What are these?

[Kane]

Sorry, although I very much appreciate your efforts in providing us better images, this seems more what you want to believe is true than what actually is. I maintain that you still have an interesting rock, not a fossil.  I would cut bait on this one and go collecting some more, possibly getting some information on what is available in your neck of the woods to better guide your hunt. 

[digit]

Your implicit assumption is that animals fossilize in 3D form with all of the flesh and skin intact--they don't! Only the hard parts of most animals fossilize (bones, teeth, etc.). People are really good at visualizing familiar shapes in rocks--that's the innate pareidolia baked into all our advanced pattern matching brains.

 

There are many professional paleontologists on this forum as well as advanced amateurs who have seen hundreds if not thousands of fossils. We have an understanding of what fossil material looks like. We know what bone texture looks like when fossilized. We know how to look for the telltale shapes of various types of animal bones. We have also seen many unusual rocks that mimic shapes that we might recognize and we understand how common this is. Many of us have collections of interestingly shaped rocks that are NOT fossils but have shapes that make them appear as something familiar.

 

So far none of the rocks you have presented us with have looked anything like actual fossils. You'll either have to accept the collective knowledge and experience of this forum or else insist that we are totally missing the point and not seeing what you are seeing and persist in believing these are fossils. We see at least one (if not several) of claims of unusual shaped rocks being some sort of unique fossil never before seen. There has never been a case where one of these turned out to be anything like what the person who found it believed it to be.

 

We have no motive to discount an actual fossil here on the forum. We see lots of actual fossils and we are often able to make a pretty good determination of what type it is (often down to the species). We also see a steady stream of NOT fossils and, as this is a science-based forum, we have the responsibility to inform the finder that these are simply oddly shaped rocks and the rest of the believed identity is supplied by the imagination of the person who found them, If you were to take the time to search our forum for the word 'pareidolia' you would see how frequently folks come to this forum with unusual rocks (and unsupported claims) similar to your rocks.

 

You can chose to believe us or you can insist that we are simply not grasping what you are seeing in person (as most do). Belief in a rock being a uniquely preserved fossil is not sufficient to make it so. Sorry.

 

There are fossils to be found in Arizona but so far you have not presented us with any. You are welcome to present us with your finds for our analysis but please realize that we will give you our honest opinions based on actual scientific principles. That's just what we do here on the forum.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[JohnJ]

Your extra photos are fine.

 

1 hour ago, Kfinn0319 said:

I have tried to reach a paleontologist anywhere near n az, but unfortunately I have not recurved replies. I don't exactly have the ability to travel very far so I can't go see anybody.

 

The Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff might be able to help you see differences between geologic oddities and various kinds of fossils.  

 

Otherwise, please consider that hundreds of years of combined paleontological experience have viewed your finds on The Fossil Forum, and no one is seeing the kind of fossils you are suggesting. 

 

In your life, you probably have specific skills and experience most people do not have.  Imagine someone, without your skilled training, trying to convince you of something that all your years of expertise could easily see was in error.  It would be hard for you to help them and for them to learn, if they kept repeating the same error.

 

[DPS Ammonite]

1 hour ago, Kfinn0319 said:

I have tried to reach a paleontologist anywhere near n az, but unfortunately I have not recurved replies. I don't exactly have the ability to travel very far so I can't go see anybody.

Sadly, the Museum of Northern Arizona and Northern Arizona University no longer have degreed paleontologists. Even the largest University in the US, Arizona State University, has only one, a paleobotanist. You might have to look out of state.

[JohnJ]

12 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

Sadly, the Museum of Northern Arizona and Northern Arizona University no longer have degreed paleontologists. Even the largest University in the US, Arizona State University, has only one, a paleobotanist. You might have to look out of state.

Then, there is always the New Mexico Museum of Natural History in Albuquerque.

