Randyw Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 6 minutes ago, RetiredLawyer said: am going to make a silicone rubber mold and a plaster cast to clear out the color noise and see what it looks like then. Cool! Can’t wait to see it although I still suspect it will end up showing a root cast…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 28 minutes ago, Randyw said: Oldest relative reference I could find Then if by some chance it’s a frog it’s basically Adam Frog or a close friend. It could be something else completely new. Or a tree root. Getting verification of the age would be a good first step. I only know it’s the same elevation about half mile from the known Moenkopi track site and the rocks “look” the same from a completely superficial comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fin Lover Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) As someone who has owned literally thousands of frogs and toads, one of the first things to visibly happen when they are dying is for their digits to basically shrivel up. What this picture "appears" to show is not how it would actually look if it were a cast of a frog's foot, in my opinion. Edited May 22 by Fin Lover 3 Fin Lover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 12 minutes ago, Fin Lover said: As someone who has owned many frogs and toads, one of the first things to visibly happen when they are dying is for their digits to basically shrivel up. What this picture "appears" to show is not how it would actually look if it were a cast of a frog's foot. That’s a great observation. I dissected a dead frog 45 years ago and remember nothing of what it looked like. IF it’s some kind of animal it would have to have been molded pretty much immediately after death to retain what i see as it’s body shape, possibly buried alive. Maybe burying a frog immediately after death in mud would show what kind of imprint remains. I am in no way saying it’s a frog but I am convinced it’s an animal. I think a solid color re-creation will be interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 22 Author Share Posted May 22 I was thinking something like a metoposaurus salamander thing. Maybe get away from the extremely unlikely frog possibility and look at relatively likely possibilities. I actually found amphibian dermal bones 25 feet away. I may have inadvertently inserted the frog thing. This guy isn’t a terrible match Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 Since I am speculating at my own post, could these be eye or nostril holes? They are in the right general location, if you assume it’s a head. There’s also a lot of pockmarks that would not be present in smooth salamander like skin so maybe it’s just all nothing. We could combine tree roots where the salamander was hiding when he was buried, which is oddly not entirely far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 Here’s what I’m seeing…. Thats why im thinking root bundles… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 15 minutes ago, Randyw said: Here’s what I’m seeing…. Thats why im thinking root bundles… The color is perfect. The only issue is that it is hard to tell from a picture exactly which surfaces are truly the same “layer” I think is the word I want. I have tons of legitimate tracks that have extraneous cracks, rivulets, debris and deformation so it can be hard to tell. I look for true continuity in the surface to distinguish between say a crack the was stepped over and the true track outline. I don’t want to repost the closeup pic but the right front foot looks to me like a foot, unequivocally. It may very well be a disembodied foot and not actually attached to the blob, but I am convinced it is a foot. And try this: If you rotate the small middle green blob on the left in the top picture 90 degrees counterclockwise you could, within reason considering ripped flesh, slide it to the right to fill the gap between the top and bottom blobs. That would put the “body” back in shape. To me it looks like the body was split by a branch or something. There’s a lot going on and I can’t be sure what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybot Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 29 minutes ago, RetiredLawyer said: like the body was split by a branch or something. ..Or a raptor claw -Jay “The earth doesn't need new continents, but new men.” ― Jules Verne, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 29 minutes ago, Jaybot said: ..Or a raptor claw Best I can do is a random archosaur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, RetiredLawyer said: And try this: If you rotate the small middle green blob on the left in the top picture 90 degrees counterclockwise you could, within reason considering ripped flesh, slide it to the right to fill the gap between the top and bottom blobs. That would put the “body” back in shape. I dont know but that’s too much supposition for me. And raises too many additional questions. If ripped by predator why not consumed? If ripped by branch etc why is it still in relative area? If ripped with enough force to rip it off why isn’t it moved further? Also your eye nostril draw are not really simetrical. Also it was ripped killed then buried before any changes? All too much coincidence/ conjecture . I think occum’s razor applies here. I am still keeping an open mind though pending casting and your contact getting back to you… I hope it is something amazing but I’m thinking it’s not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 @RetiredLawyer Is other plant material found at this location ?? MotM August 2023 - Eclectic Collector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 3 hours ago, Yoda said: @RetiredLawyer Is other plant material found at this location ?? I have not seen anything. There is calamite stems at the first location. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BirdsAreDinosaurs Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 (edited) Not an expert, but does not look like a frog to me (well, it does, kind of ;). I root for the root hypothesis. If I would not know better, I would suggest it could perhaps also be an insect colony of some kind, with chambers and tunnels. But if the dating is right, that would not be very likely. Interesting find, whatever it is! Edit: I had a better look and zoomed into some details, and it looks pretty much like roots to me. Edited May 23 by BirdsAreDinosaurs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 21 minutes ago, BirdsAreDinosaurs said: Not an expert, but does not look like a frog to me (well, it does, kind of ;). I root for the root hypothesis. If I would not know better, I would suggest it could perhaps also be an insect colony of some kind, with chambers and tunnels. But if the dating is right, that would not be very likely. Interesting find, whatever it is! Edit: I had a better look and zoomed into some details, and it looks pretty much like roots to me. Honestly it never occurred to me that it could be anything other than what I described. It looked so much like what I said that I actually wondered if it was a dead animal. That was my sole basis for my description. Clearly what I clearly saw wasn’t actually clear. I will be more careful about my wording to avoid making my observations appear to be conclusions. I will definitely update if I get an expert’s opinion on what it might be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 14 minutes ago, RetiredLawyer said: clear. I will be more careful about my wording to avoid making my observations appear to be conclusions. I will definitely update if I get an expert’s opinion on what it might be. LOL! Nonsense! Your first post and the following posts were fine and well thought out. This has been a good conversation with good give and take on both sides in my opinion! And still can’t wait to see the cast and what their reply is! Good job everyone! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FossilNerd Posted May 23 Share Posted May 23 1 hour ago, Randyw said: LOL! Nonsense! Your first post and the following posts were fine and well thought out. This has been a good conversation with good give and take on both sides in my opinion! And still can’t wait to see the cast and what their reply is! Good job everyone! Agreed! It has been a nice discussion. A lot of back and forth with hypotheses , opinions, and supportive reasonings. I'm invested at this point and genuinely want to know what it is. Can't wait to hear what the experts say! 2 The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't. -Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 2 hours ago, Randyw said: LOL! Nonsense! Your first post and the following posts were fine and well thought out. This has been a good conversation with good give and take on both sides in my opinion! And still can’t wait to see the cast and what their reply is! Good job everyone! I always have to remember that facts lead scientists to conclusions. Lawyers lead conclusions to facts. A ? In the title should definitely been included. If it is a root cast I will make copies and sell them as garden frogs lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 I was completely wrong about not finding any evidence of plants at the site. I found this, which looks to me like some sort of plant. The closeup is of the edge of what looks like a leaf. If this is a plant it would add weight to the root cast view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 23 Author Share Posted May 23 These are examples of what a paleontologist told me were calamite stems which were found at the old site. I can’t say if this is the same as the plant preceding this. In the last picture I think the bulge is the top of the root part but that is only an assumption. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyw Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 This looks like plant and some roots to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 26 Author Share Posted May 26 These are examples of what a paleontologist told me were calamite stems which were found at the old site. I can’t say if this is the same as the plant preceding this. In the last picture I think the bulge is the top of the root part but that is only an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredLawyer Posted May 26 Author Share Posted May 26 Found this shape also near the previous shape. I don’t think these are root casts because they have a right/left symmetry that I don’t think could be random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now