Petrified Fruit

[Auspex]

...I am still wondering how this lizard can live in a populated area without being detected by more people. The last time that someone saw it was 1986. So if there is one, there has to be more of these lizards out there. I have talked to aboriginals in my area about it and they still think it is out there in the bush.

Myths and legends abound in the world of cryptozoology...it has an unquenchable allure. As a science-based forum, we must rely on evidence and reproducible results; all else is just anecdote and belief.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

This applies also to your "mummified petrified head of small rapter..." which "...has feathers under it's neck". This is an extraordinary claim; please take it to the museum for an in-hand examination.

[dinolol]

Myths and legends abound in the world of cryptozoology...it has an unquenchable allure. As a science-based forum, we must rely on evidence and reproducible results; all else is just anecdote and belief.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

This applies also to your "mummified petrified head of small rapter..." which "...has feathers under it's neck". This is an extraordinary claim; please take it to the museum for an in-hand examination.

That is where it is right now. I am waiting on a palaeontologist at the Australian museum to give me his opinion, on what I think is a mummified petrified head of a small rapter.

[THobern]

That is a good argument and I will say it could be ilmenite. I do not wish to get bogged down on one specimen, as I have many more ink blots for you to have a look at and give me your opinion. But if I cut it in half what will I see on the inside? Also, you have an interest in one of my specimens. Do you wish to have a closer look at it, as I will get a permit and send it to you.

You wouldn't need a permit.

[painshill]

I don’t believe there is any simple test you could do which would determine if it is ilmenite since - if it is – then it is highly altered and probably also quartz cemented. It might still streak black on the back of a ceramic tile, it might still be (very) weakly magnetic… or not. It might even be faintly radioactive. What would characterise it more than anything else would be analysis for its titanium content. If you were to cut it in half it might be unaltered on the inside… or not. But that’s kind of academic.

What a fossil might mineralise to, or be replaced by, is simply a function of the surrounding geology and prevailing conditions. The “ilmenite or not?” question has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a fossil. Cutting it in half might however emphatically answer the fossil question in that a seed-bearing fruit would be likely to have some internal structure which supports your case in a way that the exterior appearance does not.

One question I raised is whether or not Mel(l)issa actually examined the specimen (rather than just looked at pictures)? It’s a simple question, to which the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”, but you didn’t actually answer it. The reason for the question is that I don’t believe anyone could give a reliable diagnosis on that rock just based on pictures. For her to be brave enough to proffer that as an identification she must have based her opinion on something more than just its appearance. Maybe she knows that the area you found it has significant deposits of ilmenite?

Is that specimen also being examined by the museum palaeontologists (rather than geologists)? Again, the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”. If it isn’t, then we’re “stalemate” on that one and no amount of pictures is going to move the majority of us towards it being a fossil.

My interest in it is casual, given that I see nothing about it which would have caused me to even pick it up if I had found it. Like Auspex, I am however interested in what the museum folk have to say about any of the items you have found - specifically the “dino-heads”. If we get to that stage, it would be nice to have some real clarity about exactly which specimen(s) have been examined in person and what the expertise of those concerned might be… even if they remained anonymous (but why would they wish to be?) That kind of clarity has been conspicuously absent up to now.

Edited August 16, 2012 by painshill

[THobern]

I don’t believe there is any simple test you could do which would determine if it is ilmenite since - if it is – then it is highly altered and probably also quartz cemented. It might still streak black on the back of a ceramic tile, it might still be (very) weakly magnetic… or not. It might even be faintly radioactive. What would characterise it more than anything else would be analysis for its titanium content. If you were to cut it in half it might be unaltered on the inside… or not. But that’s kind of academic.

What a fossil might mineralise to, or be replaced by, is simply a function of the surrounding geology and prevailing conditions. The “ilmenite or not?” question has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a fossil. Cutting it in half might however emphatically answer the fossil question in that a seed-bearing fruit would be likely to have some internal structure which supports your case in a way that the exterior appearance does not.

