GaryMc Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Here's another one found yesterday in Vermillion County, Illinois about a mile away from the Salt Fork River, Middle Fork Vermilion River, and Vermilion River on my property. I'm hearing a lot of feedback about river tumbling causing the shapes of my objects. The only problem, or the situation is that there are basically no other stones in the general vicinity. Only head shapes and some vertebrae looking objects. I had my wife come out to my spot yesterday and she noticed also that no other stones were present but these, and many 5 gallon buckets worth. Today I am going to just pick up what is left after rains came last Friday. I will probably come home with 3 more 5 gallon buckets. So why couldn't these have been anice entire colony of snakes? What about the eggs I've found? There's no doubt in my mind this is what I have found..but I'm willing to listen. I've tried cropping these 2 pics. Hope you can work with these a little better. Any help is appreciated..thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, GaryMc said: So why couldn't these have been anice entire colony of snakes? What about the eggs I've found? There's no doubt in my mind this is what I have found..but I'm willing to listen. Well, snakes would not in any way preserve in this fashion. Perhaps spend some time looking at fossil snakes and compare those to what you have here. There are no diagnostic features to suggest that this is a fossil of any kind. There is no precise symmetry to the piece. The cache of tumbled rocks was already explained in another of your posts that it may have been a riverbed at some point that has been buried by successive layers of till, sand, and soil. "There's no doubt in my mind this is what I have found." -- It is best to embrace doubt, as science proceeds by a process of constant falsification and testing of evidence. To proceed without doubt to make absolute claims is more like religion, and not like science at all. 1. Have you endeavoured to do any research on the geology of your area? 2. Have you taken the opportunity to see how certain organisms fossilize? 3. How do your "egg" finds compare to scientifically established fossilized eggs beyond some appearance of ovoid shape? We will be able to help and guide you on this path to determining what is and is not a fossil, but you will need to make some efforts on your own to learn more, and for the time being suspend your beliefs with a healthy kind of scientific doubt. What we want to be true, and what is actually true, can be at serious odds under the cold light of analytical reason. We're not here to confirm belief, but to understand what it is we see and find according to the principles of science. 9 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Cropped an brightened. While the photos are still blurry, I am 100% positive this is not a fossil of any kind. 3 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...
fifbrindacier Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Here are (pics taken from the net) : a fossilised egg of snake (notice the multiple traces of shells on the matrix, absents on your specimen) : a fossilised snake : snakes vertebrae (ancient and recent ones) : 6 "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...
Auspex Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 3 hours ago, GaryMc said: ...there are basically no other stones in the general vicinity. Only head shapes and some vertebrae looking objects. They are the stones. Perfectly normal, average, river-worn cobbles. Fossil skulls and such will have details and features that are more than suggestive of something. Peruse our members' galleries, and you will readily see what I mean. 4 "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailingAlongToo Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 The fact remains, no matter how much Gary wants, desires & wishes his rocks to be fossils, in the end they are still just rocks. Definitely geologic in origin rather than biologic. Don't know much about history Don't know much biology Don't know much about science books......... Sam Cooke - (What A) Wonderful World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryMc Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 Thank you Kane. Throughout the last month since examining the excavated site I have so kept in mind that what I'm finding is not what I think. I'm not educated in this area whatsoever, nor educated in the geology of my area. I only have a few things steering me into this direction and one is that no other stones, little or small, are being found, I'm finding petrified wood throughout my site, and the pieces I'm finding all have what appears to be a marking where possibly a connection of some type was at one time. I will send a close-up of the last stone. Also, what about the appearance of "eyes"? And mouthlines? On literally hundreds of these stones I have all these features are present. I have been finding these stones touching one another also. My wife came out with me and she dug up the very same- stones that go from small to big, with a "head" and a "tail". Not long ago, like last year, a discovery was made practically under my feet, of a fully preserved petrified rain forest. The largest of its kind in the world. Supposedly four square miles of one. Petrified wood, so far, is the only thing thus far removed. And I'm getting petrified wood at my site. So to try and answer you with all I know, yes I've looked at petrified snake heads and yes mine are similiar. Can you please tell me why you think that a snake wouldn't petrified like what I have? Because I beg to differ, snakes do petrified from what I've seen, no offense please! I'm not finding any other rocks, pebbles, riverbed looking material. My site is one mile away almost. Would getting a height of my site be of help? Would a few decent pics of my site help you in helping me? I'm going to call the University of Illinois today and get a geologist out here. I'm really really trying to eliminate and be real here. But the stones I'm finding are looking like just that, petrified heads. Bear with me and thanks for being kind. Science always rules I know that. I'm a traveling nurse with three college degrees so I'm educated. And I typically would never put my foot in my mouth and embarras myself without confidence. I just need someone here. Here are close- ups of the last one. Sorry I don't know of how to post other that under the 3.95mb. And thanks. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryMc Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 You admit you have no experience in this area, and yet you claim to be confident in spite of the fact that experts are telling you that they're just rocks. These rocks do not look even slightly like fossils. If you think there have been similar 'snake heads' found before, then can you show us an example? Regardless, I can tell you with 100% certainty that these are not fossils, they are normal rocks. I honestly don't wish to be rude, but it's puzzling why you would think they were fossils to begin with, let alone why you'd ignore the experts who are telling you straight. