[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!
At 08:11 16-01-96 EDT, you wrote:
>as for splitting the limestone...
>when you have a critter preserved on the surface of very finely laminated
>limestone, like the solnhoffen limestone, it splits very easily into very
>flat stones. the green river formation of wyoming is similar, by the way.
>now if you have a fossil there, there is even more likely hood that
>it will break to reveal the fossil because the forces that hold the particles
>in adjacent layers together are not touching because of the intervening
>fossil. the fossil leaves traces of organic matter that prevent the
>adjacent clay molecules from touching.
The trouble would not exactly the splitting (that occurs quite often), but
the fact that all the feathers would be visible completely. Feathers are not
flat and it's almost impossible that the creature would be fossilised with
*all* the wing and tail feathers nicely flat in one plane.
>i doubt that owen had the capability to produce such a fake that would
>withstand 150 years of scrutiny! building the limestone like in the
>5 specimens is something that has only recently been accomplished by
>tile companies who want such stone without having to quarry it.
1) Owen did no do it himself, he let someone in Germany do it.
2) They are genuine Compsognathus remains. "Only" the feather imprints are
Read the book...
>besides what do astronomers know about geology or paleontology?
Is that relevant. Read the book. They objections they have about the fakes
(let's call them that) seem correct. And they _are_ scientists, and they did
do a lot of research, or at least so it seems, judging from the book.
>had that been written by a geochemist or sedimentologist, it might be
>a believable hypothesis.
It has little to do with geochemistry or sedimentologie, I think.
>without having read the book, i cannot say they
>may not be correct, but my geological instincts make me very suspicious
>about their arguments coming as they do from star gazers.
Then I would advise you to read the book. Apart from the fact if you agree
with them or not, it's an interesting book in any case...
Jarno Peschier, firstname.lastname@example.org, 2:2802/245.1@Fido
162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.