanting to verify someone's finds, and not thinking outside of the box.   All the while, we take time to try to answer them the best way we know how.

 

But generally speaking, a lot of people have no idea about the amazing things that can be formed by geologic processes, and that sometimes, ... something can seem to look   like something biologic in origin, but is actually geologic in origin. Many do not take time to learn how fossils form, and what kind of fossils can be expected to be found in their local area.

 

  • I found this Informative 2
  • I Agree 1

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

Hello Kfinn,

welcome to the forum.

As I have stated in other similar cases: If this was a complete ankylosaur embryo, it would be a tremendous scientifical discovery, and cleaning by a layperson, how careful and skilled you may be, would probably have destroyed a lot of its value, because the surrounding matrix can contain valuable information.

So again I call out to all finders of possible embryo fossils: Do not alter them on your own!

Concerning your find I do not think that the structure was created by your cleaning, but neither do I believe it to be a fossil. erosion patterns like these do sometimes resemble animals armor, because the same basic principles of how a surface can be subdivided apply. But animals (especially vertebrates) are quite symmetrical, which your find is not. even considering it being deformed by geology.

By the way, calling things rocks does happen often on this forum, and although technically most fossils are rocks in a way, its most times the short way to say "not a fossil", without being an insult to the finder.

Best Regards,

J

 

 

Edited by Mahnmut
spelling
  • I found this Informative 2

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something

Thomas Henry Huxley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...