East coast dinosaur ?

[TC]

I recently came into possession of a fossil dinosaur foot print in a dark shale type matrix, and for the last 3 weeks have had several tests done at school to determine what species made this print. So far the size and shape of the print represents a small bipedal carnivore called coelophysis. ( an early version of raptor) But the problem is that the matrix doesn't match up with its known north American habitation, the late Triassic of northern Arizona, made up mostly of reddish sand stone deposits laid down some 200 + million years ago.

After running tests on the matrix to classify its sediment makeup and age, along with comparisons of other fossil material, it ends up a perfect match with The Portland Formation, located in the Hartford Basin of Connecticut, which is made up predominantly of reddish and gray or black color deeper in the lower part of the formation.

While there exists formations in Europe that have similar prints resembling coelophysis, ( not conclusive) but they have in entirly different matrix, so that origine is ruled out.

The problem is that no known coelophysis fossil remains have ever been found in the Portland formation, only tracks of an otherwise unnamed species sometimes referred to as Grallator.

The difference with this particular fossil print is a small indentation of what appears to be made by a claw. Whereas most so called Grallator tracks lack that distinction. There is some debate as to the prints of Portland grallator, claiming it was an earlier and smaller version of coelophysis.

Quote from a formal study; "Judging from the size of the prints, the animal responsible for these Grallator tracks was 2-6m long, whereas the Kayentapus trackmaker was probably 3-4 m long. Based on their form and
size, the maker of Kayentapus tracks has been likened to Dilophosaurus, a 6 m long theropod known from the Early Jurassic of Arizona.

whereas a Coelophysis-like theropod (i.e., 1-2 m long,also known from the desert Southwestern United States, but from beds roughly contemporary
with those in the east (i.e., Late Triassic), is thought to have made the Grallator tracks. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R88_2006Weishampel.pdf

[Tired Old Man]

There are so many inconsistencies with what we think we know and what is. I'm still waiting for proof that man and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Now the word dinosaurs might have to scaled down a little.

[Fut004]

I recently came into possession of a fossil dinosaur foot print in a dark shale type matrix

I don't know why, but I think it's really cool that you actually have a fossil of a dino foot print. Where did you acquire this fossil? How much did it run you?
When the hell are you going to post some pictures of it for us?



Quote from a formal study; "[I]Judging from the size of the prints, the animal responsible for these Grallator tracks was 2-6m long, whereas the Kayentapus trackmaker was probably 3-4 m long. Based on their form and
size, the maker of Kayentapus tracks has been likened to Dilophosaurus, a 6 m long theropod known from the Early Jurassic of Arizona.

whereas a Coelophysis-like theropod (i.e., 1-2 m long,also known from the desert Southwestern United States, but from beds roughly contemporary
with those in the east

So whatever made your print has feet like a Coelophysis, but it's much larger?



There are so many inconsistencies with what we think we know and what is. I'm still waiting for proof that man and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Now the word dinosaurs might have to scaled down a little.

You're going to be waiting a long time for that proof.
Sorry to break it to you, but The Flintstones wasn't based on fact.

[TC]

There are so many inconsistencies with what we think we know and what is. I'm still waiting for proof that man and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Now the word dinosaurs might have to scaled down a little.

Well its become quite an exact science if one has faith in the current dating technology. As for this species (coelophysis) we are in late Triassic/ early Jurassic 200/ 250 million years.

Probably small chance somebody ( man) was standing on the river bank having a piss when this puppy walked by..lol

Man ( modern man) has left early traces of his abode ( cave art southern France) roughly 30,000 years. And with all the fossil findings throughout the world, none ( bone) have been laid down in the same formations togather. So its a safe bet to assume they haven't shared the same water hole.

[Tired Old Man]

Futoo4 I could be wrong but I don't think SR found it. What he posted was from another person. And if the Flintstones wasn't based on facts does that mean I won't have a flying car anytime soon ? I really wanted one......


Well its become quite an exact science if one has faith in the current dating technology. As for this species (coelophysis) we are in late Triassic/ early Jurassic 200/ 250 million years.

Probably small chance somebody ( man) was standing on the river bank having a piss when this puppy walked by..lol

Man ( modern man) has left early traces of his abode ( cave art southern France) roughly 30,000 years. And with all the fossil findings throughout the world, none ( bone) have been laid down in the same formations togather. So its a safe bet to assume they haven't shared the same water hole.

