Mollusk fossils

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

This is a classic example of Pareidolia. You are simply seeing what you want to see. However, I would recommend listening to the experienced members on this forum; these are not fossils. If you are not willing to accept their advice, why post in the first place? As a hunter of beach exposures in California myself, I can say in certainty that these are not fossils. Worn shell cross sections will still have an outline of shell structure, and these are Igneous_rocks, which do not preserve fossils. The “shells” you are seeing are mineral veins. 

[Rocca Hombre]

Thank you for your insight, believe me, I worked in kitchens for 20 yrs, incredibly thick skin, I do appreciate your opinion, that's all it is, an opinion, these examples, I have 1000's, I've been collecting since I was old enough to understand, I'm 60, these have already been identified by professors, I've turned people on to these rare items, shown and been catalog, so please, if you'd like I'll send you an example

[digit]

I too can now see the images but I am not seeing any that have bone texture. You can try for clearer images in brighter light.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Earendil]

Some nice Septarian nodules but no fossils. I would agree with the experts. 

[Bob Saunders]

6 hours ago, Rocca Hombre said:

Ok, here are a few photos to check out

I see chert and septarian nodules only. 

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

1 hour ago, Rocca Hombre said:

I worked in kitchens for 20 yrs, incredibly thick skin

We are not insulting you, simply telling you what we see

 

1 hour ago, Rocca Hombre said:

I do appreciate your opinion, that's all it is, an opinion,

However, you have to consider the point that we are making. The “opinion” is supported by facts and evidence. However, there is no definite proof for your claim. Tell us how this isn’t an igneous rock, the anatomy of the shells in comparison to others, or any other definite proof, and we will accept it. As I have previously said, if you are not willing to accept advise, then don’t post on this forum.

 

1 hour ago, Rocca Hombre said:

these examples, I have 1000's, I've been collecting since I was old enough to understand, I'm 60,

How many of these rocks you have, how long you’ve been collecting these, how old you are, etc. is not relevant. This post is solely about the images that you have posted.

 

1 hour ago, Rocca Hombre said:

these have already been identified by professors

Which professors, at which university, in which subject, etc. Please give more information on this claim; I doubt any paleontology, geology or biology professor would tell you that these are fossils.

 

1 hour ago, Rocca Hombre said:

I've turned people on to these rare items, shown and been catalog, so please,

It is not clear to me what this sentence means. However, if these were cross sections of fossils, they wouldn’t be very rare. Cross sections of fossil shells are very common on many California beaches.

 

 

The general consensus has been that these are non fossil rocks. However, you will likely not change your mind, so it is pointless to keep arguing about the subject. I think it’s best if the staff close down this topic, as there is nothing informational  that can be achieved by continuing to debate this.

[JohnJ]

@Rocca Hombre

 

It is hard to hear when a premise we have based so many finds upon is flawed.  So far, based on the decades of current field experience by several members, none have definitely recognized any these rocks as fossils...and neither do I.

 

Not all geologists are well acquainted with fossils.  It seems who ever told you these were "agatized oysters" or mollusks was mistaken.  If you have the opportunity to take them to a natural history museum and show them to someone very familiar with fossils, they might be able to show you what fossils are in the local formations.

[DPS Ammonite]

@Rocca Hombre These do look like pieces of the Monterey Formation which is composed of “diatomite, diatomaceous and siliceous mudrocks, porcelanite, chert, calcareous and phosphatic mudrocks, dolostone, and limestone”. Your rocks are very silica rich. I just see lots of veins of chalcedony, but no fossils or volcanic rocks. In other parts of California the rocks have lots of chert, chalcedony and opal.

 

https://csulb.edu/~behl/MARS/files/Behl_1999_Monterey_Overview.pdf

 

The Monterey Fm. mollusk fossils exist but are not usually common. Whales, fish, crabs, algae  and silicious  microfossils are most common.

 

http://www.sjvgeology.org/geology/formations/monterey.html

Edited January 4, 2021 by DPS Ammonite

[grandpa]

Happy New Year everyone! 

 

Just wanted to pause and wish all a Happy New Year and welcome @Rocca Hombre to the forum. 

 

Grandpa

[Rocca Hombre]

Sorry my man, like I said, these are hard to recognize because they spent 1000+ of years in the surf and they have been worn down, I don't want to argue with someone who is forming an opinion, like I said,  an opinion by a photo, they all come from the Monterey Formation, it is hard to even have a discussion with someone who I've offered to send an example to so you can feel how waxy the matrix is, and you will find that it is oil shale, a well know area where I have fully formed oysters shells that are 11" long. Also, here are more examples of the Agatized oyster... If I only had one example, I wouldn't be arguing my point. If I didn't know what I was talking about, I wouldn't be here, these have all been identified by a professor from the santa Barbara museum of natural history, take me up on my offer, let me send you a specimen, here are more examples for the naysayers

 

[grandpa]

• I could easily believe that these nodules are agate/jasper/chert/chalcedony. 
• It would however take some major convincing to get me to believe that these are in any way fossils. 
• I am also becoming a bit suspicious of why you seem to be so anxious to send someone some samples to see first-hand. 
• If you already know what you have, and you have the validation ("these have all been identified by a professor from the santa Barbara museum of natural history"), why do you seem to have such an urgent need to convince us?     

Curious situation, isn't it?  It seems like the sort of thing that would prompt a thinking individual to suspect that there might be a hidden agenda at work here.    Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Earendil]

I don't know who ID'd these for you, but Geology professors are notorious for goofing when it comes to ID/pareidolia. 

[Fossildude19]

12 minutes ago, yardrockpaleo said:

I don't know who ID'd these for you, but Geology professors are notorious for goofing when it comes to ID/pareidolia. 

 

48 minutes ago, Rocca Hombre said:

...If I didn't know what I was talking about, I wouldn't be here, these have all been identified by a professor from the santa Barbara museum of natural history...

 

 

I can see where some of these might be shell/mold fossils - partial and very badly worn/eroded.

The pictures honestly aren't the best, and ideally we would get views of all sides of one of the items at least. However, that is beside the point.

If these are fossils, I would say that they are so worn and eroded as to not be of much interest, as they are unrecognizable as such.   

 

The topic has been locked, as nothing further is gained by the debate. 

We must agree to disagree about the origin of these items, and move on.