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Do post images of what fossilized snake heads you are comparing your specimens with. At present, there is absolutely no skin or bone texture in these specimens. The proportions of where the eye socket would be is not consistent with any snake fossils. Soft parts like skin and other tissues are only fossilized under very rare circumstances; in most cases fossil vertebrates will leave only skeletal remains. You could bury a dead raccoon as deep as you like, and unearth it a year or two later to find only bones. The fossilization process simply does not favour soft tissue preservation in a vast majority of cases. Here is a snake skull. Compared with your specimen, there is almost no resemblance. Where are the teeth? Why is the "socket" in your piece set so far back? Where is the clear articulation of any of the skeletal anatomy? At this point, we may have to agree to disagree. Do take these to your nearest natural history museum or university palaeontology department -- but I have a very strong suspicion that they will confirm what we've already said here. 5 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I guess the fossil forest you're referring to is this -https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/underground-fossil-forest-in-illinois-offers-clues-on-climate-change.html. This is in a coal mine at a depth of 250 to 800 feet. I've looked at all your posts and can assure you the items are rocks not fossil snakes. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Take a day trip to the Field Museum in Chicago and tour the fossil displays. Bring a few of your finds, and ask if someone is available to take a look at them. 2 "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 There is no real significance in the fact that the stones were found together. The fact that they range from small to large is not necessarily significant either. Being under ground, they could have broken apart from each other due to frost heaves, or other forces over time. As Kane stated, the rocks, while vaguely looking like "snake heads", are just suggestively shaped. There is no bone texture. There is no skull morphology. There is no bilateral symmetry. Snake skulls are brittle, and would not fossilized or petrify in such a manner. Skin, muscle, and flesh do not petrify in a solid mass such as this. I think your ideas are not really flying here. You do need to get a professional involved to have a look at what you have found, but again, I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you. Good luck. Kind regards, 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...
GaryMc Posted January 7, 2019 Author Share Posted January 7, 2019 And these? Not teeth? Bear with me guys ok..I really appreciate your answers with suggestive reasoning behind them. I'm learning. That's all that really matters I guess.and no harm done, he'll I went there for really cool landscapers to begin with. And yes Fossildude, I really need someone to come out here. Any ideas on someone? I'm going to call ISGS and start there. These stones all have this similarity. The petrified heads I'm seeing online appear the same. I'm taking in all you guys tell me and still trying to keep it real and keep the doubt until I'm scientifically proven wrong I can't believe that these are not something that once lived.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Not seeing any pictures... Neither of the "teeth" or what images you were comparing against. Try again? I don't think geologists and palaeontologists make house calls; you should take a few representative specimens to them. Perhaps start by contacting one over email with some of your photos, and take it from there. If your site is scientifically significant, then there may be an opportunity to have them on site to investigate further. And, yes, we're all about the learning here. 2 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifbrindacier Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 2 hours ago, GaryMc said: Thank you Kane. Throughout the last month since examining the excavated site I have so kept in mind that what I'm finding is not what I think. I'm not educated in this area whatsoever, nor educated in the geology of my area. I only have a few things steering me into this direction and one is that no other stones, little or small, are being found, I'm finding petrified wood throughout my site, and the pieces I'm finding all have what appears to be a marking where possibly a connection of some type was at one time. I will send a close-up of the last stone. Also, what about the appearance of "eyes"? And mouthlines? On literally hundreds of these stones I have all these features are present. I have been finding these stones touching one another also. My wife came out with me and she dug up the very same- stones that go from small to big, with a "head" and a "tail". Not long ago, like last year, a discovery was made practically under my feet, of a fully preserved petrified rain forest. The largest of its kind in the world. Supposedly four square miles of one. Petrified wood, so far, is the only thing thus far removed. And I'm getting petrified wood at my site. So to try and answer you with all I know, yes I've looked at petrified snake heads and yes mine are similiar. Can you please tell me why you think that a snake wouldn't petrified like what I have? Because I beg to differ, snakes do petrified from what I've seen, no offense please! I'm not finding any other rocks, pebbles, riverbed looking material. My site is one mile away almost. Would getting a height of my site be of help? Would a few decent pics of my site help you in helping me? I'm going to call the University of Illinois today and get a geologist out here. I'm really really trying to eliminate and be real here. But the stones I'm finding are looking like just that, petrified heads. Bear with me and thanks for being kind. Science always rules I know that. I'm a traveling nurse with three college degrees so I'm educated. And I typically would never put my foot in my mouth and embarras myself without confidence. I just need someone here. Here are close- ups of the last one. Sorry I don't know of how to post other that under the 3.95mb. And thanks. Gary You obviously didn't read and look my previous post, so i post it again : 3 hours ago, fifbrindacier said: Here are (pics taken from the net) : a fossilised egg of snake (notice the multiple traces of shells on the matrix, absents on your specimen) : a fossilised snake : snakes vertebrae (ancient and recent ones) : 2 "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...