Faith....
So many ways I could go with that statement.
I think you can find folk lore that places man with dinosaurs. But like I said we would have to scale down what we would call a dinosaur today.
SR there are so many misplaced things in this world as we understand them I would have to question our understanding of them. As far as man standing on the river bank taking a piss when this "puppy" walked by and no proof of it maybe this " puppy' ate bones and all. Who knows.
Hey I am still stuck on material that came from the sea beds being found on mountain tops. Frozen Mastodons that still had what they ate for lunch.
Call me Fred Flintstone but I still think man and dinosaur walked together. Until man learned how to BBQ.
: )

[TC]

Futoo4 I could be wrong but I don't think SR found it. What he posted was from another person. And if the Flintstones wasn't based on facts does that mean I won't have a flying car anytime soon ? I really wanted one......



Faith....
So many ways I could go with that statement.
I think you can find folk lore that places man with dinosaurs. But like I said we would have to scale down what we would call a dinosaur today.
SR there are so many misplaced things in this world as we understand them I would have to question our understanding of them. As far as man standing on the river bank taking a piss when this "puppy" walked by and no proof of it maybe this " puppy' ate bones and all. Who knows.
Hey I am still stuck on material that came from the sea beds being found on mountain tops. Frozen Mastodons that still had what they ate for lunch.
Call me Fred Flintstone but I still think man and dinosaur walked together. Until man learned how to BBQ.
: )

Tom ya kind of lost me there "What he posted was from another person

As the entire post is from me, outside of the link quote.

Rock is the time piece, everything can be measured in its geological age. And even if that factor wasn't in play with geology..and we adhered to some other time sequence of 8000 years ( you know who they are)

The question still arises as to where are all the human remains from an extinction level event? ( ie, flood) surely there would be sediment deposits containing both man and and his T Rex house pet. Even the early Holocene Mammoth bone heaps ( thousands) found in the Arctic don't contain any human remains.

[TC]

The foot in question...and the supposed puppy who made it. You can click to enlarge the photo...

[Tired Old Man]

Tom ya kind of lost me there "What he posted was from another person

As the entire post is from me, outside of the link quote.

Rock is the time piece, everything can be measured in its geological age. And even if that factor wasn't in play with geology..and we adhered to some other time sequence of 8000 years ( you know who they are)

The question still arises as to where are all the human remains from an extinction level event? ( ie, flood) surely there would be sediment deposits containing both man and and his T Rex house pet. Even the early Holocene Mammoth bone heaps ( thousands) found in the Arctic don't contain any human remains.

Ok now I'm lost. SR are you saying in the first post you found this ? Or your first post was from a D.B. Weishampel. Which is what I was saying to Fut004. You didn't find this but was linking to this other person and had some questions about it.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/DBWpdf/R88_2006Weishampel.pdf




The foot in question...and the supposed puppy who made it. You can click to enlarge the photo...

Looks like a bone eater to me.......lol





The difference with this particular fossil print is a small indentation of what appears to be made by a claw. Whereas most so called Grallator tracks lack that distinction. There is some debate as to the prints of Portland grallator, claiming it was an earlier and smaller version of coelophysis.


Could we be talking about an age thing here ? A younger grallator might have the claw where as a older what ever might drop the claw as it ages.

[TC]

Ahh communication Tom... ( ya gotta love a faceless media..lol

I acquired this footprint from a private dealer ( as I collect fossil tracks) some I have found myself in France ( same species) and this particular track is being looked at to determine its origin, as the matrix surrounding it isn't common for the species. I left it at the university's geology department to get an identity, date and substance analogy ( matrix sediment) and compare it to known finds.

And in the bottom of the first post I quoted the link in regards to the debate as to which creature made the print, considering that one species is found predominantly in the south western U.S. and the other ( Grallator) is unique to the east coast ( Portland formation, Connecticut)

The problem is that there are no fossil remains in the east coast formations, thus the name " Grallator was adopted for the tracks that are left in that region. ( you can google the name for some history regarding it)

[Tired Old Man]

Ahh communication Tom... ( ya gotta love a faceless media..lol

I acquired this footprint from a private dealer ( as I collect fossil tracks) some I have found myself in France ( same species) and this particular track is being looked at to determine its origin, as the matrix surrounding it isn't common for the species. I left it at the university's geology department to get an identity, date and substance analogy ( matrix sediment) and compare it to known finds.

And in the bottom of the first post I quoted the link in regards to the debate as to which creature made the print, considering that one species is found predominantly in the south western U.S. and the other ( Grallator) is unique to the east coast ( Portland formation, Connecticut)

The problem is that there are no fossil remains in the east coast formations, thus the name " Grallator was adopted for the tracks that are left in that region. ( you can google the name for some history regarding it)

And I was going to say welcome home .
But back to my age thing. Do we know enough about this creature that the loss of the claw isn't a part of growing up ?

