Unknown Structures Found In Strange Pyrite

[Ken Jones]

I know that none of this stuff most likely has nothing to do with fossils but it was found in a rock with two structures that I have been told by scientist are fossils. The photos I show here is just a small amount of what has been found in this rock. I have spent a great deal of money and time trying to understand what it is that I have stumbled across. I have written to hundreds of scientist and just can not seem to find an answer or explaination to any of what I have seen.

A few of these specimen have been examined by scientist and their composition is now known but they could not find a match for what it could be in their database.

As you look at these photos please keep in mind that this stuff is mostly microscopic, the only structures that can be seen with the naked eye are the first two items (the sheet metal & wire bundle like items), none of the rest can be made out wtih the naked eye at all, most of this stuff would easily fit inside the period at the end of this sentance, it is very important that you keep this in mind. The photos were taken with a digital microscope at 40x - 400x.

I'm not seeking any type of an analysis of any of this stuff,I would just like to know if any one out there has ever come across anything like this stuff or if anyone might have a clue as to what it is and how it might have ended up inside of pyrite.

If anyone has a clue as to what any of this stuff might be or can explain how it ended up in pyrite, please contact me, I'm dying to know.

Thank you,

Ken Jones

[Ludwigia]

If you have already written to hundreds of scientists, it would certainly be interesting to hear from you what some of their opinions on these objects are.

[jgcox]

I have a feeling that we are headed down a familiar primrose path!

[Brewcuse]

I'd like clarification on what "inside of pyrite" means.

The only way to have people share their ideas is based on as much evidence as possible. Starting with the premise that there are two fossil structures, I'd like to see (macro) photos of those. Then, any information on where the rock was found that can pinpoint its likely age and stratigraphic era would be very helpful. Finally, share the information other people have suggested about these so that we can rule in or rule out ideas.

The scientific method works, that's why we use it.

thanks!

[RyanNREMTP]

Also where was the items found? They remind me of microscopic roots.

[Auspex]

The root-like and plant-like structures do have the appearance of being organic, but I have to question whether they are fossil, or modern contaminates.

[MarleysGh0st]

Forum members reading this thread would do well to review the discussion in this earlier thread, that started a week ago.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/50243-a-3-d-carbon-microfossil/

Some pertinent points:

1. He does not remember where he found the specimen.

2. His procedures did not eliminate the possibility that there was recent material contaminating the surface of the rock, so (as already has been suggested to him) some of these specimens he's photographing might be recent and some might fossils.

Ken, I'm only an amateur paleontologist with no experience with microfossils, so I can't give you any answers. I will suggest, however, that you've been spinning the answers you have received to fit some dramatic narrative. I suggest that an objective review of those answers don't support that narrative. You've said you're not a scientist. May I ask what your profession is and what prompted you to begin with all the expensive tests you've already subjected this rock to, all over details that the majority of the public would never even notice?

Edited November 1, 2014 by MarleysGh0st

[howard_l]

I can not comment very much with out more details on the photos and the condition of the specimen the photos were taken of. One thing I can comment on is that Marcasite is basically unstable pyrite and turns fibrous and falls apart very quickly in the air. Inclusion crystals of marcasite found in calcite or fluorite are vey blade or feather like. You can have both pyrite and marcasite in the same deposit. What you may have in these photos could be marcasite crystals and or decomposing marcasite.

Looking at photos of minerals let alone microscopic photos is very unreliable way to make identification. I was wondering were these scientist sent samples or photos. Also were these scientist geologist that specialize in micro-paleontology or mineralogy. The average geologist would only be able to give an educated guess especially with out a sample to test or examine under known conditions.

[painshill]

Among the pictures, I see what look like plant trichomes, including dendritic and stellate hairs, plus barbed bristle types. They’re typically found on flower buds of many plants. Also what looks like a pollen grain. That would lead me to conclude that – at least in those cases – we’re looking at ordinary and unremarkable modern contamination.

Could you be a bit more forthcoming on what “found in” pyrite means, particularly against the backdrop of your statement on the other thread that “there was no prep involved”. Do you actually mean “found on (the surface of)” or that these structures are from cracks and crevices running through a piece of pyrite that still might be regarded as part of its surface rather than truly within? How can structures that small and delicate be isolated from within a piece of pyrite without any prep and how can you confirm that they were truly within it (which seems pretty unlikely), or rule out atmospheric/environmental contamination?

I would accept that some of the structures you're picturing might truly be part of the pyrite, but not all of them - and specifically not the botanic-looking ones I'm referring too. In that respect, I suspect there isn't a single explanation because the entire group of structures contains items which are not all related to one another.

[Ken Jones]

Forum members reading this thread would do well to review the discussion in this earlier thread, that started a week ago.

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/50243-a-3-d-carbon-microfossil/

Some pertinent points:

1. He does not remember where he found the specimen.

2. His procedures did not eliminate the possibility that there was recent material contaminating the surface of the rock, so (as already has been suggested to him) some of these specimens he's photographing might be recent and some might fossils.

