🔎 UNIDENTIFIED I found this piece a few years ago in N Az and began cleaning almost a year ago.

[Kfinn0319]

I believe I can identify this item, but it would be controversial to say the least. If my identification is correct this would be "one of a kind" to say the very least. It would be absolutely groundbreaking and, up to this point, considered impossible. The fossilization of not only soft tissue, but the complete preservation and fossilization of an entire dinosaur. Complete preservation from epidermis all the way to internal organs. I understand the gravity of this claim and the fact it has been made on multiple occasions prior to this. I only ask that people do not be closed minded because of the previous claims that were debunked. I also would like everyone to know that I don't make this claim foolishly. I have conducted extensive research about this and I am even able to account for the entire external anatomy of this animal. I even have some ideas on possibilities of how this item became fossilized in such a state of preservation of detail. I am not just some guy that picked up a rock and claims it to be something amazing. The claim I am making is after countless hours over many months of removing layer after layer of incredibly hardened sediment from this item. I then conducted extensive research to make sense of what I was seeing and identify each part of the anatomy. I will keep my identification to myself as to not cause people to automatically disregard me, but also not to lead any possible Pareidolia which some say I have experienced.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

Coprolite... AKA... Petrified Dinosaur poop.

Bet ya sorta feel silly "cleaning it for a year". heh

 

[ARC]

Here are just a few pictures... you can easily do a search yourself via the term "black coprolite".

 

[Red-Coat]

Welcome to Tnet.

I’m a member of the ‘Fossil Forum’, and noted that you recently posted this same item with similar unsubstantiated claims. You were told (pretty comprehensively) why your rock is not what you believe it to be and that it shows zero evidence of fossilised anatomical structures of any kind.

You got pretty much the same reaction to another rock you posted on that forum last year, which you claimed to be a fossilised Ankylosaurus embryo (or hatchling).

It was evident that you were not prepared to accept the opinions being offered, despite the opinions coming from some really experience people. On both occasions, it was suggested to you that you should take your specimens to a museum with accredited experts in palaeontology if you needed further convincing, but you simply ignored those suggestions. On the one hand you said: “I think this thing needs to be studied” but, on the other hand, you showed no inclination to involve anyone who could assist in such study.

As one of the responders said (before the thread was locked for further comment): “Last year, we offered to help you get in touch with a paleontologist. If that is not useful to you regarding these items, I am not sure what you are looking for.”

 

[creskol]

Coprolite... AKA... Petrified Dinosaur poop.

Bet ya sorta feel silly "cleaning it for a year". heh

WHAT? Are you insinuating his rock is a POS?? 🫘

 

[Gulf Coast Pirate]

Why do you keep making new accounts?

 

[creskol]

I believe I can identify this item, but it would be controversial to say the least. If my identification is correct this would be "one of a kind" to say the very least. It would be absolutely groundbreaking and, up to this point, considered impossible. The fossilization of not only soft tissue, but the complete preservation and fossilization of an entire dinosaur. Complete preservation from epidermis all the way to internal organs. I understand the gravity of this claim and the fact it has been made on multiple occasions prior to this. I only ask that people do not be closed minded because of the previous claims that were debunked. I also would like everyone to know that I don't make this claim foolishly. I have conducted extensive research about this and I am even able to account for the entire external anatomy of this animal. I even have some ideas on possibilities of how this item became fossilized in such a state of preservation of detail. I am not just some guy that picked up a rock and claims it to be something amazing. The claim I am making is after countless hours over many months of removing layer after layer of incredibly hardened sediment from this item. I then conducted extensive research to make sense of what I was seeing and identify each part of the anatomy. I will keep my identification to myself as to not cause people to automatically disregard me, but also not to lead any possible Pareidolia which some say I have experienced.

Dang .. You may be onto something! I believe I have seen the character depicted in the photo on the second row, 3rd from the left somewhere before!

 

[ticndig]

spongebob poop pants , recovered with an extra large screwdriver in wet sand at 3ft with an ace 2-fiddy

 

[creskol]

Welcome to Tnet.