[TC]

And I was going to say welcome home .
But back to my age thing. Do we know enough about this creature that the loss of the claw isn't a part of growing up ?

THANKS, had a good time in Italy. ( burnt)

They know pretty much zip when it comes to the Grallator, pure speculation as to species, based on the footprint alone.

And its so close to the coelophysis in size and shape, thus the debate by different research groups. There is full skeletons of the coelophysis, so their species is well documented.

One thing about this period of time, this was the onset of the classic carnivore dinosaur species, coelophysis was the forerunner of bigger and faster meat eaters, so the claws would be essential. Raptors developed the rippers first.

[Fut004]

And if the Flintstones wasn't based on facts does that mean I won't have a flying car anytime soon ? I really wanted one......

No worries, T.O.M., the Flintstones was fictional but the Jetsons was a prediction. Those flying cars and robot maids are just around the corner.



The question still arises as to where are all the human remains from an extinction level event? ( ie, flood) surely there would be sediment deposits containing both man and and his T Rex house pet. Even the early Holocene Mammoth bone heaps ( thousands) found in the Arctic don't contain any human remains.

I remember debating this topic in school once (guess which side I took). The creationist arguement was that humans were better swimmers, so when the flood came and the Dinos drowned the humans were still treading water. That's why you find the Dino fossils so much deeper than any human ones. Makes sense, right? hahah

What's the reason for the Mammoth bones to be found in heaps of thousands? Did the Mammoths use "graveyards" like modern Elephants do?


One thing about this period of time, this was the onset of the classic carnivore dinosaur species, coelophysis was the forerunner of bigger and faster meat eaters, so the claws would be essential. Raptors developed the rippers first.

Sorry if this part gets slightly off topic, but...

I decided to do a little reading about your little friend, Coelophysis, because you made the species sound fairly interesting. While reading the wiki for them I saw this:



Coelophysis was the second dinosaur in space. Although Maiasaura had been taken into space three years earlier, a Coelophysis skull from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History was aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour mission STS-89 when it left the atmosphere on January 22, 1998. It was also taken onto the space station Mir before being returned to Earth.

Wiki | Coelophysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelophysis)

Maybe you know why the hell they brought Dino fossils into space, SR.

[TC]

I guess its a symbolic gesture. Something about taking one our earliest species into the furthest achievements of man?

On the northern most coast of the Siberian arctic lays several islands. They are made up of thousands of mammoth bones mixed with sediment sand, frozen in time, as if jumbled together by some giant washing machine. It appears some immense wall of water swept them across the coastal plain and dumped them in the largest bone deposit on earth. Nobody knows how or why.

There is something special about holding something millions of years old, you see the foorprint and know this was a living breathing creature that left its mark.

[Tired Old Man]

I guess its a symbolic gesture. Something about taking one our earliest species into the furthest achievements of man?

On the northern most coast of the Siberian arctic lays several islands. They are made up of thousands of mammoth bones mixed with sediment sand, frozen in time, as if jumbled together by some giant washing machine. It appears some immense wall of water swept them across the coastal plain and dumped them in the largest bone deposit on earth. Nobody knows how or why.

There is something special about holding something millions of years old, you see the foorprint and know this was a living breathing creature that left its mark.

History
I do some work at Florida's phosphate mines. Lots of shark teeth and old bones. The history of what I find is kind of already set. Kind of like what your talking about SR. Rules don't always follow the rules.

[TC]

I've heard of those mines ,fossils from Bone Valley, the phosphate mining district in Central Florida is loaded with marine fossils. I'd love to dig around something like that! I have to travel quite a ways to dig here, mostly Germany and the Netherlands, around a days drive for me. This place ( sweden ) was skinned clean down to basement rock from the glaciers, so hardly any sediment material left.

Tell ya what Tom, we can trade houses for a month in summer...lol

I get the bones, you get Stockholm.

[Traveler]

You're going to be waiting a long time for that proof.
Sorry to break it to you, but The Flintstones wasn't based on fact.

The proof is there and has been found but because it is not considered possible it all gets rejected. Especially as the human print found alongside the dino print was wearing shoes and the stitching in the shoes was still visible.

It is standard procedure that anything that does not fit the model is automatically called a hoax. Pity when the road works lifted the next layer of shale to take the road further the the prints were still there continuing on.

[Rabid1]

The proof is there and has been found but because it is not considered possible it all gets rejected. Especially as the human print found alongside the dino print was wearing shoes and the stitching in the shoes was still visible.