One question I raised is whether or not Mel(l)issa actually examined the specimen (rather than just looked at pictures)? It’s a simple question, to which the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”, but you didn’t actually answer it. The reason for the question is that I don’t believe anyone could give a reliable diagnosis on that rock just based on pictures. For her to be brave enough to proffer that as an identification she must have based her opinion on something more than just its appearance. Maybe she knows that the area you found it has significant deposits of ilmenite?

Is that specimen also being examined by the museum palaeontologists (rather than geologists)? Again, the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”. If it isn’t, then we’re “stalemate” on that one and no amount of pictures is going to move the majority of us towards it being a fossil.

My interest in it is casual, given that I see nothing about it which would have caused me to even pick it up if I had found it. Like Auspex, I am however interested in what the museum folk have to say about any of the items you have found - specifically the “dino-heads”. If we get to that stage, it would be nice to have some real clarity about exactly which specimen(s) have been examined in person and what the expertise of those concerned might be… even if they remained anonymous (but why would they wish to be?) That kind of clarity has been conspicuously absent up to now.

Reposting email responses would ensure that nothing passes through any filters.

[dinolol]

I don’t believe there is any simple test you could do which would determine if it is ilmenite since - if it is – then it is highly altered and probably also quartz cemented. It might still streak black on the back of a ceramic tile, it might still be (very) weakly magnetic… or not. It might even be faintly radioactive. What would characterise it more than anything else would be analysis for its titanium content. If you were to cut it in half it might be unaltered on the inside… or not. But that’s kind of academic.

What a fossil might mineralise to, or be replaced by, is simply a function of the surrounding geology and prevailing conditions. The “ilmenite or not?” question has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a fossil. Cutting it in half might however emphatically answer the fossil question in that a seed-bearing fruit would be likely to have some internal structure which supports your case in a way that the exterior appearance does not.

One question I raised is whether or not Mel(l)issa actually examined the specimen (rather than just looked at pictures)? It’s a simple question, to which the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”, but you didn’t actually answer it. The reason for the question is that I don’t believe anyone could give a reliable diagnosis on that rock just based on pictures. For her to be brave enough to proffer that as an identification she must have based her opinion on something more than just its appearance. Maybe she knows that the area you found it has significant deposits of ilmenite?

Is that specimen also being examined by the museum palaeontologists (rather than geologists)? Again, the possible answers are: “yes” or “no”. If it isn’t, then we’re “stalemate” on that one and no amount of pictures is going to move the majority of us towards it being a fossil.

My interest in it is casual, given that I see nothing about it which would have caused me to even pick it up if I had found it. Like Auspex, I am however interested in what the museum folk have to say about any of the items you have found - specifically the “dino-heads”. If we get to that stage, it would be nice to have some real clarity about exactly which specimen(s) have been examined in person and what the expertise of those concerned might be… even if they remained anonymous (but why would they wish to be?) That kind of clarity has been conspicuously absent up to now.

Yes, she did look at it in reality. When I showed it to her, she took it of me and said, "I know what this is", had a look through magnifying glass 20x, and said "ilmenite". She did not do any other test, wrote the name down on a piece of paper and attached it with a rubber band. No it is not being examined by a palaeontologist, She just gave it back to me, all done. I already know of the test you suggested, not magnetic, leaves no mark only scratched the tile. I do not have anything to test for radiation. I was not refuring to this specimen, I was refuring to the dino crumb on page three, if you wish to have a closer look I will send it to you. The fossils the palaeontolgist is looking at, the round turtle, the small rapter head, the petrified fig and a stone tool made from a dinosaur talon.

[Xiphactinus]

Has the paleontologist given you any idea when he/she is going to be looking at your samples?

Do you have any pictures of the "stone tool made from a dinosaur talon"? I don't think you posted that one.

[dinolol]

Has the paleontologist given you any idea when he/she is going to be looking at your samples?

Do you have any pictures of the "stone tool made from a dinosaur talon"? I don't think you posted that one.

