Carnivorous dinosaur eating habits

I've got a bunch of dropped slices from raptors and therapods. These slices have the same teeth marks that persist in the digested coprolite. The meat eaters had fast and short tracks, so they sliced their food as thin as possible.

there are coprolites that show (in only a few cases that Im aware) chewd bony tissue that had been fossilized. Im not aware of any soft tissue that has been fed upon. Soft tissues from dinosaurs is very rare and there are only about 6 xamplesthat all seem to come from Hell Creek

What do you know, this is how I got on this site a few years ago. Of coarse, there's soft-tissue in those coprolites! Without the rest of it's dinner in the pile it wouldn't be in the shape it's in. I decided that the scientific method should require me to sketch the teeth marks that were in the coprolite and the teeth marks in the dropped slices. Guess what? Didn't have to do much sketching. The proof is in the rocks, just take a closer look, don't believe what you have been told or read, or think you know, or even what I am trying to convey on this site.

I think you are quite obsessed with this.
1How many coprolites are there with teeth marks? ( if they eat **** they dont just tooth it0

2I challenge you to produce some photos of the cross sections of the coprolites and lets see what the mineralization is
3If your "teeth marks" are like those you show in your blog page, your nutz. Those are actual rocks with calcite veins. Its the eroding of the calcite veins that you are very mistakenly identifying as teeth marks.

Youve gotta be more thorough nd exclude things that your sample could be. I dont think you are savvy enough in geology to know what youre even talking about here.

I have pictures with teeth marks in the slices that are in the coprolites. I believe your talking about the rock with the jaw print, which is tooth for tooth of a raptor of some sort. That's not a coprolite,but a representation of what they did to all the organs, which is only shear the outer layers off or slice thinly and discard the inside. The muscle meat, however, was sliced squarely. I can perform any procedure you suggest, although I may have already done so. I'll gladly send you a coprolite an eye ball or a box of coprolites, organs, and meat. You can do this on your own,I've sent boxes of rocks before, there's plenty to go around. And yes the calcite did occupy the grove that was produced by the point of the tooth as it was shaving, and did some filling of other cavities. The lines aren't cracks and non of these rocks are granite.

How do you know they're not granite?

the fact that your "teeth marks" are so coincident with the calcite veins in a consolidated rock sets an order of occurence that cannot be denied

1the rock was deposited as a sediment or emplaced as an igneous mass (I think its metamorphic actually)

2the rock was stressed and cleavage was established that includes the calcite
3the rock was broken off its "ledge"
4the rock was rounded by a stream
5the calcite was "plucked " from the veins as (probably) part of the stream tumbling and erosive process

The story should be bas upon the simplest of axioms, rather than manufacturing a story about dinosaur teethmarks in hard rock

PS , Ive seen plenty of carnivore teethmarks on bones of prey, both moern and fossil. They dont look like the rocks youve posted. I havent seen examples of your coprolites so Im at a loss to give an opinion about those.

Ever hear of Occums Razor?? In descriptive sciences, it usually works.

Hey, my name isn't Salmon Rushdie, so if you weren't so fervent in your beliefs, maybe someone can learn about something which may result in the advancement of science. I am glad about the challenge that you proposed. I will however need an address to physically send some rocks. There are many locations where anomalous rocks are found appearing to be granite, with no source within hundreds of miles. I have ground-off what looks like granite to find something altogether different a millimeter beneath the surface. I can prove all my claims, while toppling the pillars of your beliefs and some out-dated theories that are pretty far fetched, in my opinion.

I seriously doubt that. All the spcimens you have posted so far are rocks of all different kinds including some sedimentaries. However, your clains were for the existence of fossil soft tissue that had been masticated and preserved , as well as facial fetures of dinosaurs and "teeth marks"

Im well aware of fossil casts and molds of whole organisms so thats not what were talking about.

If you wsih to send me some stuff Ill have a close look at it.

PM me your e mail and Ill respond with a mailbox number to which you can send samples. Try to use a USPS mail bo and we will pay for th delivery.

Faith is where you believe something where there is no evidence. Superstition is to continue that belief even after evidence is readily available.

Granite cobbles can be found many hundreds of miles fom their sources based upon the eistence of stream beds and old glacial morainal features. In northern PA We regularly find pieces of Canadin Shield rock from Abbitibi. (Thats a geologic province area just Southeast of Hudsons BAy)

What theories do you think are out-of-date and far fetched?

Steve hsnt posted since October , when he was chiding me for "NOT SEEING THE TRUTH" in his samples of eroded calcite crystals in a water worn rock. He saw these as [proof positive for some petrophagic dinosaur chewing on what appeared to be a diabase

I remember.

I miss the whacko's. They're a refreshing escape from the political threads.

sometimes they blend together

Hmmm, yes. Let me rephrase... I prefer scientific whackology to political whackology.

when I pointed out to Stevethat his "teeth marks" in solid rocks were nothing but water erosion that "plucked" out calcite crystals in a vein, was I clear on that point? Or was I being naifly foggy on the way I presented the interprettion. Steve still insists that hes got evidence of dino teeth marks on solid rock and examples of "eyeballs" that are clearly(to me anyway) erosion differences in layered sedimentary pebbles. I sometimes just blow through some of these assertions and what may appear clear to me may not be. I keep forgetting that Ive been doing this **** for lmot 40 years now and I lose patience with some of the novel interpretations. (I still get pissed at Medved for being such an airhead)

It's crab season, been very busy, good to be back. The water worn explanation that is so over-used and seems to be universally accepted as a quick comeback, but doesn't cut IT. There are ongoing, unfinished theories that are going no-where, to explain the formation of agates and geodes and the fortifications that are inside. If one was to tediously go through all the images and sites that contains much of the material that I've already covered with extensive detail and commentary, maybe our conversations might go somewhere. I am going to PM Farmerman my email and send some rocks. I'm looking forward to the challenge, the burden of proof is on me.

I promise to make a thin section of the rock and that should prevent any misinterpretations of the rocks genesis