The Butchers of the Mesozoic

No you don't. You have a vivid imagination and some rocks.

Why don't you skeptic moderators comment on Forensic Odontology?, instead of trying to only poo-poo what I am voluntarily trying to convey here. Do you know anything about it? Do you know what a pseudo-morph is? Come-on give me a good argument. Are the teeth- marks water-worn? I don't hear a good argument, just scorn, why is that? What would a forensic dentist be doing in a court of law anyway? Will you please answer my question?

Not a single member responding to this bullshit thread is a moderator.

I was going to ask if there was more than three people viewing any of this. Can't answer my question, so I'll start a new thread, maybe there's someone that can tell us what a pseudo-morph is or what a forensic odontologist does.

That no one has answered your questions is not evidence that no one can. I'm sure it hasn't occured to you that people just don't want to play your evasive games with you. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proving the claim. You have not done so.

Apparently, it's not likely that much can be proven on such sites as this, even with great pics. I have already proven all that I am talking about to myself and others. People who are well versed in geology and generally well educated seem to have the hardest time, even just listening to what I am saying. Not many students of geology have seen a concretion forming or a thunder stone falling from the sky, so a belief system is what they have to go by. People die and kill defending what was instilled in them when in their youth. I am not going to try to prove anything anymore on this site or any other site. Even with matching coronaries matching teethmarks similar shapes so-on and so-on, If people aren't curious or inquisitive, it would seem that they don't really want to know or learn anymore. If anyone wanted to prove to themselves what I am trying to say here it's easy. Buy a 60lb. bag of stones from Home Depot, wash them, spread them and sort them on a tarp and then start put the similar shapes together. It's highly likely that some will have the same shape, teethmarks and claw marks from the same critter. Don't forget that the raptors and theropods were hard-wired in their feeding habits and one can compare rocks from other locations and even continents. That simple experiment can be done by mere children and create an interest in science or biology, maybe even Medicine. That's my push here, our youth is my concern, not converting tough opinionated old folks, like myself. The Evolution of Ones Self is Our greatest Achievement. Have a nice life.

Yourself and others? Which others would those be? Do you have an independent source we can see where others consider that you have proven anything? I'm not surprised to see you bad-mouthing this site--there aren't many credulous people here.

I am pretty gullible, but I have yet to see anything.

Sorry, only friends and even strangers who aren't credulous, that asked intelligent questions that I was able to answer to there satisfaction. Having these objects in there hands to see for themselves, makes it easier to grasp this unbelievable, but fascinating realization. There has been many Eureka moments, more so in the beginning, but the effect is addicting, and I'm sure, unless you've had one you wouldn't understand. My You tube vids are amateur and I will get some help on that soon. I may even re-animate the predators as they calmly butchered their prey. If some entity would take my challenge to prove or disprove, I'd be delighted, I don' see that happening, so I'll just plod along and see what I may discover today.

The last rock shape, the hearts, was a shocker when I took it to the library and compared with the human angiagram. My 4-chambered heart, with both atria and the pulmonary trunk delighted a famous retired heart surgeon and reassured me of my observational and analytical doubts. Anyway, like I said, one needs to have this stuff right in front and in hand or trust there is no Photo Shop. I came here for some critic and found it, I need that to bolster my presentation, but, alas....

Asking people to look up the definitions of things isn't going to take the place of evidence. You haven't provided even an shred of evidence to support your ridiculous claims. How can you expect people to take you seriously if you don't even attempt to provide real evidence.

All I have is some photo sites, and You Tube, or I can try to answer some tough questions. I'd be welcoming any or all questions, so put me to the test! After the quizzing, one can make-up their own minds. Just don't what else to do.

Your questions arent "tough" really. You make the mistake of misidentifying something based on your imagination rather than evidence


More than you have time to listen.
A pseudomorph (its one word btw), is something that "takes the habit of a pevious item". It always involvs the chemical alteration of one thing into another. The most common pseudomrph is pyrite. Pyrite will oxidize into a non sulfide mineral called LIMONITE, but will retain the pyrite crystal form. SO a limonite "after pyrite" pseudomorph is when the pyrite crystal degrades into an iron oxyhydroxide but the new mineral "LOOKS JUST LIKE" a brown pyrite crystal.

