7
   

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

 
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 09:33 pm
@farmerman,
Pittsburg conference I was referring to was Int Conf on Creationism (ICC).
Almost 3 years ago.
Still, Hmmm, wonder what is up that they are digging into this site?
We Creationists get chuckled at a good bit...could be it?
I'd guess there is a lot of good science lost there, just because they can't set the bias down for a minute, to take a little look see???
No, I'm not trying to convert anybody here, I'm just talking about the operational aspects, not historical, just like what I'm trying to do here, nothing more.
Man, I took a look at my site, and it really does need a work over!
Most of that is from the first year or so, and some of it really needs to go, defective, and other data needs to be installed.

Links I would like them to look at and hopefully, comment on.

http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/microscopic.html
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/bloodsupply.html
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/xraysothertests.html

I know you didn't ask, but just an example,
The thing about the bullet, well, that is the shape I see.
It also "beeps" metal in that area, with a strong "stud finder"
and the specimen sets off metal detectors at County Courthouse.
X-rays, I see a shape, but cat scan, shape maybe, but it doesn't look solid like I would think CT would reveal.
I know that "bullet in brain fossil" is a turn off, but again, I was just saying, "what do you see" and really, is there any possibility?
Pareidolia is a hazard, so I've tried very hard to avoid this.
At the same time, I've tried to not deny any possibility, until the research is final. Tricky fine line.

Also, the shard was just a question, I haven't done any slicing yet.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 09:38 pm
@gungasnake,
"Blood supply" on my site has some image comparisons to the dino soft tissue.
Again, I dunno...we are working on it.
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/bloodsupply.html
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 09:47 pm
@PHB,
Quote:
I know you didn't ask, but just an example,
The thing about the bullet, well, that is the shape I see.
It also "beeps" metal in that area, with a strong "stud finder"
Whaaat? Where did it say in some of your site pages about a metal shard in the brain. A stud finder I have doesnt respond to lewad and brass (I put a line of 45's behind a small piece of plywood balanced on two thin books and then ran the stud finder over it) It responded to nails really well but not a brass and lead cartridge. I have a Black and Decker stud finder and dont know if its a "Strong" one or not. It found nails but not bullets so I wonder how thruthful the Yalie guys were.
Pittsburgh Conference is actually a registered trademark of a very prestigious analytical chemistry conference
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2011 09:50 pm
@PHB,
The "soft tissue " from the T rex is actually a sample that has been buriied in a sikicate rock matrix. It had to be dissolved out and then the sopecimen was "reconstituted" like dried soup. It appears as it does because of ultra rehydration using all sorts of chemicals. Gunga is a fellow Creationist but hes not as opene minded as you appear to be with this sample. He jumps to conclusions without any evidence at all.

Others can tell you of him biut, If hes part of this, Im outta here.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:16 am
@farmerman,
I was merely making an observation. The visual comparison was intended to draw opinion from you, because I don't know what to make of it
I know nothing of Gunga, except what you just stated.
In the comparison, there has been nothing done t o my specimen, just extremely closeup imaging.
I did not know of the trademarks for "Pittsburg Conference"
I was just referring to a city where an ICC conference was held.
This particular one was about three and a half years ago.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:32 am
@farmerman,
Most electronic stud finders look for differences in density, not metal. That is why they have to be calibrated against the wall.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:32 am
@farmerman,
I like the reference to the metal as "metal shard" or metal speck, better than "bullet"
To me, "bullet" is something that is as yet, not proven, only conjectured.
Metal shard or flake or speck, that is picked up by a stud finder, now that is a positive, an absolute.
In fact, there are three areas that the stud finder identifies as being close to metal.
One is at the place that I "assumed as apparent" as an entrance point, another, EXACTLY at the area that xrays and cat scans indicate the "shadow" or whatever term might be more apprpriate, another is where I broke a tiny speck of metal off in it, attempting to do an earlier drilling, from the bottom of the specimen.
I'm not saying bullet, that was to draw objective comments, and yet, I personally do see the shape, very clearly.
It could probably be it is just me, I dunno.
FYI, something I know you know, there were steel bullets.
However, I would think if it were even a steel bullet, it would be much better defined by the xrays ads cat scans.
End result so far...we have metal that is picked up and locations identified by stud finder...FACT.
Other than that, I have no idea what to say.
ABSOLUTE FACT...there is some amount of metal in this thing.
I don't know, maybe that is not unusual...you tell me???
0 Replies
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 07:39 am
@parados,
Okay, so you are saying that stud finders pick up things other than metal???
They can pick up dense rock???
If this is correct, just saying, it is still weird that the locations it picks up are the ones I have mentioned.
I do't have a stud finder. I just went to Lowes and took the rock.
The guy freaked when I took it out of it's case, and said, " you just go walking around with that thing?? He started stammering about it being a brain and wanted to show it to others there. HA!
Anyway, he was very helpful.
Fird\st stud finder did nothing.
He wanted to try another, saying it was better.
Bingo.
The rest, I have already posted on here today.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:00 am
@parados,
Quote:

Most electronic stud finders look for differences in density, not metal
That changes everything. Ive been operating on the metal detector assumption. DAYUM, I feel so stupid .
NOW , that opens a whole nother use for this bad boy. The density diff between the silica matrix and a shard would not be so noticeable if the scan field is larger than the search object.
In geo surveys we have EM equip and gravity meters that are of different scan widths so we can adjust to our target. Otherwise , in the case of this brain, the stud finder is averaging a larger cross section.

