Ken Jones Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 This specimen has yet to be identified, like the conodont it too was found in the same piece of pyrite. I have come across a lot of structures at the microscopic level in this rock that no scientist can identify. The ell like conodont was found mixed in with fragments broken off the side of the rock, while this one was scrapped out of a hole in the rock. Like with the conodont, there was no prep involved, it was found as you see it in the photos, I'm having one heck of a time trying to understand why all this stuff breaks away so clean and is not found embedded in the matrix. I found a lot of info on the web about 2-D carbon film fossils but I can not find anything about 3-D carbon fossils. I did have a scientist point me in the direction of "graptolites" saying that some had been preserved as 3-D carbon films in the Arctic islands, but this in not in film form so how do you explain this?? I have not been able to find any articles on the web that address 3-D carbon fossils. When I look at photos of the "graptolites" I do see a likeness but I can't say for sure that this specimen belongs to that family. I have not been able to find any articles on the web that talk about 3-D carbon fossils, so if anyone has any links, it would surely help. Thank you, Ken Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Dente Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Ken Are these objects that you are finding flexible? I'm wondering if they are modern arthropod pieces. A hole in the rock sounds like the perfect place for a modern bug to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 When people collect microfossils from matrix they normally clean the exterior of the piece very thoroughly, including holes and crevices. That is to remove modern materials that are in the surface pores and ensure that wht you are investigating is really part of the original sediment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 can you please tell me what they are? Did you investigate arthropod appendages like we already discussed in your last thread? Other people and I suggested these look like modern insect appendages. You also need to realize that there are still many thousands of undiscovered and undescribed arthropod species. There are almost a half million species of beetles alone. Also, since your method of gathering these specimens does not attempt to discriminate between old fossil specimens and bugs from today, you may not get a lot of people interesting in untangling that mess. You need to care enough about what you are doing to gather good data, if you want other people to take interest. If you are interested in pursuing it, two things you could do would to to use proper, clean methods of gathering data like I mentioned above, or you could also gather insect specimens from the site you got the rock and see if that helps to identify the specimen. A serious appraoch from you to use proper procedures encourages others to participate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I had a scientist tell me that the most likely reason that no one can identify any of this stuff is because, it's never been seen before now. Another reason is because there are approximately 8 million undescribed existing arthropods. You have probably found another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Jones Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Another reason is because there are approximately 8 million undescribed existing arthropods. You have probably found another one. As I have mentioned before, I am in no position to say what any of this stuff is or isn't, so I do appreciate any answer that anyone takes the time to give me so all I can say for now about the arthropods is thank you for you answer and advice. I have come across a lot of strange microscopic specimen in this rock and so far have only been able to find the identification for only two out of the many. One specimen was examined by the USGS and identified but said that they could not explain how something like that would be in found in a rock, the conodont was identified by professors from major universties based on the photos I sent. With what the USGS identified there is no way there should be any type of fossil found within this rock so like you, I have a serious problem with these fossil like things but than again, I am in no position to call professors a lair so for now, I just have one heck of a mystery on my hands. All the geologist that have held the rock in their hands say that it is definitely something natural. I have had an xrf, edx, raman and xrd analysis done on the rock and still no one can explain it. I have even had an s.e.m. and edx analysis done on a few specimen and based on the compsition all they could tell me was that it was something organic but could not be identified. I have been told by more than one scientist that this rock in not man made, it can not be a meteorite and nor can it be a product of planet earth. I would like to show a few photos of some of the other strange microscopic specimen in the hope that someone on here might have come across some of this stuff in the past while searching for microfossils but I don't want to sit here and waste people time on something that my not have a thing to do with fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 You are making two errors in the use of your terminology. You are calling everything "microfossils", but haven't done the proper procedure to find microfossils. The other error is the use of the term "in the rock", but you say that these were ON the rock. If you stick with proper terminology then the mystery begins to unravel. "I have found some things that were on a rock, and some of them might have been in the rock. Some of them appear to be fossil conodonts, and others appear to be modern arthropod appendages." Mystery solved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I would like to have clarification on the origin of the matrix material, and the exact circumstances of the specimens' recovery. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustPlainPetrified Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 It is a real mystery to me now too...where could this rock material be from then?..." I have been told by more than one scientist that this rock in not man made, it can not be a meteorite and nor can it be a product of planet earth." ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 "...the rock can not be a product of planet earth because of all of the different elements detected in it." This absolutely pegs my skeptic meter. Unless the individual who made the comment meant that it could be an artifact of human industry, I would discount it completely. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Jones Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 "...the rock can not be a product of planet earth because of all of the different elements detected in it." This absolutely pegs my skeptic meter. Unless the individual who made the comment meant that it could be an artifact of human industry, I would discount it completely. My skeptic meter was burnt out a long time ago so if you have a spare, I could for sure use it. I do agree, not one bit of this makes any sence at all. I have spent a great deal of time and money trying to figure this thing out with no luck what so ever. It was suggested that I go talk to a lawyer that deals with research and I was told that I should not do any more damage to the rock, try to find out as much as you can from what has been remove and not to allow anyone to exam it out of my eye sight. I was told for now just keep asking questions but based on what has been found and detected in the rock, it is very unlikely that I will find any answers but I have to try. If there were only one or two things abnormal about this rock it would very easy to just push it aside but I just can not understand how a small little piece of pyrite could have soooo many things about that can not be explained. I know that if I want answers I will have to hand this over to those who can figure this thing out, I'm learning a lot so I'm in no hurry to see it get destroyed. I have come across a lot of structures in this rock that I thought were microfossils of plants but they have a metallic luster to them, I would like to post photos on here to see if anyone has ever come across this stuff. I can not say that they are fossils and no scientist has been able to ID this stuff but I was wondering if it would be ok to post photos on here? I don't want to break any rule or sit here and waste peoples time with a bunch of unknown snarge so please let me know if it would be cool to post such photos. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You are more than welcome to post images. Please make sure they are as sharply focused as possible and include multiple angles. Close-ups or macro photos would be useful, too. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If there were only one or two things abnormal about this rock it would very easy to just push it aside but I just can not understand how a small little piece of pyrite could have soooo many things about that can not be explained. Being a physical object that exists, I would say that it is normal; we just haven't yet explained it. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted November 4, 2014 Share Posted November 4, 2014 NOTE: In another thread, this topic has been revealed to be either delusional or a hoax. "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts