Limb? With Muscle and skin intact

[shwa]

[Kane]

Making paleontology conform to religion or “intelligent design” is not science. 

[ynot]

It is a neet rock, but there is nothing about it that indicates a biologic origin.

I can not see any cellular structure- bone or soft tissue. I do not see any biologic symmetry.

I do see a vague pattern in the surface weathering, but that does not look like "skin" of any type I am familiar with.

[Plantguy]

Thanks for the additional pictures.

As Tony said in the post above I'm not seeing anything new either to suggest its a fossil of some sort. Without being able to put it under a scope and look at it first hand to see what its made of,  and based only on the pictures I'm gonna agree with the others that there are no fossils visible. May have some organic core of some sort but just cant tell and for sure has an interesting textured weathered outer rind. 

 

A look at a geologic map of the area may help to determine its possible general age and type of rocks one would expect to find there and a search of the literature might be turn up some publications that might mention if any fossils have been collected in that area. 

 

I certainly would have picked it up and started to ponder what it is/how it got that way. 

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Regards, Chris 

[ynot]

On 1/26/2019 at 12:14 PM, Kane said:

Making paleontology conform to religion or “intelligent design” is not science. 

Yeah, but it can make for some fun.

Reminds Me of a story I was told as a youth....

 

                             The FOX and the BEAR.

Fox was envious of the beautiful tail that bear had. It was so much  fluffier and prettier than the tail fox had.

So fox came up with a plan. He caught several big fish and took them into the middle of a frozen lake. Then he dug a hole through the ice.

Waiting until he saw bear coming, fox stuck his tail into the hole.

When bear saw that fox was acting so weird he went over to see what fox was up too.

Fox told bear that he was catching fish from the lake. Fox then said "With such a nice tail You have, You should be able to catch really big fish."

So bear stuck his tail into the hole and waited.

Fox told him that sometimes it will be a while before a fish will come and bite the tail, and bear had to wait patiently or the fish would get scared off.

So bear sat there, and waited for a long time. When bear could not feel his tail anymore, he tried to stand up only to find his tail was frozzen fast into the lake.

Fox lied again and told bear he had a big fish on his tail and he needed to pull it up very hard.

Bear pulled and pulled, but could not get free. So fox grabbed bears nose and bear gave it all his might to pull.

And bear's tail broke off.

And that's why bears do not have tails.

[shwa]

Hey guess what...     Just back from one of the local experts. Who has a long life time of experience and is considered one of the specialist  in the state.    He said its ................        Bone period      animal in origin.       I'm following more leads from specialists he recommended. So ill update as i go.     But maybe more than a few of you who where kind enough and not so kind, to throw in your 2 cents, should consider that new things are discovered all the time and its better to say you don't know....    I received less than a warm welcome from some in this community and overall some will never leave their cages.   To the ones who are constructive in their comments a big thumbs up to you.    Rarity doesn't negate possibility

[Rockwood]

22 minutes ago, shwa said:

Just back from one of the local experts.

I'd love to here more about his credentials, and a citation of the evidence the ID is based on.

Being aware that bone comes from animals isn't going to cut it with me.

[Fossildude19]

Please share with us the details of his experience. 

Considered one of the experts by whom?  Considered a specialist of what?

Did he hold the item in hand, or did he see pictures? 

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Carl Sagan

[Bobby Rico]

I have just caught up with this thread and sadly I am afraid it only looks like bone and skin if you don’t know what your looking for. There has been a good cross section of members with both fossil bone , mineral and rock formation experience that has been gained over many years in the field . They see fossil bone/minerals daily. There is no bone structure here that can be seen in your photos.  Sometimes it is not easy to see the truth when it is disappointing. 

[Auspex]

1 hour ago, shwa said:

Rarity doesn't negate possibility

No, of course not. But critical examination of the evidence does (at least in science).

The texture of the material underlying the 'rind' is what makes be extremely dubious about the 'bone' idea. It appears to be granular in composition, very like many sedimentary rocks.

Until I see something like cancellous structure, I cannot call it bone.
Did your expert see it in hand, or just the images you posted here?