It is standard procedure that anything that does not fit the model is automatically called a hoax. Pity when the road works lifted the next layer of shale to take the road further the the prints were still there continuing on.

Please tell me you are not talking about the Nevada print. You really need to work on your facts before interpreting nonsense as fact. The Nevada print is aactually a piece of ironstone concretion.

A concretion is
Concretions are compact, often rounded, accumulations of mineral matter that form inside sedimentary rocks such as shale and sandstone or in soil.
odd shapes of concretions arouse curiosity and they can often be mistaken for fossils, bones, meteorites or other unusual objects. Concretions can have regular shapes like blocks, boxes, pipes, flat discs, canon balls, or even resemble parts of a human body such as a foot or rib

The so called stiching doesn't exist. A book in the 70s claimed that microsopic examination showed stitching and holes where the sole was stiched. But surpprise of all suprises the authors could not produce the images and the lab they claimed to have used didn't have a record of the examination. The only hoax was from creationists who having nothig to back thier theory rely on lying and misrepresentaion to try to further thier cause. Conveniently the stone was "lost" so no further examination could be possible and they could continue to milk the lies.

Here is an image of the actual "print"
http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/TriassicShoeSole.jpg

Wait I take it all back, I think I have a pair of those in my closet. Yup look here are my tracks:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/concen1.jpg

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/concre3s.jpg

Here are a couple of good articles about the real stone

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/nevada.htm

If you are talking the Paluxy tracks or the Miester track from Utah it is the same nonsense different day. Again the only hoases called are on the bs "data" the people who believe these to be proof of creationism present. Science can prove what these things are. Creationists cannot prove, in any way, them to be what they claim them to be.

[Tired Old Man]

I've heard of those mines ,fossils from Bone Valley, the phosphate mining district in Central Florida is loaded with marine fossils. I'd love to dig around something like that! I have to travel quite a ways to dig here, mostly Germany and the Netherlands, around a days drive for me. This place ( sweden ) was skinned clean down to basement rock from the glaciers, so hardly any sediment material left.

Tell ya what Tom, we can trade houses for a month in summer...lol

I get the bones, you get Stockholm.

I asked my boss for a week off next month and he looked at me like I was crazy. No vacations until we finish the new demo job. I'm not sure how cold it get is Stockholm But I froze in Germany back in 1973. I can't do cold....lol

SR I gave away all the shark teeth I found. None of them were perfect. I still have a few bones I found but I'm not sure what they came from.

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/th_Shark001.jpg (http://s527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/?action=view&current=Shark001.jpg)

[Traveler]

Please tell me you are not talking about the Nevada print. You really need to work on your facts before interpreting nonsense as fact. The Nevada print is aactually a piece of ironstone concretion.

A concretion is

The so called stiching doesn't exist. A book in the 70s claimed that microsopic examination showed stitching and holes where the sole was stiched. But surpprise of all suprises the authors could not produce the images and the lab they claimed to have used didn't have a record of the examination. The only hoax was from creationists who having nothig to back thier theory rely on lying and misrepresentaion to try to further thier cause. Conveniently the stone was "lost" so no further examination could be possible and they could continue to milk the lies.

Here is an image of the actual "print"
http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/TriassicShoeSole.jpg

Wait I take it all back, I think I have a pair of those in my closet. Yup look here are my tracks:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/concen1.jpg

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/concre3s.jpg

Here are a couple of good articles about the real stone

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/nevada.htm

If you are talking the Paluxy tracks or the Miester track from Utah it is the same nonsense different day. Again the only hoases called are on the bs "data" the people who believe these to be proof of creationism present. Science can prove what these things are. Creationists cannot prove, in any way, them to be what they claim them to be.

First you tell us that all the evidence is lost and then you show us pictures of the evidence. Go figure.

Kind of like Oswald shot JFK but he happened to be in the canteen drinking a coke at the time of the shooting.

I would say that a lot of effort was made to get rid of the evidence so as not to rock the boat. Happens all the time it seems.

[Rabid1]

First you tell us that all the evidence is lost and then you show us pictures of the evidence. Go figure.

Kind of like Oswald shot JFK but he happened to be in the canteen drinking a coke at the time of the shooting.

I would say that a lot of effort was made to get rid of the evidence so as not to rock the boat. Happens all the time it seems.


Good little creationsist zombie. Take the facts and make a strawman argument. I said the evidence is mssing. I didn't say when it wentmissing. Oh wait it was in the hands of creationists in 1975. Pretty sure they had invented camara's by then but you might want to fact check it. How could they possibly lose such an important relic to thier cause? On purpose.

