Jump to content

T-Rex toenail?


Prey4Me

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Regards, Jason

 

"Trilobites survived for a total of three hundred million years, almost the whole duration of the Palaeozoic era: who are we johnny-come-latelies to label them as either ‘primitive’ or ‘unsuccessful’? Men have so far survived half a per cent as long."  - Richard Fortey, Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a fossil I am afraid.

Looking forward to meeting my fellow Singaporean collectors! Do PM me if you are a Singaporean, or an overseas fossil-collector coming here for a holiday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger

http://www.steinkern.de/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Olof Moleman AKA Lord Trilobite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

    Tim    -  VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...