Fossildude19 Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 34 minutes ago, fossilfuel1988 said: Your giving information and are unable to deal with the response I am giving based on the evidence Infront of me, new species are discovered all the time especially when the fossil record is so poor, I can understand you being upset that the books and records you rely on change. How am I not taking you seriously if the information you are providing is simply leading towards a petrified arthropod. Surely the prospect excites you? I will clean the rest of the debris from the item and post the results. Perhaps we can go from there? We do not see what you are seeing. Any possible fossils I see in your items are likely plant in origin, and look carbonized/coalified. Not seeing any coprolites, wings or insects of any kind. Could just be YOU are mistaken. You would need some serious proof of your claims for us to even consider getting onboard with your ideas. 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...
Mahnmut Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 (edited) Hi Fossilfuel, Sorry to say I do agree those do not seem to be insect parts to me. I do not agree in seeing nothing that resembles insect parts. There are some points that may support this conclusion(some I do repeat): - fossil plant leaves have been mistaken for insect wings before. -Plant fossils are much more common than insect fossils, especially in terrestrial coal. -Finding loads of something that is usually very rare is of course possible, but not very probable As FossilNerd stated, there where giant insects, but if your find was a new species of cockroach, it would not only be giant, but very far beyond anything known. (Meganeura had a dragonfly shape for a reason, in the long thin body the distance to the surface is nowhere to big, which is important because insects take in oxygen not via blood, but through small tubes that actually transport air. Those cannot get too long, even in the oxygen-rich air of back then. - the preservation of your finds, as far as I can tell from the pics, is coalified, which is very typical for plant fossils. -There is some kind of linear pattern, but not the characteristic venation pattern of insect wings So, I hear what you say, those look like insect parts (and I agree they superficially do) but I do not think they are. Best regards, J Edited April 29 by Mahnmut clarification Try to learn something about everything and everything about something Thomas Henry Huxley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilfuel1988 Posted April 30 Author Share Posted April 30 Thank you for your constructive responses, I really appreciate it. All I can do is show you the evidence I have here, I am a total novice and wasn't sure what to make of them to begin. I love in an area which is the perfect storm for theae to occur. Please let me know what proof I can give and I will do it, I really need help with this and open minds please as this is huge for the scientific community. I've attached more samples and could easily get what you require with some help on cleaning etc. To reiterate I want to work with you guys not against. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilfuel1988 Posted April 30 Author Share Posted April 30 Some of these things are truly enormous but incomplete due to an expert coming out and telling me they were fossilized trissic wood. I went with my gut in the end after a stint In a psychiatric ward because my family thought I was delusional and seeing things, they have since come around and agree that these are insect fossils.......very rare but as I said this is the perfect storm. My garden is full of these smaller wings as pictured first but the larger items are from a specific spot.. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 It might be too much to assume it is scientifically significant if you are not quite in the know about the science itself. There does not seem to be sufficient diagnostic evidence to point to these being insect fossils. As a test, itemize a list of why these are not insect fossils. You may find the evidence that these are not insect fossils outweighs the evidence that they are. Science is not about going with your gut or seeing what you want to believe is true. If an expert has already identified these as Triassic wood, that is the much more plausible scenario. ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilfuel1988 Posted April 30 Author Share Posted April 30 I appreciate your thinking ang agree to a certain extent, I am however not a stupid person and I've had a lot of scenarios in my life where the experts rely on text books and old teachings. I know what fossilized wood looks like and I know what insects look like. I know these are what I think they are, the local insects mimick these things to ward off dangers and make images of them in the grain on trees and other material. They would not mimick a rock for this purpose for obvious reason. Are you saying this is not an important scientific discovery? I may not be trained to the extent that you are but I have enough sense and experience in life to get this far so please give me the same courtesy I'm giving to the scientific community In trying to share this magical occurrence. I would definitely be able to contact someone and find a buyer but I want to share this to better everyone. Please just tell me how to prove this one way or the other but I will wager my testicles these are what I say they are. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 Science is about entertaining a healthy amount of skepticism. From the sounds of things, you seem too personally invested in wanting these items to be what you want them to be, which does not speak to the objectivity science demands. One can choose to believe all things conform to a single mathematical equation or pattern by deselecting evidence to the contrary (otherwise known as "cherrypicking", and is part of the appeal of horoscopes). As we appear to be just going around in circles at this point, we will need to agree to disagree. Please bring your specimens in hand to your nearest earth sciences department or natural history museum. This topic will now be locked. 4 ...How to Philosophize with a Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 hour ago, fossilfuel1988 said: I know these are what I think they are, Then why are you here? You aren't looking for honest opinions, you are looking for confirmation of your ideas. Your mind is already stuck in the fallacy. We can't change your mind, nor can you change ours. Please take your plant fossils to a nearby University or Museum to be looked at in person. Best of luck to you. 5 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...
Recommended Posts