Innocentx Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 hour ago, GaryMc said: I'm going to call ISGS and start there. That is your best bet. 1 "Journey through a universe ablaze with changes" Phil Ochs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 As fifbrindacier has shown, fossil bones clearly look like bones. They have very clear details and features which go way beyond 'this rock has a circle that looks like an eye'. They have a texture (bones are not totally solid), they have easily defined features, and they basically tend not to look like rocks with random circles on them. By the standards you're using here, every single rock in the world must be a snake head. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Call a landscaper. They'll know what they are. 3 "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelhead9 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 No other stones in the area, when you have retrieved multiple 5 gallon buckets, is a lot of other stones. Snake fossils are exceedingly rare. 4 Still Life Fossils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 48 minutes ago, steelhead9 said: No other stones in the area, when you have retrieved multiple 5 gallon buckets, is a lot of other stones. Snake fossils are exceedingly rare. Yes, it's kind of like picking up pieces of gravel out of a driveway and insisting that they're diamonds, and when someone questions it, saying that they must be diamonds because you haven't found any gravel in the area at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 4 hours ago, GaryMc said: And these? Not teeth? Bear with me guys ok..I really appreciate your answers with suggestive reasoning behind them. I'm learning. That's all that really matters I guess.and no harm done, he'll I went there for really cool landscapers to begin with. And yes Fossildude, I really need someone to come out here. Any ideas on someone? I'm going to call ISGS and start there. These stones all have this similarity. The petrified heads I'm seeing online appear the same. I'm taking in all you guys tell me and still trying to keep it real and keep the doubt until I'm scientifically proven wrong I can't believe that these are not something that once lived.. For people that are truly interested in learning, the experienced members of this forum have great patience. Keep in mind that extraordinary claims, require an equivalent amount of direct evidence. For those of us that have seen countless fossils, it's very clear that your finds are not what you've suspected. However, I am curious what are the specific attributes that cause you to conclude these are fossils. 4 The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwigia Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 You just don't give up, do you. I must say, I am impressed at your perseverance in the presence of diverging opinions. Have fun with the geologists. I'm sure they will. 3 Greetings from the Lake of Constance. Roger http://www.steinkern.de/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 4 hours ago, GaryMc said: And these? Not teeth? Bear with me guys ok..I really appreciate your answers with suggestive reasoning behind them. I'm learning. That's all that really matters I guess.and no harm done, he'll I went there for really cool landscapers to begin with. And yes Fossildude, I really need someone to come out here. Any ideas on someone? I'm going to call ISGS and start there. These stones all have this similarity. The petrified heads I'm seeing online appear the same. I'm taking in all you guys tell me and still trying to keep it real and keep the doubt until I'm scientifically proven wrong I can't believe that these are not something that once lived.. You've already been scientifically proven wrong here by many individuals with many examples many times over. You're disputing the opinions of a collective with hundreds of years of combined experience and many advanced degrees in earth sciences. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Hi Gary- As a guy who works in a geology museum, I will say that, indeed, we do not do house calls. Well, we do sometimes, but the first thing we want to see is photos, and a good reason to do house calls. (I might be going out tomorrow to look at some articulated garfish fossils that a local rancher sent me photos of). The Illinois survey may not have a paleontologist on board, but give them a try. If someone sent me these photos I would say the same thing everyone else with experience has said... these are rocks. There is nothing truly snake-fossil abut them... no bone structure, no bone texture, no teeth. If you insist on having snake heads, then I would be more than willing to visit with you about it, but I am not going to drive across the state to do so. Usually what I tell folks is... next time you come this way, bring the fossils with you and we can have an in hand look at them. Good luck 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts