How many kinds of fossilized cells of animals have been found?

Yep. There it is. The only thing I get from that is a crystalline structure.... perhaps the stripes are different metals ? Oh and it looks brittle.

ACtually the stripes on this feldpar (called palgioclase, variety :bytownite) are just how the polarizers cause a light absorption pattern that is unique to the chemistry of each minerl. This technique allows a very accurate assay of many minerals without using labs . We also can tell how easy it would be to extract the mineral of our search from this matrix. We often mine for teeny amounts of element that are stuck in the crystal lattice.
Many of my friedns who do microscopy, take pix of these many minerals, and then blow em up to poster size and enter em into photo contests.

http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/bloodsupply.html
Have you looked at this?
You are discussing microscopic, This is the way this could be studied or analyzed possibly.
We're wondering about it being some sort of silica encapsulated hematite...the iron from the blood???( Some of the scientists think)
Your thoughts?
Also, did you see my last post on page 9?
Your thoughts?
I will probably have to call UTK tomorrow, (Geology)

I agree. Good science is like a newspaper story (Who WHat WHen Where How). How is always l;ast. We need to establish all the baseline techy data before getting lost in the how and even the when.
I suggested that a sample preparator use a very small mineral circular saw to slab a teeny slice for thin sectioning and viewing under polarized light. I suggest that the polarized light microscopy be done by a competent pwetrologist AND a bone specialist whose familiar with PLM techniques.

Falsification requires really good data so I think youre about halfway there.
So, my question is, will the tests you suggest, confirm or deny it's position as a fossilized human brain?

My suggested testing will tell us whether its a geologic oprigin of a natural biological specimen or whether its a sort of pseudomorph of a chert bed. I am truly surprised that the taphonomy guy and the geologist just gave an opinion and then quit. SCience isnt always convenient to our beliefs but thats no reason to dismiss them without evidence. Poor science IMHO.

You know, at K-12 in Pqak Ridge, are many geologist specialties, and I know there are optical mineralogy guys because they use PLM to define zircons and microlite specimens for U/Pb analyses.

Is PLM something like the system astronomers use to determine the make-up of distant stars?

its somewhat different in that the light passes through the slide and specimen (The specimen is cut veerrrry thin so that the system is calibrated to polarizers above. You can see the light transmitted via one or two polarizers and the eyepiece or recorder picks up the changes in color or light pattern (called birefringence). The spectral analyses from a star is the light from the star going through a prism analyzer and broken into the elkement or compounds essential spectra. They accomplish the same thing in that both techniques will read chemical fingerprint of the mineral or spectrally, from a star.

Its a trick that still makes up a major part of an undergraduate geology training.

Thanks fm, that's pretty interesting. I'm rather limited in the education department, but I'm starting to get a grasp of what you do. Is there also a system for reading mineral signatures with radio or sound waves?

there is a technique cqalled GPR (ground penetrating raadar) which reads the changes in electromqgnetics swignqatures of soil, rocks, and Fe mineralized rocks. We cant tell the exact kind of rock. We also use magnetics which can tell rock signatures at depths. We have many kinds of wireline loggers which do read radiaoctive and elctrical properties of downhole borings. We can tell sand from clay, sandstone from limestone. fractures from non fracture zones. There are many types of sensors including airborne spectrophotometry which can actually decipher the chemical signatures of rocks from the air. Seismics use sound waves to detect the density of rock and some of these return speeds of the seismic waves can be used to determine large masses of rock types.

I am enjoying your expertise in this thread FM.....and I am learning lots, so be prepared for question time as soon as I think I know enough to ask a sensible one without embarrassing myself.

Last year a seismic crew did a mapping of the area where I live. I happened to run into the foreman in the field, while hiking one afternoon. Real nice fellow, whipped out his map and gave me a pretty good lesson on what he did, I think he liked his work. I never really thought about how you find other valuable minerals, other than the basic geology of it. Sounds like some of the tools you describe would narrow it down alot.
It sounds a lot harder to pin down concentrations of minerals than it is to detect the voids associated with oil deposits. I think I've seen some of those spectrophotometry compositions, is that what is used to map the ogallala?

Have I used the term "falsify" in the correct context here?
What I am attempting to state is that I have tried relentlessly, to disprove it.
I'm not sure that I have used the correct word.

