It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hey geology buffs- What is this?? (photos)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
Was it found in rock layers that also contain dinosaur footprints?

"Walking With Dinosaurs".... is Discovery Channel mocking us?


I don't know, they were already broken apart when I got them. I really don't know their exact origin, if it was a field, quarry, or what.

I'm assuming they were obtained in this area.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Just last night I had that thought-maybe a partial footprint...the strangest thing to me about these lines is that they are square at the bottom, one of the photos above kind of allows you to see.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
It appears to me to be a grouping of crinoids that are partially covered by the material they are suspended in. Or is a reverse imprint of the same,like a fossilized cast.
Crinoid stem-
images.google.com...

[edit on 3-2-2009 by spookjr]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyrytyes




Pilot:

The imprint in the pictures looks like a Cycad, termed a living fossil, and not to be confused with a palm or fern.

It would help to know the age of the sandstone in which this is found.
My best guess:
It does appear to be a plant, flora, and being found in sandstone would indicate, to me, that this particular specimen, a frond or branch, was in a near-shore environment. The frond may have been transported by wind, water, animal, to the surface of the body of water, where it became water logged and sank. It was probably rapidly covered by additional sand, where it was protected from wave action

One of the hardest things for a geologist is to determine something solely being shown photos. If you could possibly take it to a paleobotanist in your area, he/ she may be able to identify it. If you do make a cast, that would be ideal to take in addition to, or instead of the specimen.

Keep us posted as to your findings... the answer is out there.



Thanks for your suggestions, yes I am going to keep looking and hopefully find someone around here to take a look at it.

When I look at this thing and try to imagine plant matter created the impression, the one thing standing in the way of my accepting that hypothesis is the squared lines. Lets say the plant leaves did shoot out at right angles to the stem, were the leaf stems themselves also square? I will follow your suggestion and look into cycad.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spookjr
It appears to me to be a grouping of crinoids that are partially covered by the material they are suspended in. Or is a reverse imprint of the same,like a fossilized cast.
Crinoid stem-
images.google.com...

[edit on 3-2-2009 by spookjr]


Good link, these are some interesting pics, and have something in common with this rock...when you say "a reverse imprint of the same, like a fossilized cast"-that's really what it appears to be-not something preserved in stone, but the impression of something.

Thanks!



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 
No problem, I have collected several of these type of fossils in the Miami Valley in southern Ohio. They can be several feet long and make for really cool finds.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Ok, first of all think about it, One for the time and date that this fossil is from one would conclude that it is a Thereabite. Two that if for some reason that that we are as dumb as we think we are then dinos were able to make shoes (which of course they could not). Then we could conclude that it is a Therabite (I know I can't spell shut up)

But if you were someone that would think about the real effects of this fossil then you might think that this is not a therbite, but a shoe print. No not from your neighbor, but because of the time date of it, I would personally think that it was imprinted from another smarter species that came to the planet long ago, and helped the human race along. Then when they were done they left.

The reason why it looks like our foot print from the moon exploration, is because when you think about it they might have been a species that breathed Oxygen or when you go to a new planet it is a good idea that they did have immune built up to what ever is on the planet so they have would wear a suit.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogg85
Ok, first of all think about it, One for the time and date that this fossil is from one would conclude that it is a Thereabite. Two that if for some reason that that we are as dumb as we think we are then dinos were able to make shoes (which of course they could not). Then we could conclude that it is a Therabite (I know I can't spell shut up)

But if you were someone that would think about the real effects of this fossil then you might think that this is not a therbite, but a shoe print. No not from your neighbor, but because of the time date of it, I would personally think that it was imprinted from another smarter species that came to the planet long ago, and helped the human race along. Then when they were done they left.

The reason why it looks like our foot print from the moon exploration, is because when you think about it they might have been a species that breathed Oxygen or when you go to a new planet it is a good idea that they did have immune built up to what ever is on the planet so they have would wear a suit.


At this point, I am not throwing out any possibilities, even trilobyte if I could find reference that matched, but a geologist has seen the pictures and said she did not know, if it were a trilobyte, I would assume that would be obvious to her.

I'm going to try to get a guy to look at it this week, not a scientist, but an avid fossil collector who I'm told knows a lot about the kind of things you find in this area.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Not a trilobite.

I would say it's an impression of the bark of some Pennsylvanian Period tree.

You might dig into papers about the local geology and paleontology and find out exactly what tree.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I'm going to add a different idea in to the mix. It looks to me like the sort of marks something mechanical might make in the process of cutting that stone from its parent rock.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join