I’m a member of the ‘Fossil Forum’, and noted that you recently posted this same item with similar unsubstantiated claims. You were told (pretty comprehensively) why your rock is not what you believe it to be and that it shows zero evidence of fossilised anatomical structures of any kind.

You got pretty much the same reaction to another rock you posted on that forum last year, which you claimed to be a fossilised Ankylosaurus embryo (or hatchling).

It was evident that you were not prepared to accept the opinions being offered, despite the opinions coming from some really experience people. On both occasions, it was suggested to you that you should take your specimens to a museum with accredited experts in palaeontology if you needed further convincing, but you simply ignored those suggestions. On the one hand you said: “I think this thing needs to be studied” but, on the other hand, you showed no inclination to involve anyone who could assist in such study.

As one of the responders said (before the thread was locked for further comment): “Last year, we offered to help you get in touch with a paleontologist. If that is not useful to you regarding these items, I am not sure what you are looking for.”

The OP has left the building ..

 

[GlowingArtist]

Lava Rock?

 

[Kfinn0319]

Welcome to Tnet.

I’m a member of the ‘Fossil Forum’, and noted that you recently posted this same item with similar unsubstantiated claims. You were told (pretty comprehensively) why your rock is not what you believe it to be and that it shows zero evidence of fossilised anatomical structures of any kind.

You got pretty much the same reaction to another rock you posted on that forum last year, which you claimed to be a fossilised Ankylosaurus embryo (or hatchling).

It was evident that you were not prepared to accept the opinions being offered, despite the opinions coming from some really experience people. On both occasions, it was suggested to you that you should take your specimens to a museum with accredited experts in palaeontology if you needed further convincing, but you simply ignored those suggestions. On the one hand you said: “I think this thing needs to be studied” but, on the other hand, you showed no inclination to involve anyone who could assist in such study.

As one of the responders said (before the thread was locked for further comment): “Last year, we offered to help you get in touch with a paleontologist. If that is not useful to you regarding these items, I am not sure what you are looking for.”

Actually, that statement is ignorant to say the least. I tried, both in that forum and otherwise, to have it studied. I do not have a way to anyone and begged, literally begged, anyone to help me get it to somebody. That entire forum was nothing short of stubborn, as not even one person would even see a possibility of anything else. This forum has already proven much better, as I have received a response identifying it as black coprolite and was given clear examples to compare. Although disappointing, it was much more productive than calling it just a rock. The other forum was not much help at all. If you are going to bring up of posts from last year than please be complete and not so childish. I did accept the forums conclusion on the Ankylosaur identification I had made. I very foolishly jumped to that conclusion because of what I wanted to see. The only argument I made in that is that I did not alter the appearance to make it what I wanted it to be. If you would do me a favor as not to ruin another forum for me by making such foolish statements, please just ignore any of my posts and do not respond. I don't see how people as yourself help this field of science progress with posts so inflammatory.

 

[pepperj]

I believe I can identify this item, but it would be controversial to say the least. If my identification is correct this would be "one of a kind" to say the very least. It would be absolutely groundbreaking and, up to this point, considered impossible. The fossilization of not only soft tissue, but the complete preservation and fossilization of an entire dinosaur. Complete preservation from epidermis all the way to internal organs. I understand the gravity of this claim and the fact it has been made on multiple occasions prior to this. I only ask that people do not be closed minded because of the previous claims that were debunked. I also would like everyone to know that I don't make this claim foolishly. I have conducted extensive research about this and I am even able to account for the entire external anatomy of this animal. I even have some ideas on possibilities of how this item became fossilized in such a state of preservation of detail. I am not just some guy that picked up a rock and claims it to be something amazing. The claim I am making is after countless hours over many months of removing layer after layer of incredibly hardened sediment from this item. I then conducted extensive research to make sense of what I was seeing and identify each part of the anatomy. I will keep my identification to myself as to not cause people to automatically disregard me, but also not to lead any possible Pareidolia which some say I have experienced.