If you are using the psudomorph analogy, then your minerals (l3ets say serpentinite), Is actually a mineral that has taken ON THE FORM OF A FOSSIL. Therefore , with this analogy Youve just screwed any semblance of an argument. The igneous mineral came first and where is the fossil form? (It was carved by water)
You have got physical artifacts that your imagination compels you to see something there that just isnt.
As far as the teeth marks on rock, you can see the veination of the very minerals in the rock. These minerals (no doubt something tectonically emplaced like calcite) are less resistant to erosion than the host rock (which has only been rounded in a stream). SO the calcite is easily "plucked out" by water and moisture until all that is l3eft is the "mold" of where the calcite vein used to be. These are really common stream formed articats (we even have a language of what we call this stuff but I wont bore you with jargon)

SERPENTINE IS ALWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH SEA FLOOR TECTONICS.
SO, in order for your serpentine to even be considered to be a "fossil", youve gotta find the vertebrate animal that can live in supercritical hot water and melted silicate rocks.

Besides Pompeii and Herculaneum "casts" of dead people, the only igneous fossil that I know of is some poor wooly rhino that got caught in a lava flow of the Sierra ignimbrites and a "cast was made" of this dude. There is a fossil rhino cast in ignimbritic ash that was made during an eruption o LAssen peak during the Pleistocene.
There is no"internal structure preserved save a hint of skeleton u8nder MRI (Theyve scanned the sucker)
I forget which museum hes in bgut he is available for inspection

As far as your "coprolites" agin, Id carefully inspect them under a pet scope in thin section. I think your dealing with nepheline syentites, trachytres , or a porphyry. These igneous rocks pcontain "phenocrysts" and "chunks" of the country rock through which theyve boiled up . They just tear the **** out of the rocks already there and make an igneous "portland cement" . You can often see, in Nepheline syenites, the rocks from hundreds of kilometers deep that have been "Included" into the syenite mineral at the surface.

What does "forensic odontology" have to do with anything" You are not one, I am not one, I do have a friend who IS ONE and he is frequently called to analyze dentition of pre-humans and victims of war. So far he hasnt called me to identify some mineralized pseudo fossil

You need to establish that what youve got is undeniably remnants of organic life. By merely insulting me as a geologist doesnt enhance anything youve said because You are playing in my court with your igneous specimens with common surficial artifacts and ventifacts.

I submit that, were you to wish to present your specimens in a real technical juried publication, youd be bombarded with really
detailed concerns. After a bit though, scientists would lose interest if you fail to show any progress in your analyses.

Id get a book on sedimentology , structural geology (specifically one that deals with emplacement of associate minerals)
THEN, to really bore the **** out of yourself, go find the multi volume reference called the "Treatise on Vertebrate Paleontology" It shows examples and keys to all sorts of fossil types. Compare your "coprolites" and "eyeballs" with casts and molds of any available soft tissue (theres really not a lot out there.)

I was on an extended field exercise since Tues PM and arrived home late last night. This morning I awoke and visited A2K and saw your most recent contributions. While Im pleased to see a "geology related thread", I cant agree with anything youve presented because youve failed to establish the connection between what your original rock sources have been and then asked the magical question"How could this kind of rock make a fossil?"
You need to look at the bulk mineralogy of the rock you have and carefully try to reconstruct their genesis AND, like the serpentinite,
"Have I totally missed the genesis exclusionary item here ?" How can a deep ocean ophiolite dunite or peridotite contain a dinosaur ??

See, the "teeth marks" in your rocks, seem to follw exactly the original calcite veins in the rocks. These veins came at the time of folding (Post implacement) then the rocks were probably eroded off thewir shelves by some force and then were tumbled in a stream or wave washed. During the washing, the least resistant units (in this case the calcite veins) are "plucked" and take on a linear trend that youve interpreted as "teeth marks?

