ynot Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said: EDIT: Yah, Me too!! Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TqB Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Excellent, @Carl, I'm practically convinced it's natural. Good to have my belief system upended like that. It's a stunning specimen... 1 Tarquin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Great info, Carl! (That limb is feeling pretty solid, right now.) 2 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRK Posted November 23, 2016 Author Share Posted November 23, 2016 Wow Carl, great detective work! Thanks! I can't believe that is a natural pattern Now my only question is why was it found there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 7 minutes ago, PRK said: Wow Carl, great detective work! Thanks! I can't believe that is a natural pattern Now my only question is why was it found there? Yikes! here's where I bow out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilized6s Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Ma Nature strikes again, and let's us all learn something new! Beautiful. 2 ~Charlie~ "There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why.....i dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" ~RFK ->Get your Mosasaur print ->How to spot a fake Trilobite ->How to identify a CONCRETION from a DINOSAUR EGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhw Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I gotta admit I would've sworn this was man made also. Learn something new everyday I guess. Seeing as all we've seen so far is the illustrations I'm thinking this is an important piece and could be a textbook example of this phenomenon. Should be studied by an expert (if there are any out there?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 If the stars align I may be posting photos of more of these wonders soon. Stay tuned and cross your fingers! From the Sue Kidwell mentioned in Seilacher: "They are definitely odd, and on first glance they look like they might be man-made, something like a modern-art ceramicist's idea of an ammonite. Dolf was completely non-plussed by them initially -- typically, he wouldn't let go of the mental puzzle. I think they are in fact some kind of shrinkage structure, thus entirely physical (albeit probably with some role played by microbial mats). It would be most valuable to find some in stratigraphic context -- that would put to rest the idea of their being human-made, at the very least." 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyssunder Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Ufologists could say it is extraterrestrial, others that it is associated to paranormal phenomena. A. Seilacher explains diagenetic structures in crack propagation, exemplifying and describing the counter septarians in his excellent work Trace Fossil Analysis. The resemblance of the specimen in question with the latter might be good (+/-), but, where are the septarian cracks I don't know, because I don't see them in the uplosded pictures of the thread (except in those of Seilacher). " We are not separate and independent entities, but like links in a chain, and we could not by any means be what we are without those who went before us and showed us the way. " Thomas Mann My Library Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranha Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 By coincidence, Carl and I were both in contact with Sue Kidwell: "Now that I see your specimen from the side, it's def the same kind of thing that I was given from the Gila Conglomerate (Plio) of AZ... see my note to Carl below. ... same flattened shape with slightly rounded edges, same color. Dolf would have *loved these specimens of yours. They show more detail about the structure: notice the concentric rings in the closeup plan view/lower left, and the nested ~concave structures in the side view/next to bottom right. BTW I'm not a trace fossil person at all, which is why I showed them to Dolf and happily handed them off to him." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Breakin' Rocks Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I'm out .. that is amazing ... mother nature is always creating art sometimes more stunning than anything man can fathom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 11 hours ago, Carl said: FOUND IT! It was in Seilacher's Trace Fossil Analysis: Great ID carl, i was in the non man made camp, but i couldn't see how this could occur. "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 10 hours ago, Fossildude19 said: Excellent detective work, Carl! Thanks for being so dilligent! I would never have guessed this. Well done, sir. Learned something today! Regards, EDIT: Yum yum ! "On ne voit bien que par le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) "We only well see with the heart, the essential is invisible for the eyes." In memory of Doren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 The drawing only superficially resembles the original specimen photo. I'm very not convinced. This is not haw science works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doushantuo Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Funny you should say that,T,because Seilacher wasn't a structural geologist. So regular (noncyclic?) dewatering and compaction,brittle fracture with recurring similar pore sizes? A lot of concretionary structures are due to overpressure,so what about the recent example from the Surinam bauxite deposit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 "so what about the recent example from the Surinam bauxite deposit? " Is a photo available, or just hand waving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 52 minutes ago, tmaier said: "so what about the recent example from the Surinam bauxite deposit? " Is a photo available, or just hand waving? Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a photo of the bauxite example. This phenomenon is apparently very rare - it successfully evaded Google somehow. Also, Dolf is no longer with us for comment. But to be fair, a convincing artifactual comparison would also need to be made here rather than verbal impressions. That's how science works. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 With no evidence and just hand waving, I can't go along with any of this. It seems to be a sasquatch story. Wait... Sasquatch has photos and video, doesn't it? Well, it is less believable than Sasquatch. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Here in this case, we have none. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 6 minutes ago, tmaier said: With no evidence and just hand waving, I can't go along with any of this. It seems to be a sasquatch story. Wait... Sasquatch has photos and video, doesn't it? Well, it is less believable than Sasquatch. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Here in this case, we have none. No need to get angry. Evidence has been provided. And from 3 professionals. More is hopefully on the way. That doesn't mean you must accept any of it. But to make a compelling counter-argument you must also provide evidence. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynot Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 OK, now You all have Me very confused! After thinking about this for the last day, I have to say I still think it is a man made doohickey. Well 85% anyways. The thing that has me jumping back to "man made" is the absence of structures that resemble ammonites, complete with septia, are totally lacking in PRK's object. The write up that Carl provided makes a point of the pseudo ammonite appearance of the structures in the anti-septarian pieces. Also if it came from the type formation that is hinted at in the article the object should be very soft and fragile. Waiting for further evidence here! Tony Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Carl, please don't tell me "don't be angry". That's called projection, you are angry at me and trying to rub it off on me. Please don't treat me that way. I will not treat you that way. You may not like what I'm saying but that doesn't give you the right to say things like that. Please be calm. Look at the spirals in the drawing. They do not match the way the spirals form in the photo. Why would a person not take a photo of such an amazing specimen? That type of thing is not allowed in professional publication. That is medieval science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 We can agree to disagree pending further evidence. We can also do that civilly, here. My gut feeling was man made at first. I have now put my money down on the geologic side. Others are still in the man-made camp. They are both valid opinions. No 2 sedimentary/geologic structures are all exactly alike. The drawings looks similar enough to sway me. I wouldn't expect the spirals to match perfectly under differential weathering or decomposition. Bit I digress. Let's all put this in perspective,... and go have a nice Thanksgiving meal. Enjoy your families, and start the holidays of on a good note, shall we? I don't know about you, but there is Turkey, gravy, and mashed potates and carrots to get a leg up on. HAPPY THANKSGIVING. 6 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER 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 More sharing options...
ynot Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, tmaier said: They do not match the way the spirals form in the photo. I can not see any spirals in the original object, only concentric circles. Also the "septia" are conchoidal markings in the article, but appear square in PRK's object. Darwin said: " Man sprang from monkeys." Will Rogers said: " Some of them didn't spring far enough." My Fossil collection - My Mineral collection My favorite thread on TFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 4 minutes ago, tmaier said: Carl, please don't tell me "don't be angry". That's called projection, you are angry at me and trying to rub it off on me. Please don't treat me that way. I will not treat you that way. You may not like what I'm saying but that doesn't give you the right to say things like that. Please be calm. Look at the spirals in the drawing. They do not match the way the spirals form in the photo. Why would a person not take a photo of such an amazing specimen? That type of thing is not allowed in professional publication. That is medieval science. Forgive me if I read your tone wrong but it definitely sounded agitated to me. I'm not angry with your words. Science should be a debate and that's what I'm happy to participate in. Photos of like specimens are being sought on two paths right now. It may turn up nothing but if it does it could take a few days because of Thanksgiving. In my opinion, the similarities between the new object and the two drawings and their descriptions are more convincing that anything I've read or seen that would connect them to either fossils or an artifact. That is my opinion. I can not prove it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 Notice that the spirals in the drawing are bounded by the septa. This is a believable geological effct in my mind, although I have never seen it happen. It could be explained by having the septa boundaries form, and then the force that creates the spiral (fracture) would progress only to the boundary created by the septa. That has some sense of physics and chemistry to it. But then look at those spirals(?) (concrentric circles) of our specimen, and they are not bounded. The resemblance is only superficial between the drawing geometries and the specimen. This specimen also seems to be a cast in plaster, or carved in limestone. The reason I want to see the photos of the drawing object is because I suspect that the wild geometries involved have something to do with minerals, and I suspect if we ever do see the real object, the difference in the materials will be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now