Jump to content
Prey4Me

T-Rex toenail?

Recommended Posts

Prey4Me

There is a spring fed pond in Weatherford, Tx. that has a grouping of the largest fossils that i have ever seen. These fossils were gathered and placed in a circle around this pond by ancient Indians who lived there prior to and during the time that my friend's ancestors purchased the land. Some single bones are larger than my car, only a very few could be picked up by man alone, and I got a few by the owners permission, and here is one of those!

20171119_003349.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Douvilleiceras

Unfortunately, this material appears to be geologic in origin - a case of pareidolia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foozil

+1 for geologic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bone2stone

I agree.  Geologic specimen. (Conglomerate)

No T-rex in the Weatherford area.

 

Jess B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Andy-

It's not a fossil I am afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

really? the other items in the area are far more animal shaped and they all look exactly the same material wise, and I would have to say if u see those, you may just wonder, ill post some

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood
1 minute ago, Prey4Me said:

really? the other items in the area are far more animal shaped and they all look exactly the same material wise, and I would have to say if u see those, you may just wonder, ill post some

 

In most cases shape is meaningless if the material structure doesn't match. Casts showing the just external shape of larger terrestrial animals without preserving hard parts are quite rare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dewbunny

Giant poo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Your description of this pond sounds quite sensational, but I'm afraid I am doubting its authenticity. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you believe what you are telling us, but this example which you are showing us appears to be nothing more than a piece of interestingly shaped, weathered sandstone; a geological phenomenon which is quite common. This makes me wonder about the other fossils around the pond which you have mentioned, particularly the bones "larger than my car". Can you show us some scientific evidence about it, or perhaps a few photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

But now, keep in mind that there is entire skeletons where these came from, these are the only pieces small enough for me to take or even move, and they have been above ground for maybe hundreds of years, The best one, a perfect tooth, near right triangle with rooftop ridge down the front and convex on the back measuring 14 inches tall and 12 wide was stolen from me. 

20171119_040918.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

also some of these were in my aquarium some in the dirt in the flower bed. It wont let me upload the rest?

I can go take some, when i was last there, cell phones didn't have cameras yet. But how can I upload it keeps cutting me off?

I know its a little crazy and I'm brand new here but you will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

Sorry, but that is not a tooth, although the shape is misleading. It is also just a piece of weathered stone. If all of the other pieces are of the same substance, then I'm afraid that you are in for a big disappointment. But you don't necessarily have to just take our word for it, although our members here combine a lot of experience, and maybe even one of our professionals like @Boesse or @jpc might have something to say. You could take some of your pieces to the nearest natural history museum for assessment where they can give you their professional opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

Here is the structure up close they are all the same at varying levels of oxidation, The museum of science and history has some that are identical, here in Ft. Worth

20171119_035655.jpg

20171119_035856.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

That bottom pic is a closeup of the one that you're saying is a sandstone conglomerate. I respectfully disagree! I did not come here because I know that I am right, I came here to confirm, that I am, and hopefully learn something more about these items. :trilosurprise:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LordTrilobite

I agree with the others. These are not bones or teeth. The shape is interesting but the structure is all wrong. These are geologic in origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludwigia

I was also only stating my opinion and shall herewith defer to my superiors @Boesse @jpc @Harry Pristis @sseth

 

Please refer to this post  since in this new thread there is no other way to trace this continuation back to your first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troodon

I think you are learning that everyone here, including myself, believe these are geologic in orgin and accepting other alternatives is not what you want to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

regarding any kind of geological structure it's always best to (try to)keep an open mind.

There are quite a few avenues of research possible,if you're not a priori assuming anything .

Like Troodon says/implies,geological structures and collector's disappointment are not mutually exclusive concepts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Dente

Break off a tiny piece and put it in vinegar. If it fizzes and dissolves, it is limestone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fossildude19
1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I was also only stating my opinion and shall herewith defer to my superiors @Boesse @jpc @Harry Pristis @sseth

 

Please refer to this post  since in this new thread there is no other way to trace this continuation back to your first post.

 

I have merged the threads for continuity. 

 

@Prey4Me,

 

If you are running into trouble uploading photos, make sure they are no more than 4 MB in size. 

If you run into an error saying you can't upload anymore, refresh your browser page.


And for what it is worth, I agree these are all geologic in nature. 

Not fossils. 

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

They are unscathed by muriatic acid, just slightly darkened

 

20171119_035444.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minnbuckeye

Here is an example of what everyone is kindly saying:

 

Utah_Ammonite_1.jpg 

 

This was posted today to identify. One can easily see the shape of a possible fish head with a definite mouth and eye. Fortunately, the member that posted this was only interested in the "eye". It is either a gastropod or ammonite. Forum members have yet to come to a consensus. The point is that the makeup of the rock in question is almost MORE important than the shape. Boney structure in a specimen that doesn't look like a bone is more likely to be bone than something that is in shape of bone but doesn't have the proper boney structure..

 

Good luck in future hunts, Mike

 

PS  The person posting this did NOT envision a head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prey4Me

they have holes where there were veins? Ya that's a gastropod, looks like smashed echinoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockwood
1 minute ago, Prey4Me said:

they have holes where there were veins? Ya that's a gastropod, looks like smashed echinoid

I think they are more like smashed shells of some sort. Fossils, but not veins in bone.

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.

×