Another p[oint, why do you suppose a dinosaur would be gouging out marks in the rocks. The veghetarian dinos used to swallow all kinds of rocks as "Gizzard stones " and previous analyses of gizzard stone deposits have shown there to be rocks of all kinds including unworn rocks that the dino just swallowed whole.
Are you saying that vegetarian dinosaurs chewed up their stones before swallowing them?
I dont think that the carnivorous dinosaurs got much nourishment from hunks of rock

I get a feeling that youre really just jackin us off with this nonsense

I'm done here. This phenonenon has so little to do with geology, except for the fact that it's found in and on the ground. There are geologists finding these stones, but don't know how they got transported to remote locations. They will be scratching their heads for a long time to come, because they don't find the parent rock anywhere {within hundreds of miles}of the deposit. These geologist still try to explain, with old, tired and worn-out theories, {water worn} is bull****. the concretion theory is a joke. If you so strongly feel the need to defend and explain with your geo. jargon, you aren't going to learn anymore, and will find little wonderment in the remainder of your life. There are no books or professors influencing what I am discovering, it's new ground and each finding supports each successive one. It's petty to correct pseudo-morph as one word, I didn't do that, but the need to make me look stupid,{to make you appear so smart} is the last straw. This is my last reply ,I will however, return to see the Rants left in my wake. Going back offshore, need the solace, narrow mindedness is rather depressing.

Imagine how I feel. Youre saying that after almost 15 years of education, 38 years of experiencein geosciences and a daily "Workout" in these very subjects, I cant seem to get across to your thick skull that your "Teethmarks" are clearly examples of the erosion of calcite veins in the rock pebble.
Being close minded is not my problem bubba, you are merely obsessed with false conclusions.
I really dont care cause youll never make a living out pf your obsessions (unless yer looking to start some kind of a church that tries to bullshit yer laity). Then I think youll be quite successful/
Ending your attempts at being convincing by merely claiming victory and then skulking off is quite common among your kind.
You cant be opposed by simple facts without being insulting. SO, I, of ourse, will never duck from doing a woopass of the obsessed.

I know why the geoscientists youve contacted have given up on you. you dont want to lwarn from others ex[perience, you want to spew your own brand of silliness.

Youre dismissed

We're already asking the question you need to answer: "What evidence, actual empirical, physical, testable, demonstratable, evidence do you have?".

Posting photos of rocks and then claiming they are something else is not evidence. Suppose I told you all those round rocks (which you claim are eyes) are actually Martian Rockbird Eggs. Would you take my word for it? I hope not. You would ask me to prove it, and I should. And if for proof all I did was post more photo's and say, "See, that's what a Martian Rockbird Egg looks like, so that must be what these things are", would you be satisfied? Of course not.

Until you realize that your own claims are no better than my "Martian Rockbird" claims then you will never recognize the folly of your approach. Farmerman and I have been nice enough to tell you exactly what you need to do to gather real evidence, and all you do is ignore us and imply that we need better education. You're not going to get anywhere like that.

you win ros. I lost my patience first with this guy. You are also correct about being Bewildered's brother in mind.

Now he will probably go somewhere else and see if those folks will buy his delusion. Hes the third guy to claim that his spwcimens are something other than what they really are.

I like to give these guys the benefit of the doubt to start with, mostly because they might be kids, and I don't mind kids having wild ideas because they are still learning how to evaluate the world. Adults on the other hand should know better.

Still, it's fun to give 'em some rope and see how badly they can hang themselves with it

It's freaky how closely this guy's psychosis seems to Bewildered's. Makes me wonder what the underlying cause might be.

I remember the guy with the "petrified brain" as well. He seemed a bit different, more deeply motivated to support some religious fantasy, but desperately trying to cling to the scientific process to get it done. All very interesting and entertaining psychologies.

He reminds me of the joker who came here a few years back with the fossilized brain from Tennessee.