No, the palaeontologist has not got back to me and I am going to send him a e-mail. No, I do not have any pic's of what I think is a tool made from a talon.

[THobern]

Any replies from the paleontologist?

[dinolol]

No, still waiting on the palaeontologist to get back to me.

Edited September 7, 2012 by dinolol

[dinolol]

I have been trying to post pic's here, but without success. I have put a message in help and suggestions.

[THobern]

Any news then?

[dinolol]

No, still waiting.

[dinolol]

All the best for 2013. Getting back to donapplianceman and what he thought was a slice of petrified peach. I had something in my fossil collection that sound's the same and now I can post a pic of it. My opinion of this fossil is, that it could be a mangrove seed.

[THobern]

All the best for 2013. Getting back to donapplianceman and what he thought was a slice of petrified peach. I had something in my fossil collection that sound's the same and now I can post a pic of it. My opinion of this fossil is, that it could be a mangrove seed.

Peaches of course being a relatively recent, Asian cultivar.

It's a tumbled pebble of layered sandstone. The area is covered in this.

[Kosmoceras]

Some of the top people in any profession can be wrong, they do make mistakes. You seem to have the opinion that a professional knows everything. Rather than any palaeontologist, you should take it to a palaeontologist specialised in whatever you claim the stone to be. I am in the opinion that these are just stones and not fossils. Sorry if you do not like what we have to say, but feel free to think that what you have is a fossil if it makes you feel better.

Regards,

[Missourian]

Looks like an Egg McMuffin.

[dinolol]

THobern. No, it's not sandstone and I don't know how or why you would think it was sandstone from just looking at a photo. How would you know where I found this specimen, as I did not mention where I found it. You don't have to be cagey to get me to tell you where it came from and I will let you know that it came from North West Queensland. In that area flint stone is abundant and my specimen is flint or chert (impure forms of Chalcedony), not sandstone. I have found Chalcedony to be good medium for forming mummified petrified fossils. I could give you many examples on how a animal can transform to a mummy naturally and then petrify over time. I would say my examples (which I have many and will post), aged the same why as petrified wood. I have seen fossils (in perfect shape and colour) eroding out of flintstone, but you can not chip them out of the flint without destroying the fossil or suffering injury by the compressed flint (chalcedony) being sprung loaded by the pressure of the earth. The pieces fly off like bullets and I have been shot by a stone in my early days (12 years ago) of fossil hunting. I also started to study basic geology back then so I would know what I was dealing with in the stratigraphic nomenclature of rocks. I could put a pic of the brachiopod that I tried to remove from flintstone without success, it just shatters like glass or ceramics. The fossil and flint are all one, there is no difference between where the fossil begins and the flint starts. But for some reason, as the fossil erodes out it keeps it's shape and colour. It seems to be harder than the flint (sediment) around it and this is where I say, "I do not know why it erodes out that way". So, I left the other fossils in the flint to erode out naturally. Future beings can find them and wonder the same things as me. My brother and I, when in the field (in that area) searching for fossils, which had already eroded out of the flint, we found our first perfect shaped fossil. We found many more of these well defined fossils. I knew then that they must be eroding out of the flint or formed the same way as petrified wood. I will be going up into Queensland and the Northern Territory at Easter. If I get the chance I will take a photo of the fossils eroding out of the flint. THobern, I will just point out to you, I was an agriculturalist for many years. I have lived in the bush for 48 years, loving bush walks (in wild bush lands) looking at the fauna and flora. I also study the habits and behaviour of birds. I have many theories why dinosaurs, raptors or this new species, eosinopteryx took to flight.

[painshill]

With all due respect, the only opinion we seem to be getting that these finds you keep making are fossils, is yours. Following the last bout of discussions, I thought what we were expecting next was the opinion of a professional palaeontologist from an Australian museum. Some months later, we still don't have that. We don't have any explanation from you why that opinion is taking this amount of time to appear. In essence, we are no further forward.

If you keep posting items like that and saying they are fossils then pretty much all of the membership here with any real experience is going to continue to say that you are mistaken. Stalemate.

