rock???

[gods country girl]

found this while digging for worms,thought it was interesting.i was thinking its fred flinstone's bow tie did i find something, or is another sex rock?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[jeff of pa]

Please, PLEASE! Don't break this!

A streak test does not harm the rock. It just scrapes off a little of it, and may give an accurate identification of the rock itself.

It may be sandstone. It might even be a nodule.

But it also might be an early goddess icon, like those found in Europe.

I don't think this is natural. The straight line would have gone completely through the stone in that case.

I do think it might have a rudimentary face carved on it. Might even have other features if the surface of the rock is carefully cleaned. Personally, I'd take it to an archeaolgist first, just to make sure it isn't ancient and/or man-made. You can always crack it open afterwards, if you want. But it's just as likely the stone will shatter if its sandstone, as has been suggested.

\

I agree, How would you feel if somwhere down
the line you find out is was Created many years ago
& the first ever found in the Americas ?

& You need to put it togeter like a Puzzle ?

I would want an expert to Handle it first
& Id its Makeup in person.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tuberale]

Did you not read the expert opinion I posted. He is a professor in Geology, has written many books, has a rock system named after him (as he discovered it). You will not find a better opinion!!!

He tell oil companies where to drill, has students all over the world, has travelled all over the world, he lectures in it, need I continue....

If you wish.

That's why I posted.

"He tell(sic) oil companies where to drill" suggests a geologist specializing in oil-bearing strata. I'm suggesting what "gods country girl" needs is an archaeologist. If man-carved, composition of the stone is not very important. The rest of your statement above "... has students all over the world, has travelled(sic) all over the world, he lectures in it ..." does not impress me, as it has nothing to do with the topic "Re: rock".

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

 

[CRUSADER]

Did you not read the expert opinion I posted. He is a professor in Geology, has written many books, has a rock system named after him (as he discovered it). You will not find a better opinion!!!

He tell oil companies where to drill, has students all over the world, has travelled all over the world, he lectures in it, need I continue....

If you wish.

That's why I posted.

"He tell(sic) oil companies where to drill" suggests a geologist specializing in oil-bearing strata. I'm suggesting what "gods country girl" needs is an archaeologist. If man-carved, composition of the stone is not very important. The rest of your statement above "... has students all over the world, has travelled(sic) all over the world, he lectures in it ..." does not impress me, as it has nothing to do with the topic "Re: rock".

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

Its is a natural rock, if someone who has spent their life studying them says its a natural rock, then I'm not going to argue. what letters do you have after your name? Do you know anything about rocks?

 

[CRUSADER]

Please, PLEASE! Don't break this!

A streak test does not harm the rock. It just scrapes off a little of it, and may give an accurate identification of the rock itself.

It may be sandstone. It might even be a nodule.

But it also might be an early goddess icon, like those found in Europe.

I don't think this is natural. The straight line would have gone completely through the stone in that case.

I do think it might have a rudimentary face carved on it. Might even have other features if the surface of the rock is carefully cleaned. Personally, I'd take it to an archaeologist first, just to make sure it isn't ancient and/or man-made. You can always crack it open afterwards, if you want. But it's just as likely the stone will shatter if its sandstone, as has been suggested.

\

I agree, How would you feel if somwhere down
the line you find out is was Created many years ago
& the first ever found in the Americas ?

& You need to put it togeter like a Puzzle ?

I would want an expert to Handle it first
& Id its Makeup in person.

I totally disagree, you will never find out its anything other than natural. By all means take it to an archaeologist but its a Geologist that will tell you the most about this one!

I'll put my life on the line over my Uncle's opinion, so lets get another opinion & see. I know the outcome already!

 

[DialM]

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

Ugh, re-read my post, which basically says which type this is out of Crusader's suggestions. I own one of these. It is natural.

 

[jeff of pa]

I totally disagree, you will never
find out its anything other than natural.
By all means take it to an archaeologist
but its a Geologist that
will tell you the most about this one!

I'll put my life on the line
over my Uncle's opinion,
so lets get another opinion & see.
I know the outcome already!

I Wouldn't trust an archaeologist,
Especially on something that
could change History.
(Even if they speak out, they would be
labled a Nut case
& Drummed out of the Click)

Just curious what %
you can trust a Geologists
analysis from a Picture.

90% 99% ?

what about that 1% error
rate because he didn't
test it. x-ray it, weigh it whatever.

your uncle is Probably Correct
But What if...

 

[CRUSADER]

I totally disagree, you will never find out its anything other than natural. By all means take it to an archaeologist but its a Geologist that will tell you the most about this one!

I'll put my life on the line over my Uncle's opinion, so lets get another opinion & see. I know the outcome already!

I Wouldn't trust an archaeologist, Especially on something that could change History.

Just curious what % you can trust a Geologists
analysis from a Picture.

90% 99% ?

what about that 1% error rate because he didn't
test it. x-ray it, weigh it whatever.

your uncle is Probably Correct
But What if...

I understand your causion, & I wouldn't suggestion anything I wouldn't do myself unless I was 100% confident with the analysis. THat said, its completely down to the owner to do as they will.

Sorry, I got a little over heated, I just know how good his is & how highly he is respected in his field. I just had to defend is profession.

We often have this discussion over photos when looking at objects & I know you know that it has been & can be done all the time. Specially by an expert like this, & I never use expert lightly, he IS one. Therefore, a photo as good as these will do fine.

 

[jeff of pa]

wouldn't expect any less of you CRUSADER

 

[CRUSADER]

wouldn't expect any less of you CRUSADER

Thanks Jeff, I got a bit excited, I just don't know many people as clever as my Uncle (specially on the subject of Rocks or sedimentation), his brains the size of a planet

Personally, I would have much rather believed (or wanted it) to be a man made object.

 

[CRUSADER]

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

Ugh, re-read my post, which basically says which type this is out of Crusader's suggestions. I own one of these. It is natural.

Thanks for the support, but it was far from my suggestion. Until my Uncle saw it, I still held out hope it wasn't natural. I guess we all like to see forms/figures in nature as its how our brain interprets the world around us

 

[NHBandit]

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

Ugh, re-read my post, which basically says which type this is out of Crusader's suggestions. I own one of these. It is natural.

Thanks for the support, but it was far from my suggestion. Until my Uncle saw it, I still held out hope it wasn't natural. I guess we all like to see forms/figures in nature as its how our brain interprets the world around us

I have a Cheeto that looks just like Elvis. What's the best way to preserve it ?

 

[CRUSADER]

Although lacking much in the way of legs, there is a rudimentary separation at the base. A fertility symbol, such as Jean Auel included in "Clan of the Cave Bear"? Such would require an archaeologist, not a geologist, to confirm.

Ugh, re-read my post, which basically says which type this is out of Crusader's suggestions. I own one of these. It is natural.

Thanks for the support, but it was far from my suggestion. Until my Uncle saw it, I still held out hope it wasn't natural. I guess we all like to see forms/figures in nature as its how our brain interprets the world around us

I have a Cheeto that looks just like Elvis. What's the best way to preserve it ?

With blue suede shoes

 

[traderoftreasures]

i hope i don't ever find anything like that... because i would of hit it with a hammer.

 

[CRUSADER]

i hope i don't find anything like that cause i would of hit it with a hammer

you might make a good Geologist then

 

[jeff of pa]

i hope i don't find anything like that cause i would of hit it with a hammer

I'v hit alot of things with a hammer Expecting
more then what I Already had.

Now they are just Pebbles somewhere

Used to look Kool though

 

[NHBandit]

Maybe forget the Dynamite idea then and take it to a rock shop & have it carefully sawn into 2 pieces ? Then if it looks like this inside it's very cool & if it dosn't you still have a matching pair of rocks... Personally I think it's a 300,000 year old petrified baked potato

 

[Tuberale]

I totally disagree, you will never find out its anything other than natural. By all means take it to an archaeologist but its a Geologist that will tell you the most about this one!

I'll put my life on the line over my Uncle's opinion, so lets get another opinion & see. I know the outcome already!

No need to put your "life on the line" over anything.

You disagree. OK. Are you a geologist? You keep mentioning "my Uncle". But no name. Ever. In science, there's a term for that: unattributed citation.

I DID NOT say your uncle was wrong to call this a stone. Obsidian is stone. Chert is stone. Flint is stone. When shaped, they become artifacts. A geologist would be correct in calling this a stone. As would anyone else. The question is: is it ONLY a stone? Maybe. Probably not. But for sure breaking it won't prove a thing.

 

[DialM]

If you break it open, expect this, at best: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2929132691_97262d5bd9.jpg

 

[CRUSADER]

I totally disagree, you will never find out its anything other than natural. By all means take it to an archaeologist but its a Geologist that will tell you the most about this one!

I'll put my life on the line over my Uncle's opinion, so lets get another opinion & see. I know the outcome already!

No need to put your "life on the line" over anything.

You disagree. OK. Are you a geologist? You keep mentioning "my Uncle". But no name. Ever. In science, there's a term for that: unattributed citation.

I DID NOT say your uncle was wrong to call this a stone. Obsidian is stone. Chert is stone. Flint is stone. When shaped, they become artifacts. A geologist would be correct in calling this a stone. As would anyone else. The question is: is it ONLY a stone? Maybe. Probably not. But for sure breaking it won't prove a thing.

Try reading it again:

"The stone is a somewhat irregular concretion - ie highly cemented part of a sedimentary rock succession. It is most probably a carbonate concretion, with either calcite cement or siderite cement (ie slightly iron-rich). If cracked open it just might have some pretty calcite crystals inside (like a septarian nodule) or possibly the remains of a fossil or other nucleus that caused it to form where it did."

 

[Tuberale]

I DID NOT say your uncle was wrong to call this a stone. Obsidian is stone. Chert is stone. Flint is stone. When shaped, they become artifacts. A geologist would be correct in calling this a stone. As would anyone else. The question is: is it ONLY a stone? Maybe. Probably not. But for sure breaking it won't prove a thing.

Try reading it again:

"The stone is a somewhat irregular concretion - ie highly cemented part of a sedimentary rock succession. It is most probably a carbonate concretion, with either calcite cement or siderite cement (ie slightly iron-rich). If cracked open it just might have some pretty calcite crystals inside (like a septarian nodule) or possibly the remains of a fossil or other nucleus that caused it to forwhere it did."
[/quote]
I read it the first time. Your quote is unattributed, and therefore without merit. But it states: "... most probably ... either ... just might ... or possibly ..." Is it possible you don't understand these words?

Here ends my input on this thread.