The Butchers of the Mesozoic

I am directing folks to my slideshare and photobucket sites because it's easy and where's the upload button? Maybe, I should wait another ten years, to bring a new paradigm to the World, or maybe we could wait until a new civilization just happens to make this discovery again? Hey, Don't kill the messenger. Darwin,{and I am no Darwin} waited twenty years to bring us his new theory, because the Insurrection was still in command. All of my findings have been right here in California, which is not known for dino fossils. I have rocks from every continent except Antarctica, and a Forensic dentist would say Yes, Yes , all the same! Dr. Kevin Padian told me that rocks don't crystallize into Creation!, as he shooed me out of his office. He didn't know how close he was to the truth. Agates, geodes, flint noduoles, concretions, seaglass , native silver and gold nuggets are pseudo-morphs, like petrified wood.

Darwin didnt "Wait" 24 years to publish. Instead, he was busy testing his hypothesis. He was studying everything from pigeons to barnacles.
BTW, Didnt Swieter tell you about all the other materials in their admixtures of dissilution.
Im thinking here that you are just funning without a clue about what youre doing.

First, why do you think youve got stuff from the Mesozoic ?
Ahhh bewilldered, he was convinced that he saw organic mammalian structures(like nerve tissue and blood vessels) within meteorites and tektites.

I, believe that the California Geology book, if it contains the original map in the pocket inside the back cover, will show with color, Jurassic, and Cretaceous bedrock. As it turns out, the resilient deposits are now points of land and were originally deltas and lagoons. The highly mineralized organic deposits which some are harder than steel, remain while other strata erode away. There are visible theropod footprints, coprolites, and tidbits, with teeth marks not yet eroded from the cliff.

what sectios are yoreferring to? Remember the Corchorn clay member is a reworked surficial deposit that has "Tilled up and redistributed" , both physically and chemically any original geological materials.
Name the quadrangles and as close to the geo sections you are speking of.
lived in CAlif for a period and was doing geological research on materails and ores. So, the deposits Im most familiar with that still
have fossils arePAleozoic and Cenozoic

I was trying to recall and (my mind has slipped a bit. It was almost 25 years since I lived there. But my recollections about the Mesozoic sediments are that most were META sedimenst and many ash deposits and vulcanoclastics. The only actual sedimentary rocks were Jurassic units on the West flank of the Sierras from around Yosemite and outcropping North several hundred miles. Its not a great big belt though. Is this where you are talking of?

I had a look at your site just out of curiosity. You have a lot of photo's of rocks in the shape of hearts which you claim are actual fossilized hearts. And you have apparently misinterpreted the mineralized veins in the rocks as actual veins from mammalian tissue. That's why I referred you to Bewildered because he too was making wild and irrational comparisons between minerals and animal tissue.

Some of the photo's on your site are even more entertaining because they are so obviously something entirely different from what you are claiming.

oy. I just visited Steves "Secret life of rocks". Imagination can be a gift and a curse sometimes.

All those Tertiary deposits sit atop the previous eras, and only show at sea level or where the creeks and rivers stopped eroding when they met the cretaceous ground. up in the Sierras and The Great Valley some of the features are from when the dinosaurs roamed, what is on the sliding Salinian Block, which has migrated about 300 miles. My timeline will of coarse, age the Sierras rising by 10's of millions years and otherwise bewilder those that only believe what has been written 100 years ago. Point Ano Nuevo, Pigeon Point,Pescadero point, to name a few and other coasts around the world share the same time line with similar deposits.

So -far it's been somewhat of a curse, although this is still a work in progress and becomes more unbelievable and fantastic on a daily basis. What is really amazing is the persistence of the belief system that creates the negative response that seems to be the dominate re-action that comes my way.

Are you sure that you are in the non surficial deposits? Ive seen a lot pf energy rounded rocks in your Youtube and am convinced that they are only stream washed "petoski like" stones.
Comparing rock shapes to organs is kinda unconvincing a trick for scientists to adopt. . The only way you can assure anything is to run a specimen through a saw and make a thin section and observe it in transmitted and polarized light.
Your "eyeballs" are just layered units that have been stream washed and rounded. These are quite common in the Appalachians where two adjoining units have shed rocks that have several distinct layers on the broken rock. These re then tumbled and washed and the difference in erodability determines what results. I have several of thee kinds of artifacts from the Appalachian Piedmont and the ATlantic coastal Plain.