The route to breaking this deadlock - if you wish to - is in your own hands. Have you made a gentle call to the person that is examining your previous finds and asked the "how's it going?" question? If you have, what was the answer? If you haven't.... then why not?

[THobern]

Find the nearest university, see who in the department is a Paleontologist (although all geologists will be more than qualified to do this) and ask to make an appointment. They'll likely see you within a few days.

[THobern]

THobern. No, it's not sandstone and I don't know how or why you would think it was sandstone from just looking at a photo. How would you know where I found this specimen, as I did not mention where I found it. You don't have to be cagey to get me to tell you where it came from and I will let you know that it came from North West Queensland. In that area flint stone is abundant and my specimen is flint or chert (impure forms of Chalcedony), not sandstone. I have found Chalcedony to be good medium for forming mummified petrified fossils. I could give you many examples on how a animal can transform to a mummy naturally and then petrify over time. I would say my examples (which I have many and will post), aged the same why as petrified wood. I have seen fossils (in perfect shape and colour) eroding out of flintstone, but you can not chip them out of the flint without destroying the fossil or suffering injury by the compressed flint (chalcedony) being sprung loaded by the pressure of the earth. The pieces fly off like bullets and I have been shot by a stone in my early days (12 years ago) of fossil hunting. I also started to study basic geology back then so I would know what I was dealing with in the stratigraphic nomenclature of rocks. I could put a pic of the brachiopod that I tried to remove from flintstone without success, it just shatters like glass or ceramics. The fossil and flint are all one, there is no difference between where the fossil begins and the flint starts. But for some reason, as the fossil erodes out it keeps it's shape and colour. It seems to be harder than the flint (sediment) around it and this is where I say, "I do not know why it erodes out that way". So, I left the other fossils in the flint to erode out naturally. Future beings can find them and wonder the same things as me. My brother and I, when in the field (in that area) searching for fossils, which had already eroded out of the flint, we found our first perfect shaped fossil. We found many more of these well defined fossils. I knew then that they must be eroding out of the flint or formed the same way as petrified wood. I will be going up into Queensland and the Northern Territory at Easter. If I get the chance I will take a photo of the fossils eroding out of the flint. THobern, I will just point out to you, I was an agriculturalist for many years. I have lived in the bush for 48 years, loving bush walks (in wild bush lands) looking at the fauna and flora. I also study the habits and behaviour of birds. I have many theories why dinosaurs, raptors or this new species, eosinopteryx took to flight.

I'm sorry, I wrongly assumed that it was found in at your NSW site. On that basis I could limit it to sandstone. I'll grant that there is a small chance that it could be weathered chert, but it's not a fossil. Neither are any other of your specimens.

The problem appears to be that you have a strong imagination and are projecting ideas onto rocks. Without education, you've got nothing to calibrate your interpretations; because you have no way of recognising your own mistake, you are unable to appreciate basic geological and biological reasons why your ideas might be wrong. What you have to acknowledge, though, is that there will be people whose knowledge is greater than yours, and know of things that would prevent your finds from being fossils. Please, for the sake of my sanity, don't mention Galileo. http://en.wikipedia....;"Kruger_effect

There are hundreds of people nearby who could easily identify your finds in person - although to anyone with a basic understanding of Geology this is unnecessary - so take it to one of them.

Edited January 30, 2013 by THobern

[THobern]

...THobern, I will just point out to you, I was an agriculturalist for many years. I have lived in the bush for 48 years, loving bush walks (in wild bush lands) looking at the fauna and flora. I also study the habits and behaviour of birds. I have many theories why dinosaurs, raptors or this new species, eosinopteryx took to flight.

None of these can qualify you to reject the opinions of Paleontologists over your own.

[Herb]

It is a weathered rock composed of several layers of differing hardnesses, resulting in differential weathering presenting many layers.

[Scylla]

http://en.wikipedia....;"Kruger_effect

Now I know why I'm always right!

[Bullsnake]

Now I know why I'm always right!

And if you don't believe him, just ask him!