All my efforts to disprove, so far, have done right the opposite.
Also, no, I didn't feel they just quit.
I have been a bit baffled why science hasn't "taken the ball and run with it."
to a greater degree than they have, and quicker.
Suzanne was the chief presenter at the conference in South Carolina, and I figured that it was some sort of professional courtesy for them to kind of, "bug out."
Also, they all had their own agendas, projects they had been working on.
They also didn't seem exceedingly impressed that it broke new ground for Creationism.
Personally, not that my say so means much, but I thing it's uniqueness should spark a lot of curiosity.
I mean, it does, but if science in general knew the things I know about it, I think they would break their necks to get to work with it.
What if...
(1) It's a fossil, I would think it opens new grounds, especially in taphonomy.
(2) It's a concretion, I would think it breaks new ground in relation to concretions. I mean, who has heard of a concretion this near perfect, that it defies Neurology...and a Geologic mind such as even yours? (At least possibly, before more tests) I refer to the first few pages of this thread.
I have so much Neurologic data on this, way more than on my site, it boggles my mind.

Also...bone specialist??? I don't understand.

Also...Oak Ridge???
I'm thinking of taking it to UTK.
Are you suggesting some place different?

Im assuming that UTK is the University of Tennessee at Knoxville?. It seems that probably sverel of the faculty there also do work at Oak Ridge. SO, carry on with your contacts.

Called UTK. Geologist said the tests would prove nothing.
He said the way to know if it is a fossil is by anatomy and simply with the assay.
He said thin slice would tell that it is silica, and that we already know that because of the assay.
Said proving organics within would not prove it is a fossil.
THEN he asked what kind of fossil.
I told him PHB.
Strangely, he then said it wasn't possible, then I told him the website.
Within a couple of seconds, he told me it is a rock.
( I was thinking..."you think?)
I tld him that he had told me that anatomy would know.
He said, "Anatomy wouldn't know a rock if it hit them in the head."
My goodness, that was so funny I laughed for hours...ahem.
Completely got me off the..."science stuff"

Kinda reminded me of what his boss told me a couple of years ago.
I didn't have anything tagged on the xrays page.
I asked him to take a look.
I told him there were comparisons between the phb rock and human brains.
He asked me which was which, because there were no identifying tags.
I told him, "well, I guess you made my point"
Well hey, I found that will tick off a head of Geology real fast.

Enough of the pity party.

I'll call around some other Geo's.

Here's something you might sink your teeth into...
A local head of Neurology who is fascinated with it, said it would be a phenomenal find if we could discover protein.
I'm not convinced he is sure how to do that with this being rock, but I told my better half that I bet you will know.
Thoughts...ideas?

Geo today also said that just part of the tests you suggested, would cost many thousands of dollars.
Right or wrong???

Wrong. A thin section analysis would cost about an hour of a grad students time and very minimal material.
The geologist was being rater circular wasnt he. The whole point is to determine WHAT kind of quartz it is (He is limiting his view). That will tell a lot as to its deposition. ALso seeing large opaque areas on the slide and doing a"loss on ignition" will tell us how much resideual organics or NON SILICA remains.

A thin section service would cost about 250$ (that assumes that work is done by a technician in a private company).

I criticized the original medical folks for missing the geology aspects and now Im criticzing the geologist for being such a smug presumptive person . Hes just like the folks I usually criticize on the other side.

THANK YOU!!!
That's what I kept going around spouting off about yesterday to my "colleagues"
His entire response is circular.
I lost the conversation when he discovered it is soft tissue fossilization.
I kept that part secret as long as I could, hoping to by-pass it, but knew of course, it would have to come out.
Hey, you'll love this, HE went on my site 6 times yesterday, for a total of over THREE HOURS, but didn't grace me with conversation with him for about 6 or 7 minutes.
I know because I checked my website stats.

Also...very important...about the PROTEIN??? This would really lock it down!!!

I think you and I see it from similar vantage points just from different worldviews. I too would like to pursue falsification based upon my pre stated biases.

1If its a concretion it can nly have specific types of quartz and it would be solid silica. All internal structures would be mineralized fibres of opal or crystals of cryptoxline quartz. This could be detected by thin section

2If its a biological, it would have traces of its biological structure and the permineralization would be another specific type of silica

3If its biological and retains some of the biological, it should be detectable by loss on ignition and thin section

4If its biological and we reduce all the other dependents, the only remaining unknown is its age.

