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

I can almost understand another geologists view based upon initial reviews of your web page. AS ros says, if your web page wasnt so ceratin about Creationism, then the geologists might want to jump in and help .(I , and many other geos get involved in a few forensic cases every year or so, ) If you were to approach a geo dept in a university or college and state just the facts that your great uncle 0in-law found this and its an unusual specimen cause of its mineral makeup, how could you (the geos) help Me (you) in determining how it was preserved and maybe where it came from?

I think that theres still enough organic tissue at depth . I dont know what DNA could show cause you have no idea with what to compare the specimen. But we could get to the bottom of the age very easily.

BAsed on bewildereds statements and some of his ramblings, I was ready to dismiss you as some crank, but now, after some cooling down and separation with the bewildered posts, your cred has risen in my book, BUT as ros said, the conclusionary statem,ents in your website may turn lots of scientists off.

Also you need to seek out experts who are NOT attending these Creation events. If they're at those events, then their credibility is already highly questionable, and if what you're relying on is just the passing comments of these "scientists" attending conventions like that when they look at the thing, then you're actively misleading anyone else who asks what you have to offer as research and testing.

Thanks,
No, I said looked at AND saw my website.

Taphonomist, yes.

We did not know the exact find location until after he saw it, while at Univ South Carolina conference.
He suggested possibly concretion. I was curious, asked how close concretions get to the real thing. He said "pretty close."
I asked if he had ever seen or known of one to be so close that it could fool a professional in a particular field, as it is.
He said, "no"
I asked if that reference was to bones, insects, etc.
He said,"yes, They are not that perfect."
I asked if that might especially be so, of something as complicated and complex as a human brain.
I asked if he thought a concretion that resembles a brain could be so accurate that it could fool a neurologist or Phd. Neuro Anatomy Professor.

He said," no, I've never seen anything like that."
I then asked him if that would be possible, in his opinion, of the sides, the top, the bottom and the back.
I then spoke of the different views of the cat scans and x-rays, top, side, back.
I asked if this was possible, for a concretion to be this precise?
He stated that he had never seen anything like that, and that concretions are not that accurate.

I am not a Taphonomist. I am not a Neurologist. No one would ever listen to me as to what is or what is not.
I just wanted someone credible to tell me reality.
You may know a taphonomist who would tell you something different.
All I know is what I was told.

The type minerologist I was referring to is, Petrologist.

This is info I received from him...

Attached is the XRD report for the powder sample supplied in the small glass container. It appears to be virtually pure quartz. It would be beneficial to see what form the original quartz (SiO2) is in. If it is microcrystalline, you may be able to see original structure in thin-section. I thought there might have been carbonates present, but there are none. Concretions are typically carbonate-rich. I have not done any work on the small sample in the tissue. Might be tough to analyze, but will try to do something with it.

Later, I received this analysis.
Does this help? He told me that it means it is virtually one thing, quartz...

SEMI QUANTITATIVE MINERALOGY BY XRD
COMPANY: Larry Skelf REQ BY: Larry Skelf
07/12/2007 LOCN: Dust Sample
DEPTH: BULK POWDER
FORM: SKEL0001
WGHT VOL
2 THETA DENSITY INTENSITY FACTOR FRACTION FRACTION
QUARTZ 20.9 2.65 9133 1.00 1.00 1.00
K-FELDSPAR 25.8 2.58 0 3.12 0.00 0.00
K-FELDSPAR 27.5 2.58 0 1.10 0.00 0.00
PLAGIOCLASE 22.1 2.63 0 1.63 0.00 0.00
PLAGIOCLASE 28.0 2.63 0 0.98 0.00 0.00
CALCITE 29.5 2.71 0 0.78 0.00 0.00
DOLOMITE 30.8 2.84 0 0.96 0.00 0.00
ARAGONITE 26.2 2.93 0 1.80 0.00 0.00
SIDERITE 32.0 3.80 0 0.84 0.00 0.00
APATITE 25.9 3.20 0 1.88 0.00 0.00
ANHYDRITE 25.5 2.95 0 0.13 0.00 0.00
GYPSUM 11.7 2.33 0 0.85 0.00 0.00
BARITE 26.0 4.50 0 0.96 0.00 0.00
HALITE 31.7 2.16 0 0.25 0.00 0.00
PYRITE 33.1 5.00 0 0.60 0.00 0.00
KAOLINITE 12.5 2.65 0 1.20 0.00 0.00
ILLITE 8.9 2.75 0 1.30 0.00 0.00
ILLITE 19.8 2.75 0 4.20 0.00 0.00
CHLORITE 6.2 3.00 0 2.00 0.00 0.00
SMECTITE 5.0 2.50 0 1.00 0.00 0.00
MICA 8.9 2.75 0 1.00 0.00 0.00
BERTHIERINE 12.5 3.03 0 1.00 0.00 0.00
________ _______
1.00 1.00
CALCULATED GRAIN DENSITY = 2.65

Also, It'll take a little time, but I'll get to work on the website.