[Kfinn0319]

11 minutes ago, Kane said:

Sorry, although I very much appreciate your efforts in providing us better images, this seems more what you want to believe is true than what actually is. I maintain that you still have an interesting rock, not a fossil.  I would cut bait on this one and go collecting some more, possibly getting some information on what is available in your neck of the woods to better guide your hunt. 

Although I am disappointed that you're not seeing what I am seeing, I am more disappointed in many of the replies and comments even more. Of course there is a combined millennia of experience on this forum which is the main reason I joined in the first place. I am passionate about this subject. I have our much of my time into studying this field and it's many variables. What type of person would I be if I just accepted what people post and didn't even try to plea my case. I call that a weak minded person. If that is what you try to encourage on this forum then I have made the right decision in leaving now. I only say that to those who posted snide passive aggressive comments. On this one "rock" I will not put away because I'm not just seeing shapes, but I have accounted for everything, including how it ended up in it's current shape. It is not like the others where, I admit, I was grasping onto the patterns I had seen in them. That is pareidolia, but this is not. I am not grasping onto shapes and letting my mind put the patterns together where they do not belong. I can point out the head, neck, back, chest cavity, hips, thighs, shins, feet, and tail. All of which are more than noticable, although not obvious. I really did how you would see it as I did, but that is how this goes. I am just expected to sit down and be quiet, according to some of the very intelligent and educated people here. I will keep working on this and will either be right out wrong and it won't change much for me. If it turns out to be nothing, it doesn't bother me. I would rather have tried and failed, than not try at all. I would like to point out that a fairly recent discovery of the Ankylosaur in Canada which was not only the most complete, but the most well preserved fossil. It was found with flesh, armor, spikes, and possibly even some soft tissue. Both the armored nature of this beast and the way it was entombed under tons of rock were the reason for it's preservation. I believe that there is many more fossils like this one because they met some similar criteria for this type of fossilization. There are more unknowns than knowns in this field, which is why I will keep going. Just because some of you know more of the knowns than I do, doesn't mean that I am wrong. It means I am open minded enough and motivated enough to try and prove my idea to be correct. I wish some of you were more open to the idea of this, because then you would have been able to at least see the possibility of my outlandish claims. Again, if I'm wrong than I am ok with that. It wouldn't be the first time. However, if I am right than it would be an amazing discovery and not one person from this forum even tried see it anywhere near the way I did. You said you have been accused of being close minded, and told you don't know how to look outside the box. I agree. I hope I am right, but if it turns out to be incorrect, than I will move forward as I always do. I really do appreciate all of your time, as frustrating as I have been to you. Thank you all of you for reaching me so much about this field that I do not know. I have absorbed everything you have been so kind to share with me, even though it may not seem that way. God Bless! 

[JohnJ]

Challenging the reasoned arguments of others is a good thing, but you have to bring evidence that goes beyond 'looks like'.  No, you are not expected to shut up and agree with other opinions. But, at the same time, don't expect that others will accept what contradicts their observations either.  

[Kfinn0319]

On 4/11/2023 at 11:57 AM, JohnJ said:

 

I looks like you may have used a wire brush or wheel on half of this rock...?

 

I'm also supposing you never made it to an Arizona paleontologist with your finds?

 

Shapes do not tell the whole story.  Lots of things are shaped like things they are Not.  It's a combination of defining characteristics that help us identify fossils.  You can read about how easily we can be fooled by rocks, HERE.

I have never used a wire brush or any power tools. Slight water pressure and soft bristle brush. Everything you see is the way it came out. Only sediment removal. 

[Kane]

Perhaps narrow-mindedness is insisting this is a fossil when it seems to not be one.  

 

This piece has been here for our members' scrutiny for almost a year now. Trust me when I say we would thrill to this being a stellar find that tosses paleontology on its ear, which in this case it does not.

 

Disabuse yourself of the word "prove." Science has never been about proof at all. Mathematics and propositional logic, yes, not science. Read Karl Popper on science and the role of falsification. Then, I want you to provide an itemized list of reasons this is NOT a fossil, thus engaging in the healthy habit of falsification to bring you to a different range of probability with this piece.

