Jump to content

Recommended Posts

ynot    1,966
ynot
8 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

 

EDIT: 

 

Eat-Crow-300x336.jpg

:hearty-laugh: Yah, Me too!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TqB    955
TqB

Excellent, @Carl, I'm practically convinced it's natural. Good to have my belief system upended like that. :)

 

It's a stunning specimen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnJ    1,508
JohnJ

Great info, Carl!  (That limb is feeling pretty solid, right now.)  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PRK    89
PRK

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl    509
Carl
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fossilized6s    321
fossilized6s

Ma Nature strikes again, and let's us all learn something new! Beautiful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jhw    29
jhw

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abyssunder    2,561
abyssunder

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). :headscratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
piranha    2,017
piranha

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."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brett Breakin' Rocks    97
Brett Breakin' Rocks

I'm out .. that is amazing ... mother nature is always creating art sometimes more stunning than anything man can fathom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier    490
fifbrindacier
11 hours ago, Carl said:

FOUND IT! It was in Seilacher's Trace Fossil Analysis:

1 SMALL.jpg

2 SMALL.jpg

Great ID carl, i was in the non man made camp, but i couldn't see how this could occur.:dinothumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fifbrindacier    490
fifbrindacier
 

 

 

10 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

Excellent detective work, Carl!  detective (1).jpg 

Thanks for being so dilligent!

I would never have guessed this. 

Well done, sir. 

Learned something today! 

Regards, 

 

 

EDIT: 

 

Eat-Crow-300x336.jpg

Yum yum !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier    835
tmaier

The drawing only superficially resembles the original specimen photo. I'm very not convinced. This is not haw science works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo    1,488
doushantuo

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier    835
tmaier

"so what about the recent example from the Surinam bauxite deposit? "

Is a photo available, or just hand waving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl    509
Carl
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier    835
tmaier

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.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot    1,966
ynot

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier    835
tmaier

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.





Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot    1,966
ynot
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl    509
Carl
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmaier    835
tmaier

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×