I think it has something to do with "Intensity" is zero except for quartz, which is
9133.
Also, weight fraction and volume fraction are zero, except for quartz, which is 1

I think he was looking for evidence that is is a concretion, but didn't find any.

Also, the "tissue" is a strange, red something on the right side. It was presented by two human brain anatomy professors, a taphonomist, and a petrologist all conferring at the same time, as being possibly some type of encapsulated hemosidirin, something to the general thought of it being the iron in the blood????

Farmerman, I'll have to read your comments several times to let it soak in, as well as I need to research it to understand some of it better.
I know a Geologist at the Univ of Georgia, Athens, by way of phone conversations, real nice person, very professional.
I'll see if I can bring him in on this, to help me catch this, also.

I dont think its a concretion.
As far as the XRD , youve listed the returns and Im assuming its from the computer of a PHILLIPS XRD.
It doesnt say that its all quartz at all because some of the returns for feldspars are at least detectible on intensity.
2 theta is the angle from zero at which the primary peak of that mineral occurs (although quartz has several dozens of peaks). This one listed 20.9 for quartz indicating that it was a Copper source . (Its actually 2.859). Each of the primary crystal faces should reflect a diffraction 2 theta.(26.640; 36.545;39.467; etc etc). SO the mineral XRD machine was less than 14 % sensitive to inclusions and other minerals. However, it looks like its maybe got feldspars aragonite and a bunch of different clays besides quartzThe machine probably wasnt calibrated for any other return 2 thetas besides one reflector so the principle returns were only reported out as the 1010 quartz)

You should have them do a powder camera return to get a LAUEY ditribution where I beleieve they would see other developed 2thetas for the species of quartz.
This could be a pozzolon because of the possible clay and the aragonite (Although the other carbonates are much less).
Do you have the paper strip readout showing the 2 thetas and the peaks? That would also show us that the multiple returns for quartz are either there and were read as other minerals, or whether the sensitivity of the machine (OR another fact could be that the sample is at least a sizeable amount that is still organic and is therefore not a crystalline matrix).
The density seems to be right on for alpha quartz, (but also for lots more alkali minerals as you can see how close the others are in the density column) It does report out as quartz but I think its a matter of limits of detection because the computer did spell out other components from its huge index. So Can I ask, how did you gather the sample from the brain? Did you just pry it out and then smash it up with a hammer or something? How did you send the sample off?

Since it only gave one crystal return, my original theory for a silica gel impregnation still makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I do have that readout.
I just need to find a way to make it available to you.
It is in PDF and I don't know how to make it available except by installing on my website.
I will try to make this happen tonight.
No, I didn't smash. I have been very cautious with it.
Steel bit would not penetrate, nor would case hardened or masonry, of ourse.
I got the idea for using a glass cutting bit.
It is still very difficult to penetrate the outer "crustation"
Suzanne believes this may very possibly be "petrified dura mater"
I did spell "mater" correctly, it is not "matter"
I carefully gathered small amounts of the dust.
If you go to this link, go about 1/3 to 1/2 of from the top of the page, you can see inside the hole, with it greatly magnified. This hole is actually only about 3/8" in dia. and about 1/2" into the specimen.
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/bloodsupply.html
You might also want to look at
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/microscopic.html
Let me know what you think of these images.
Keep in mind, these pages were sort of like a scratchpad for me, and also to be used kind of like a challenge to any interested scientist to say,
"okay, here is what I see, now what do you see?"
So I am saying the same thing to you.
Do you see Biology, or Geology, or something in between or none of the above?

Also, I meant to mention, I kept thinking about the silane thought.
It cannot be, as this would, among other things, require some painting method.
It does not do this in any way.
What you see is totally "natural" to the specimen.
The best way I know to describe it is, that if you broke a large pea gravel and inspected to outer crustation, for a large part, that is what you would see.

Problem is, it is evidently not carbonate, and from a Biologic standpoint, it is confirmed by Suzanne to appear to possibly be Dura mater.
Also, the finger impressions are discolored.
For the sake of argument, I'll say that they aren't finger impressions.
What caused them to look so much like finger impressions, if not fingers?
This was confirmed by the very first scientist I took it to, a forensic pathologist.
I had not done any research, didn't know anything at all about it. I took it to him and he said, " I've seen over 2ooo brains, I can't say it isn't a brain, I'll give it about a 5% chance that it is.
It is certainly worth research and letting other people see it.
Also, man, it sure does look like someone handled this thing, I wonder how that could have happened?"

Well, this all occurred a lot of research and a lot of inspections ago.

This may be a silly question, but isn't it fairly important to know where something was found (and in which rock/dirt strata) for identifying its age?

And what exactly is the question with this object? Are you still at the point of trying to identify what it is, and not how old it is?

Maybe I missed something in the thread here, but is what we have at this point, an object that was handed down from person to person, origin unspecified, which is being broken apart in uncontrolled conditions and then the pieces (dust and such) are being delivered to various individuals for some form of analysis? If so, how are various forms of contamination of the sample(s) being ruled out? Wouldn't a proper scientific analysis involve clean tools and clean-room conditions?

