[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Archaeopterix? What Archaeopterix....?!
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Jarno Peschier wrote:
> 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.
Not if the bird (and its feathers) are lying on the bottom of a lagoon,
where the water pressure would press the large wing feathers flat, and
particularly not if the fossil were later pressed by overlying sediments.
> >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...
1) Some German would have had no more capacity to forge _Archaeopteryx_
than Owen himself.
2) They are demonstrably NOT the remains of _Compsognathus_.
> >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.
It has everything to do with geochemistry and sedimentology.