Ken, I'm only an amateur paleontologist with no experience with microfossils, so I can't give you any answers. I will suggest, however, that you've been spinning the answers you have received to fit some dramatic narrative. I suggest that an objective review of those answers don't support that narrative. You've said you're not a scientist. May I ask what your profession is and what prompted you to begin with all the expensive tests you've already subjected this rock to, all over details that the majority of the public would never even notice?

Thanks for trying to help. I am retired navy and now work at a FAA repair staion. What prompted all of this, I was trying to ID a hand full of rocks that I had picked up throughout my life, a couple I have had since I was a kid. I was researching a rock that I had been told was pyrite (iron ore) but based on what I read as was seeing I thought it was for sure sperrylite (platinum ore). I had crushed a crystal to see how hard it was and came across a small piece of flexible metal inside it. Placed photos of the metal on a mineral website and was told that it had to be a silver or platinum flake or something man-made. I was asked by a scientist from a Usgs website if I could send samples. I sent the metal, a few crystals and fragments from the rock and a couple of other items. I did not get back an actual scan result, they sent an email telling me what they had come up with so all I can do is quote what was written back to me:

"First the foil piece is pure aluminum metal. The surface is extremely smooth and the edges remarkable sharp. I agree with the other folks who believed it was man-made. Althought I have never directly examined naturally occuring aluminum metal, photos that I have seen indicate irregular growth patterns from multiple sites."

"The pyrite sample is as identified. I did detect a significant amount of aluminum on one small area that I can not explain."

Trying to understand what has taken place after reading those two quotes is what lead me to finding all of this other stuff. The edx analysis has detected aluminum in the rock and I was also told that the xrd analysis detected it. I am just doing my best to find answers to something that I have read and been told, can not happen.

[Ken Jones]

I'd like clarification on what "inside of pyrite" means.

The only way to have people share their ideas is based on as much evidence as possible. Starting with the premise that there are two fossil structures, I'd like to see (macro) photos of those. Then, any information on where the rock was found that can pinpoint its likely age and stratigraphic era would be very helpful. Finally, share the information other people have suggested about these so that we can rule in or rule out ideas.

The scientific method works, that's why we use it.

thanks!

I have scrapped items out of holes in the rock, some of the crystals appear to be typical pyrite (solid) but some appear to be made up of compressed debris because when you crush them you find all sorts of strange structures. This stuff is very microscopic, the photos shown were taken with a digital microscope at 40x-400x, I have no ideal as to how to obtain a (macro) photo. After being told that those two structures were some sort of fossils I figured I'd see if I could place the rock in an era by find a name for the fossils. I'm willing to share whatever info I can, as for where the rock was found, I assure you, I do indeed wish I knew.

[Ken Jones]

Among the pictures, I see what look like plant trichomes, including dendritic and stellate hairs, plus barbed bristle types. They’re typically found on flower buds of many plants. Also what looks like a pollen grain. That would lead me to conclude that – at least in those cases – we’re looking at ordinary and unremarkable modern contamination.

Could you be a bit more forthcoming on what “found in” pyrite means, particularly against the backdrop of your statement on the other thread that “there was no prep involved”. Do you actually mean “found on (the surface of)” or that these structures are from cracks and crevices running through a piece of pyrite that still might be regarded as part of its surface rather than truly within? How can structures that small and delicate be isolated from within a piece of pyrite without any prep and how can you confirm that they were truly within it (which seems pretty unlikely), or rule out atmospheric/environmental contamination?

I would accept that some of the structures you're picturing might truly be part of the pyrite, but not all of them - and specifically not the botanic-looking ones I'm referring too. In that respect, I suspect there isn't a single explanation because the entire group of structures contains items which are not all related to one another.

I can not confirm or deny anything that I am told, all I can do is take it all in and try to make sence of it all. All I can say is that this is not a typical piece of textbook pyrite. I have had a couple specimen scanned and based on the results I was told that they appear to be organic but no one can what they are.

I thought some of this stuff was tiny plants at first but I could not understand why it had a metallic luster. I have a photo of an item that I have not shown to any scientist, it looks like a plant but I cannot for the life of me understand what it is I'm looking at. If you'd like to take a look at it, I'm more than willing to share some of this headache, just ask and I'll put the photos out for you to look at. I'm sure you'll have a better ideal than I ever will.

[Pilobolus]

Some of the dendritic material reminds me of fungal hyphae, but without a scale more exacting than "smaller than a period", it would be difficult for me to say further.

[Wrangellian]

Avoiding the debate, I just want to compliment you on your microphotos. Nice to look at. (Maybe the round thing is a diatom? -my only guess)

[painshill]

Hi Ken

I have good news and bad news.