Just got bak from a meeting, Ill takea lokk at your post later after dinner.

Thats one of the questions Ive asked several times. Maybe I need a course in keeping folks interest soi they finish my posts.

I suspect that this brain (and I am concluding that it is one), had to be gone over from tissue to inorganic silicate mineratl. The sample was obviously handled during the time period that the "silica cement" was setting up. The reason is that the tissue shows indentations as does the tissue surrounding. It is a problem in replacement of tissue by a certain amount of siloca. Only the surface has been sampled and it is silica (microcrystalline) But there are some evidences of other material (at 0% in an XRD it only means that the other ions are below the detection limit.)

Ive asked several questions several times about what Id like to see the data show. PHB is presenting these.

Hi Farmerman,
Here is a link, I hope it is beneficial for this research.
http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/twotheta1.html

(Q) What is silica cement?
(A) There was extremely little surface crustation that was involved with the sampling.
(A) In the area of the drilling, appr. 99% came from within, as I actually expanded on a shallower previous drilling, so this was from within the specimen...not the surface, (except an incidental miniscule amount.)
(A) Strata...I don't know enough of how to obtain this information.
Can you figure this out, maybe by asking me certain questions?
I'll answer anything I can on this topic.
(Q) Are you telling me that you can tell that it appears to possibly be microcrystalline, according to the info from the XRD?

I assumed it was microcrystalline crustation ( dura mater) and inside where the sample was taken from, to be maybe larger crystalization (macro???)
Do you see any prospects for cryptocrystalization?
The reason I ask, is that my thoughts are that this may become significant as to comparisons with brain cell structures down to the atomic level?

Farmerman is making a robust effort to help with this specimen, and I am doing all I know how to do, to help him.
Please be patient as we try to work through this difficult challenge.
Many fossils are studied for several years, and still many questions are unanswered.
Your concerns are well warranted, and it is my hope that Farmerman will help me through this.
I have learned to have the highest respect and regard for his ability and professionalism.

Wow Farmerman!!! I have been researching to see what direction you are going.
I didn't know this work was even possible.
You certainly have my attention...thanks!
Now all I have to do is figure out how to go about getting these tests run, and as nondestructively and sterile and quickly as possible.

I wouldnt worry about an exceeding sterility unless you do chemical analyses. Mineral analyses by xrd and thin sections only need wiping off and a bit of dusting"

Thats just my term for the silica base in the cast. Since youve had it determined that its mostly SiO2, we would need to know what kind of SiO2. This can be done by a more detailed XRD where the specimen is run by a powder camera where the "rings" of the diffraction pattern for many of the secondary reflectors are measured.

If you say there was little crust on the material, what does the surface feel like?Is it hard as quartz? Cryptocrystallization (like chalcedony or agate) is possible in the resulting tetrahedra. This is what a more detailed Xray and stereo microscopy would provide us . The presence of some really monor oxides is indicative of "novaculite or chalcedony" from the lower Appalachians. But the amounts of thetrace elements (oxides) would be less than what an XRD could detect so itd need to be done more by optical analyses. Cryprocrystalline quartz like chalcedony can aslo be made by taking amorphous "silicic acid" and treted with K tungstate in a closed vessel at 80 degrees (C) for about 150 days. This would be a way to encrust a biological sample(but Im not sure how the damn thing would not be kept from rotting.

As it goes, I cantimagine any natural way for this to be made. I have found at least 3 ways that humans can produce such an artifact but one way requires making a mold and cast and you say youve been able to see internal structures)

When you say it was "drilled", why was it drilled? for what reason? Ws a small core retained?

The two theta chatrt you sent reinforces my belief that the XRD wasa done at some low resolution machine. Between 0 and 90 degrees there should be about 22 peaks of different intensity factors and between 0 and 180 degrees ther should be about 59 with lots of doublets and triplets.
Thats why a powder camera is needed to do a good analysis to determine what kind of silica it is (manmade or natural and what chem species).

All you need to do is to find the age of the brain. nothing else. I have mentioned the U-Pb dating method.
No one question it was a brain. Other questions take a long time to solve, such as
1. who did what to it?
2.how artificially?
etc.

That doesnt make sense. We only can do U/Pb from minerals that are IN quartz. I dont think theyve found any zircons in the brain. Sometimes you should learn whether a technique can even be done before you propose it. I hope PHB doesnt go and spend any money on U/Pb analysis , itf be a loser

Time to go to work. I'll have to post tonight.
What, and I know you have already told me, but please tell me again, what, for the most benefit to science, the easiest, most efficient, most revealing and least destructive ( and most cost effective) and knowing I will not send the sample anywhere, so it needs to at least be in the U.S., can I and should I do?
This...or these, test need to be done, knowing positively that it is definitely not man made.
It is a real rock, as petrified trees are real rocks.
I promise you, testing as if it is not, is a waste of time and money.
To do a test that shores up a hypothesis is okay, but please, not just for the sake of proving it is or is not man made, because it would not take anyone but one glance, to know it is real.
Thanks everyone for input, especially Farmerman