Do you have a radiograph of the Xray? That should show something definitive
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:57 am
@PHB,
Without knowing which stud finder he used and how it was set, I guess I can't answer that question.

The high end stud sensors in the $300 range do sense metal and supposedly can tell the difference between steel and copper. Most people don't have those around their home, which is why I mentioned density, but they might have it at Home Depot. So it is possible he set it for the metal sensing setting which would probably find iron and steel but less likely to find lead or copper. In the last year, the low end stud finders have gotten better and more capable. Recent article in Fine Homebuilding rates several under $100. None of them are good at finding any metal other than steel. Most of those still require a calibration on the wall surface so they can respond to changes in the electrical field.

This shows how they work.
http://www.finehomebuilding.com/tool-guide/articles/how-it-works-wall-scanners.aspx
0 Replies
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 09:57 pm
@PHB,
Yes, only of the first x-rays,
Not the industrial x-rays, which I've had done twice, on disk ( Ivey Cooper Imaging)
I have film cat scans, and twice had cat scans on disc.( former daughter in law, still friend of family, works at a urologist, did cat scans for me.
I don't understand some of what she has told me, something about that my home computer, and the transferring to a disc, doesn't show even nearly, all that she can see.
Also, she said that their machine is not even close to how good some CT's are.
Also, no, has not been industrial cat scanned.
The reason I am bringing this up is, this is vitally important Neurologically.
largely from perspective of ventricles.
Geologists might call them "vugs" but certain things such as all four ventricles and intraventricular foramina ( the connecting of the ventricles) and surrounding of the thalamus by the third ventricle, are extremely important.
To them, this is pretty close to a "that does it" to the question.
I've been hoping that a very prestigious llocal Neuro Radiologist will look some of the info in the ventricles over soon.

Suzanne feels that she has located three ventricles, and quite possibly, the fourth, as well as intraventricular foramina.
I'm wanting to get back into my studies of what I used to think was "midline shift, and to some degree, is.

Mostly, it would be better referred to as interhemispheric asymmetry, reverse torque with correct petalias.
I'm also going to study the dissimilarities.

Almost all study is similarities, but I'm feeling brave, and want to know what and why, the mostly minor, dissimilarities.
Slight angle variations occasionally, tilt and stretch degrees and comparisons.
A lot of this has already been done, but it's time to go at it some more.
Sorry about the Neuro rant, but it's pretty hard for me to disassociate it from neuro or geo, and most of my work on it has been neuro.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2011 10:02 pm
@PHB,
I should be sending a powder from drilling sample for LOI, later this week.
you'll get the results as soon as I do.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:18 am
Hey, farmer, this is kinda off the current topic of discussion--is it a brain?--but germane to the question of the topic. Do you happen to know what the state of preservation of soft tissue and DNA in insects preserved in amber is? They're obviously not fossilized and they're millions of years old in some cases, which ties in with that whole soft tissue preservation in dinosaur bones, and another one of gunga's rants. In today's news there was a rather peculiar story about two mites having sex when a drop of amber fell on them 40 million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41857938/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Could they do a real Jurassic Park here, extract the DNA of an extinct mite species and recreate it--not that anybody's gonna care about that as much as recreating, say, a velociraptor.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 05:48 am
@MontereyJack,
DNA degrades under most environments but theyve been able to sequence a naeanderthal sequence (35 K) a mammoth(8.5 k) and some patchy stuff from insects in amber (using osteocalcin rather than DNA itself), SO , under unique conditions , maybe Eocene amber will yield some DNA from insects(Ill bet they are trying).

With enough DNA it wpuld be possible to clone an ancient specimen like a mammoth . I keep scanning NATURE for a story about it.

Theres an 'ass backwards " way by sequentially removing dna segments from the genome of a living specimen nd then cloning a successively earlier phenotype.They say itd be possible to genetically retrieve a , say , dinosaur from a chicken. Itd be largely conjecture but it may be possible.
0 Replies
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:35 am
@PHB,
FM, How big of a deal is it to actually get the powder camers return test done?
I'm looking for someplace to do it, and haven't locked onto one yet.
Two questions...any suggestions on a company and what is normal cost?
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 07:38 am
@PHB,
I'm drilling for the LOI dust tonight...going to go deeper into the same hole.
Let me know if I need to go ahead and get 2 grams in steaf of one,( one gram each for the two tests)
I think this is what you said is needed.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2011 06:49 pm
@PHB,
I'm looking at Dynalene Labs for LOI
Guy said something about TOC Total organic content test, also.
Will this help?
0 Replies
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 08:24 pm
@farmerman,
I'm guessing it will be about three weeks for determinations of samples.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:59 pm
@PHB,
just got back yesterday so Im catching up with some posts.3 weeks sounds about right.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 06:50 pm
@farmerman,
Thanks.
I've been really busy, but have several test directions I'm trying to get to as quickly as possible.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 01:48:03