I believe that you are more interpreting these specimens based on your imagination and not science.
Im pleased that youve at least searched out the stratigraphy of your area. Thats a real good start.

Ok, I'll try uploading some images. These are sites that are about 400 miles apart. The album that I got these from have more , related to the butchering of what appears to be a sauropod. There are vertebra that remain, which may prove just what the carcass might have been. Both of these sites were covered with ash, which I believe, helped preserve them. http://s222.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/steveculbreth/more%20fossil%20pictures/?action=view&current=GEDC0693.jpg

Why do you think those are all chunks of fossilized dinosaur flesh and not just rocks? Have you done some kind of "test" on them that we don't know about?

I knew that if I started from the beginning of my discovery, with the first small rocks, instead of going to the more recent and fantastic stuff, this might digest better with you all. Have you ever wondered why coprolites and petrified wood are 3-d, and replicated in a minerallized form, but not other tissues? These are all pseudo-morphs, for lack of another term. The fossil books don't mention any thing like salt-brinning that would initially preserve these tissues, or neutral-bouyancy which would keep them 3-d as they sank in the muck? I've done this with jumbo squid eyes. As the salt permiates the tissue, it will start to sink, ever- so- slowly into eternal preservation.

Some of the rocks you have taken pictures of are sedimentary (worn down by ocean activity) and others are granite with cracks in them (also worn by ocean activity).

Have you done cross sections on any of these rocks? Any chemical analysis? You still haven't given any good reason to think that they are fossils. Just because they look like something else that you recognize from anatomy doesn't mean they actually "are" what they look like. Just because a cloud looks like a bunny doesn't mean it's really a floating bunny.

Im trying to remain polite but its getting really hard. You seem to have jumped to a "finding and conclusion" before even presenting any convincing analyses.

Rocks have mimick structures and orint-like subjects on surfaces all the time. You know what dendrytes are no? I would go to a museum and do some comparisons with your "coprolites" and theirs. MAke sure you pick those of comparable ages. However, you must remember that the action on your specimens that are probably rsponsible for what you have been cnvinced are coprolites or "eyeball" are post deposition or emplacement stream rounding.
Trachytes have shreds of minerals in them , as do porphyries. You could be confusing these igneous primary structures as "food shreds"

Are you familiar with thin section analyses? Have you ever been able to convince someone who knows how, to make you a thin section and then look at it under a polarizing scope?

Yes, I presented this to a U.C. Prof. of Earth Science and she said she wanted to do a thin-section and then send it to me. I never received her email, even after she said it would be resent, I never saw it. I think a ct scan might show more, such as internal structure. The term " water-worn" is used way to much to explain how a rock got it's shape. Some other terms like, mud rocks, flint nodules, and pseudo fossils are also used instead of really being able to explain what is in front of them. Unless you are a trained Paleontologist, that have studied comparative anatomy, a Geologist might not know what the internal structure of a kidney or heart or the hidden structure of an eyeball looks like. I really don't believe a paleontologist would be looking that close anyway. The eye rocks all have the same layers, by "all", I mean on a global scale. Those layers aren't sedimentary rocks, because they ALL have the exact, proportionally speaking, same layers. I'll take a close-up of some eyeballs. Her's some more of whats in my Photobucket album.

Oh . . . so the dog ate your homework?

It seems that I can only upload one at a time. The serpentinite rock on the right has the same angiagram, coronaries as the human, four chambered heart. The Heart in the middle, with myocardium sheared away by the shaving action of the steak-knife like teeth that only could belong to a predator. This picture is a coprolite with the identical teeth-marks in every slice.

You take very nice photo's of rocks.

But you are long on photo's and short on evidence.

I have forensic evidence, the kind used in a court of law. Goggle raptor bite-mark. or= http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/steveculbreth/GEDC0186.jpg or take a close look at identical veins on two different rocks. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/steveculbreth/GEDC0175.jpg, Something you can do for yourself, if your the curious sort. Put water puddy in a hollow rock, wait to days then break the rock and you might cast a claw.Boring clams didn't make holes in rolling stones, only on horizontal beds. Clams are opportunistic, though, and will crawl into one. http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd255/steveculbreth/GEDC0175.jpg

Me, again, sorry the album the cast claw is in is all scrambled, and I didn't do it. Anyway, somebody gave me a hollow rock. The hole is where the tip of the claw penetrated, while the rest of the claw was buried to the hilt, in a hunk of meat. I won't try uploading anything from that album, but it's in there.