Can I ask you one question if I may.
You spent all that time on this item to bring it to the stage where you feel to share.
Yet you can't photograph it in good enough lighting to really show it off.
Dark photos are really a pain to view.
Go outside take a photo, open a curtain let the natural light be your guide in providing enhanced lighting.

 

[Red-Coat]

Actually, that statement is ignorant to say the least. I tried, both in that forum and otherwise, to have it studied. I do not have a way to anyone and begged, literally begged, anyone to help me get it to somebody. That entire forum was nothing short of stubborn, as not even one person would even see a possibility of anything else. This forum has already proven much better, as I have received a response identifying it as black coprolite and was given clear examples to compare. Although disappointing, it was much more productive than calling it just a rock. The other forum was not much help at all. If you are going to bring up of posts from last year than please be complete and not so childish. I did accept the forums conclusion on the Ankylosaur identification I had made. I very foolishly jumped to that conclusion because of what I wanted to see. The only argument I made in that is that I did not alter the appearance to make it what I wanted it to be. If you would do me a favor as not to ruin another forum for me by making such foolish statements, please just ignore any of my posts and do not respond. I don't see how people as yourself help this field of science progress with posts so inflammatory.

Sadly, your summary of what was said on the ‘Fossil Forum’ is a rather distorted perception of what was actually said. ‘Tnet’ rules do not allow us to provide links to ‘competing’ forums, but anyone who cares to explore what was actually said can view your posts and the responses you received by searching your user name ‘Kfinn 0319’ on that forum.

The consensus was that “These are rocks not fossils for all the reasons given above” and, as one responder put it: “If you find a professional to look at it in hand and prove us wrong, I encourage you to come back and share so we can all learn something”.

And… on another thread where you believed you could see fossil structures in your rocks: “Unfortunately, people feel the need to believe what their eyes are telling them, rather than the facts presented before them by people more knowledgeable about the processes involved in fossilization, and fossil Identification… Again, it appears time to agree to disagree. Please take our advice, and have a university or museum PALEONTOLOGIST look at your items”.

Saying that my statements are “ignorant to say the least”, “foolish”, “inflammatory”, and calling me “childish” does nothing to enhance your credibility nor support your assertions that your rocks are fossils. Attempts to assist you on the ‘Fossil Forum’ received much the same reaction from you and a response that: “You may be taking this too personally, and you might refrain from making accusations about the membership”.

Although you say you have received a more helpful response here “identifying it as black coprolite”, what you have is an opinion, which I don’t believe to be a conclusive identification (with all due respect to @ARC who made that suggestion). But that’s just my opinion, based on the lack of anything to confirm it beyond superficial appearance.

I would suggest a good starting point for an authoritative identification would be the Arizona Museum of Natural History:

Paleontology
Robert McCord
Curator of Natural History
480-644-4098
robert.mccord@mesaaz.gov

Please do let us know what he has to say.

 

[Kfinn0319]

Sadly, your summary of what was said on the ‘Fossil Forum’ is a rather distorted perception of what was actually said. ‘Tnet’ rules do not allow us to provide links to ‘competing’ forums, but anyone who cares to explore what was actually said can view your posts and the responses you received by searching your user name ‘Kfinn 0319’ on that forum.

The consensus was that “These are rocks not fossils for all the reasons given above” and, as one responder put it: “If you find a professional to look at it in hand and prove us wrong, I encourage you to come back and share so we can all learn something”.

And… on another thread where you believed you could see fossil structures in your rocks: “Unfortunately, people feel the need to believe what their eyes are telling them, rather than the facts presented before them by people more knowledgeable about the processes involved in fossilization, and fossil Identification… Again, it appears time to agree to disagree. Please take our advice, and have a university or museum PALEONTOLOGIST look at your items”.

Saying that my statements are “ignorant to say the least”, “foolish”, “inflammatory”, and calling me “childish” does nothing to enhance your credibility nor support your assertions that your rocks are fossils. Attempts to assist you on the ‘Fossil Forum’ received much the same reaction from you and a response that: “You may be taking this too personally, and you might refrain from making accusations about the membership”.