 

Leave the ego aside. Snide and incorrect comments about us being passive aggressive are simply untrue and unwelcome. We are trying to help, but it is unclear if you are truly listening.

[Randyw]

29 minutes ago, Kfinn0319 said:

all. I would like to point out that a fairly recent discovery of the Ankylosaur in Canada which was not only the most complete, but the most well preserved fossil. It was found with flesh, armor, spikes, and possibly even some soft tissue

Excellent! The fossil you are refering to is known as zuul. And perfectly demonstrates the differences between a real fossil with some preserved skin and your rock. Compare the photos below with your rock. You will notice actual symetry to the fossil. Suture lines to the skull, deferences in the different materials (skin bone teeth etc,) that your rock doesnt have. Eye sockets, nasal passages, skull sutures, none of wich is a homogenous mass like your rock is. When you compare them the diferences are glaring… also compare it to a skull i am currently prepping and you can also see the differences.

[Kfinn0319]

How could one possibly have evidence when the evidence doesn't exist yet? That is the conundrum of my position. A catch 22, if you will. I can not provide evidence of anything I am claiming, because what I am claiming would be among the first of it's kind and therefore does not exist. Again, please stop saying I am just saying it is shaped like this or that and that's it. I have provided much more than just shapes in this case. I have provided, in a detailed fashion, that which I am claiming. It's not just shapes, so please let that go. I haven't "expected" anything from anyone, as you have of me. I pleaded with all of you to try to see what I am claiming to see, but not one of you obliged. All of you did, however, insist and even double down on the fact that I was making an outlandish claim, with no evidence to support said claim. That is, however, not exactly the truth. There is a precedent set in this field for what I am claiming and was begging any one of you to step out of the known and into the possibility of the unknown to set new precedent. You all wanted to stay in your box. I have not made the claim of any one of you being wrong, just that maybe one time there is something that myself is seeing, but it's out of the known realm of this field. I was just really hoping somebody would at least try to help me with this. Instead you all chose to shut me down. It's very disappointing as I am not just seeing shapes in this, but I can account for almost all of the external anatomy of this "rock" I will relent for now. We will see soon. It is just very frustrating that, as in the past, I will only receive negative posts against me from all of you. Not one of you will even try to step away and help me with this because you all have decided what you have decided. I have said where I stand and you all keep trying to convince me otherwise and even throwing verbal jabs because you are offended by my claims. I only ask that you remember I never said anyone was wrong, it that I am right. Those were all of your claims against me. I am simply trying to say "maybe" and have asked for help proving or disproving my claims. I was willing to accept either one. You all are the ones that are stating it to be only the way you see it and not willing to even try to find out if you're wrong. So narrow mindedness is your flaw, and not mine. I have been willing to accept I may be wrong. I just want more before I do. I asked for help and only got what you have given me. Defiance, annoyance with my persistence, and even contempt for even trying to say maybe something isn't what is known and is unknown and therefore new. 

[Kfinn0319]

2 minutes ago, Randyw said:

Excellent! The fossil you are refering to is known as zuul. And perfectly demonstrates the differences between a real fossil with some preserved skin and your rock. Compare the photos below with your rock. You will notice actual symetry to the fossil. Suture lines to the skull, deferences in the different materials (skin bone teeth etc,) that your rock doesnt have. Eye sockets, nasal passages, skull sutures, none of wich is a homogenous mass like your rock is. When you compare them the diferences are glaring… also compare it to a skull i am currently prepping and you can also see the differences.

Lol. I love how you used the head as reference when the head was completely crushed. They had to reconstruct it based on educated guess and computer models. So that helps my claim as I am saying, although this piece may not currently be symmetrical, it is obvious it was at one time. At least obvious to anyone willing to look at it right

[Kane]

Well, I think we have come to the point where we will learn nothing new here and it is just spinning our wheels at this point. I will lock this topic and wish you luck bringing the specimen in hand to a paleontologist to acquire more answers.