Good news first:

I can help you with the location where the specimen originated. It was found around the year 2000 in California when you saw it sparkling in a little crater in the dirt while you were sitting on the hood of your car on a hill that overlooked Lake Castasic. At least that’s what you said when you posted it on mindat in October 2010 (although presumably you meant Lake Castaic in Los Angeles County):

http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,11,199976,208341#msg-208341

More good news. It’s a piece of pyrite. All of the mineralogical properties and analytical results you described are consistent with that and USGS have also confirmed that to you. It has a number of other minerals associated with it (all of which are commonly found with pyrite). That’s what you were emphatically told when you posted it again in June 2012 with the benefit of some great pictures (and I would completely agree with the responses you got) here:

http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,11,264465,264609#msg-264609

Now the bad news:

For whatever reason, it’s full of extraneous terrestrial contamination – some of which appears to be present in a way that could be regarded as suspicious and/or fabricated (although not necessarily by you of course). It seems to contain unexpected minerals, soil-borne materials (some of which are organic, but not fossil) and some potentially man-made materials, together with what may well be glue.

I congratulate you on the fine job you did in appearing to be helpful to the responders’ questions without ever really answering any of the direct ones. I’m noting that here too. It’s disappointing that you continued find reasons why you couldn’t post the details of the analyses you have – either because you didn't have them as image files or that a lot of typing would be involved. Even more disappointing when I note that you found the time to type thousands of words of wild speculation and post dozens of images on your blog about this piece of pyrite here:

http://ken-mysteryrock.blogspot.com

Taken as a collective, what you are saying about the item is – I’m afraid – pseudo-science of the worst possible kind. It’s full of schoolboy errors, falsehoods, misinterpretations, misrepresentations, misquotes and overclaiming. It’s also thin on facts and data, as well as failing to name a single person that you have consulted as an expert or authoritative source. All you keep saying is “nobody knows what this is” and stuff like: “I have contacted several high profile people with PHD's on this, even someone from Nasa and most say that if it's not something man made than they simple can not explain it because of all the different metals and the micro structures.”

Among the many horrors in your rationale I noted: nature does not create spheres or straight lines; amber dissolves in alcohol; pyrite will start to decay as soon as it is exposed to oxygen; pyrite is magnetic; a mineral can be claimed as realgar without any evidence to support that apart from it being red; whatever process created this rock is not clearly known to science; it can not be a product of any process here on planet earth… but I gave up counting.

Your belief that “when no one with a PHD can answer one single question about a common rock then I feel I have every right to make up whatever my mind desires” is both inaccurate and unjustified.

Among the myriad of pictures you posted, I saw (among other things) what looked for all the world like trichome hairs from plants (three types therof), a probable pollen grain, a nematode worm, an oligochaete worm, bacterial cells and some plant cell wall debris (all non fossilised) plus a twisted strand of man-made fibre.

To quote you again: “During my research of rocks I had come across several articles about NASA now looking for proof of alien life forms in rocks here on earth and that's what started me down this path”. The answer to your question: “Could this be the rock that they are looking for?” is ‘NO’.

Just to end with some good news, your fear that: “I have been warned by many long time collectors not to let this thing out of my site [sic] until I know for sure as to what it is I'm dealing with” need concern you no longer. As one of the mindat responders put it: “We can assure you a thousand times that you have a $2 piece of pyrite, but you won't believe us.”

Edited November 4, 2014 by painshill

[JohnJ]

Excellent work, Roger. Kudos on your investigation.

I was preparing to pull a freshly exposed piece of deteriorating pyrite from rocks in my area, not wash it that well, and roll it on the carpet a bit. Then, explore what kind of debris could come from this process under the microscope. You've saved me some time, but I may do it in the future for fun.

[Auspex]

To what purpose, I cannot grasp, but this whole saga is a muddle...

[Fossildude19]

I was wondering whiy this ended up on The Fossil Forum.

Thanks for the top notch investigation, Roger.

Regards,

[Auspex]

The whole thing smacked of "Sea Zoria", didn't it?

[fossilized6s]

Painshill (Roger) cracks another case wide open and takes no guff! Tune in next week as we unlocked the truths about why there are so many fossilized eggs everywhere.

Great job Roger! Top notch.

[JohnBrian]

[Missourian]

Those are Bazinga cooperi from the planet Oglethorpe. They are xenoboingomorphs of the clade Xenoboingodales. They are often found fossilized in beds of strange pyrite in the Tawlfondo Formation (Ogglymogglyan Period), which is likely the origin of these specimens. They arrived on Earth on a meteorite via the Sagittarian hyperspace lane.

My source divulged this information on condition of anonymity.

[FossilDAWG]

...

My source divulged this information on condition of anonymity and a copious supply of magic mushrooms.

You forgot part.

Don

[Missourian]

You forgot part.

Shhh!

[rejd]

I can't wrap my head around why some people feel the need to do this and wast so much time. Do they have nothing better to do?