If you can follow this train of logic, Ive attempted to simplify the search into main goals each one has a "do loop" of yes and No that would lead to the next tier of what ifs.

I hate it when supposedly objective scientists lead off with their own biases when we should look at each specimen like this as a "lets look at it afresh", lets not just say, "It cant be becuase..."

Now THIS, is science pure science!
I've gotten to highly respect you, Farmerman.
Problem, I honestly worry about you getting so close in this investigation of a "YEC thing." ( soft tissue, most anything.)
If through all the science stuff, it is found to be undeniable,
I feel you will be roasted just as if you were a "crank"
I wholeheartedly invite all your help, but please proceed with caution.
There are aspects who will never accept this, if the real thing, and will fight it tooth and nail.
To them, all that will matter is that science not be disrupted, if that might be the case.
All that I am talking about, is just simply the fact that such a thing could exist, and not even discussing YEC or evolution, because neither of them matter in the fact of just the reality or not of this specimen.

As far as what you have stated that you would like to do...of course, I'm all for it. I just hope it can stay in my budget and proximity constraints.

What should LOI cost?
At one time, about 3 years ago, UT Chattanooga Geo said they would thin slice for free.
However, they also would not give it the time of day as far as looking at the website, and are just as closed minded as the Geo from UTK.
You see, I have had my share of problems with "established science"
They are so absolutely sure they know they are right, they won't entertain any contradictory data.
This is also where the lady Geo is that I told you about.
I've taken it there 3 or 4 times, and I believe, well I am pretty sure they, I guess you could say...hate me.
The aggression is really obvious.
I think I won't take their "freebie" offer.
Okay Farmerman, take the lead and run with it.
How do you want to do this?
Also, sorry to bug you, but any ideas on the "protein test?"

Dont worry about a protein test until you determine whether any organic material remains. Loss on ignition is actually a very simple test

1A small sample of the specimen is collected and disaggregated physically(can do this by hand or by cutting with a saw). Put the disaggregated sample in a platinum dish. (Establish the tare weight of the dish for later)

2Dry the sample at about 100 C in an oven (NOT ANY HIGHER)
3Allow to cool for a day in the oven
4 Accurately weigh it on a lab scale (Id do this several times over a few hours (This is to make ure weve got it at an equilibrium

5Put the entire dish and sample in a muffle furnace and ash it at least at 500C. This gets rid of any organics
6 Allow it to cool down and weigh it again several times (Itll take at least a day to cool down )

7 Compute the percent wight loss by the ratio of the weight difference (original weight- final weight after ashing)/original weight.

The resultant prcentage is the loss on ignition AND, is the amount of organic material that was in the sample.
IF the organics were even measurable then ans=d only then would I suggest testing the chem makeup of thhe organics.
Proteins can be done by simple dye testing using stuff like ninhydrine or diazo.
This tests for LOI is really very simple except for the lab having platinum dishes. (When I worked in labs we used to keep all the Pt dishes under lock and key and were the responsible care of one tech)


I dont consider what we are doing as "jeopardizing" anything. I am doing exactly what I said. I have an operating model and we are both attempting to falsify. I think that, in order to arrive at what it is, we need to define its components and then find out what it ISNT. Im willing to have my entire earth shaken up cause thats the way science should be done. We shouldnt be ruled by biases even though theyve been 100% correct till now.

I know they did an extensive multispec overflight of the Ogallala several yers ago. They were looking for contamination zones. I know that theyve also done a trick called LIDAR which allows a close look at where earth has moved or slumped from removal of water from the Ogallala and the Edwards.

The seismic crew is composed of a Chief of party, the "Geeks" (these are the geophysicists who mostly stay in the trailer cause they have no public skills, Then you have"The juggies" who are usually wastrel grad students who are working for course credit and beer money.
Geophysics crews sometimes have a very tenuous hold on reality. I once ran a seismic survey and gravity survey in Montana and one of the best couple of workers were these two bikers. However they would disappear on Fridays and wed sometimes ahve to bail em out on Monday(Montana was pretty much under Mormon tribalcontrol). But damn good workers and real smart. One of em went off to San Fran to med school and the other went home to Louisiana.