Although you say you have received a more helpful response here “identifying it as black coprolite”, what you have is an opinion, which I don’t believe to be a conclusive identification (with all due respect to @ARC who made that suggestion). But that’s just my opinion, based on the lack of anything to confirm it beyond superficial appearance.

I would suggest a good starting point for an authoritative identification would be the Arizona Museum of Natural History:

Paleontology
Robert McCord
Curator of Natural History
480-644-4098
robert.mccord@mesaaz.gov

Please do let us know what he has to say.

I'm not going to do this back and forth again. I will just say you have taketh things out of context. I will leave it at that as that is one thing I did learn from the fossil forum. Thank you for your time...

 

[Kfinn0319]

Can I ask you one question if I may.
You spent all that time on this item to bring it to the stage where you feel to share.
Yet you can't photograph it in good enough lighting to really show it off.
Dark photos are really a pain to view.
Go outside take a photo, open a curtain let the natural light be your guide in providing enhanced light

 

[ARC]

Looks even more like coprolite with more light. heh

 

[urdaddymitch]

Sadly, your summary of what was said on the ‘Fossil Forum’ is a rather distorted perception of what was actually said. ‘Tnet’ rules do not allow us to provide links to ‘competing’ forums, but anyone who cares to explore what was actually said can view your posts and the responses you received by searching your user name ‘Kfinn 0319’ on that forum.

The consensus was that “These are rocks not fossils for all the reasons given above” and, as one responder put it: “If you find a professional to look at it in hand and prove us wrong, I encourage you to come back and share so we can all learn something”.

And… on another thread where you believed you could see fossil structures in your rocks: “Unfortunately, people feel the need to believe what their eyes are telling them, rather than the facts presented before them by people more knowledgeable about the processes involved in fossilization, and fossil Identification… Again, it appears time to agree to disagree. Please take our advice, and have a university or museum PALEONTOLOGIST look at your items”.

Saying that my statements are “ignorant to say the least”, “foolish”, “inflammatory”, and calling me “childish” does nothing to enhance your credibility nor support your assertions that your rocks are fossils. Attempts to assist you on the ‘Fossil Forum’ received much the same reaction from you and a response that: “You may be taking this too personally, and you might refrain from making accusations about the membership”.

Although you say you have received a more helpful response here “identifying it as black coprolite”, what you have is an opinion, which I don’t believe to be a conclusive identification (with all due respect to @ARC who made that suggestion). But that’s just my opinion, based on the lack of anything to confirm it beyond superficial appearance.

I would suggest a good starting point for an authoritative identification would be the Arizona Museum of Natural History:

Paleontology
Robert McCord
Curator of Natural History
480-644-4098
robert.mccord@mesaaz.gov

Please do let us know what he has to say.

 

[unclemac]

fossil of what?

 

[releventchair]

I believe I can identify this item, but it would be controversial to say the least. If my identification is correct this would be "one of a kind" to say the very least. It would be absolutely groundbreaking and, up to this point, considered impossible. The fossilization of not only soft tissue, but the complete preservation and fossilization of an entire dinosaur. Complete preservation from epidermis all the way to internal organs. I understand the gravity of this claim and the fact it has been made on multiple occasions prior to this. I only ask that people do not be closed minded because of the previous claims that were debunked. I also would like everyone to know that I don't make this claim foolishly. I have conducted extensive research about this and I am even able to account for the entire external anatomy of this animal. I even have some ideas on possibilities of how this item became fossilized in such a state of preservation of detail. I am not just some guy that picked up a rock and claims it to be something amazing. The claim I am making is after countless hours over many months of removing layer after layer of incredibly hardened sediment from this item. I then conducted extensive research to make sense of what I was seeing and identify each part of the anatomy. I will keep my identification to myself as to not cause people to automatically disregard me, but also not to lead any possible Pareidolia which some say I have experienced.

Congrats?