The best you can do is bring up a conspiracy theory and still get it wrong? He seen by his supervisor in the lunchroom after the shootings with no coraborrating witness placing him there prior. He got out before the building was sealed and I guess it is just shear coincidence he was the only employee unaccounted for. Then later when he was stopped by a police officer less than a mile from his house, the revolver he was carrying must have accidentally jumped out of his pocket and killed the cop. Later when he was cornered in a movie theatre the same gun, tricky little devil, must have jumped up and shot at officers again. Because he was anninocent stoogs and would never have done anything himself.


Shortround sorry for hijacking this thread, but sometimes I just can't stand ignorant bullshit being spread as fact.

[Freddy]

Can I have a big Amen!

[TC]

Well it still comes down to fossilisation of bone. And the lack of human bone within the same sediment material of dinosaur remains. It stands to reason that a deluge of worldwide proportions would have left thousands ( given the population on earth at that time) of skeletal deposits, and if dinosaurs did exist along side mankind, then both would have ended up within the same matrix formations.

You have to take into account the depth of the Triassic/Jurassic formations, they lay buried under hundreds of feet of compiled sediment, only periodically exposed by erosion, thus their rarity and value to museums and collectors.

If human remains were found within any of these formations, then an argument could arise to both dating processes and age of the earth, but they don't...

Besides, what is the issue here? age of the earth or dinosaurs living with man?

And what difference would that have on a faith?

I posted this thread because its fascinating, and gives us a clear picture of the species that did roam the earth long ago.

* note, Tom. Nice collection you have there.

[Tired Old Man]

Well it still comes down to fossilisation of bone. And the lack of human bone within the same sediment material of dinosaur remains. It stands to reason that a deluge of worldwide proportions would have left thousands ( given the population on earth at that time) of skeletal deposits, and if dinosaurs did exist along side mankind, then both would have ended up within the same matrix formations.

You have to take into account the depth of the Triassic/Jurassic formations, they lay buried under hundreds of feet of compiled sediment, only periodically exposed by erosion, thus their rarity and value to museums and collectors.

If human remains were found within any of these formations, then an argument could arise to both dating processes and age of the earth, but they don't...

Besides, what is the issue here? age of the earth or dinosaurs living with man?

And what difference would that have on a faith?

I posted this thread because its fascinating, and gives us a clear picture of the species that did roam the earth long ago.

* note, Tom. Nice collection you have there.

Flintstones meet the Flinstones.......yadayadayada.

This is all Fut004 fault and I had nothing to do with it.....cough cough.



The difference with this particular fossil print is a small indentation of what appears to be made by a claw. Whereas most so called Grallator tracks lack that distinction. There is some debate as to the prints of Portland grallator, claiming it was an earlier and smaller version of coelophysis.

Quote from a formal study; "[I]Judging from the size of the prints, the animal responsible for these Grallator tracks was 2-6m long, whereas the Kayentapus trackmaker was probably 3-4 m long. Based on their form and
size, the maker of Kayentapus tracks has been likened to Dilophosaurus, a 6 m long theropod known from the Early Jurassic of Arizona.


Kissing cousins ? Evolution ? Genetics ! That has to be the answer. Gallator #1 could not mate with anyone but his sister. Hey they were stuck in a valley or something. And they got very hungry after mating which produced a sibling ( ? ) which had a extra claw. I only added the hungry part to show they had wild sex and was starving and ate bones and all of anything that was around. So much for me trying to make a point for humans ( cough ) and dinosaur's at the same time. This is so much fun.
But now we get back to carbon dating. Would a reverse of poles or magnetic north have any effect on carbon dating ? I don't know and I am just asking.

[TC]

Flintstones meet the Flinstones.......yadayadayada.

This is all Fut004 fault and I had nothing to do with it.....cough cough.



Kissing cousins ? Evolution ? Genetics ! That has to be the answer. Gallator #1 could not mate with anyone but his sister. Hey they were stuck in a valley or something. And they got very hungry after mating which produced a sibling ( ? ) which had a extra claw. I only added the hungry part to show they had wild sex and was starving and ate bones and all of anything that was around. So much for me trying to make a point for humans ( cough ) and dinosaur's at the same time. This is so much fun.
But now we get back to carbon dating. Would a reverse of poles or magnetic north have any effect on carbon dating ? I don't know and I am just asking.

Couldn't say Tom, its a bit out of my study. I would assume measuring radioactive decay wouldn't be effected by magnetic reversal.

[Tired Old Man]

Couldn't say Tom, its a bit out of my study. I would assume measuring radioactive decay wouldn't be effected by magnetic reversal.

Where in the heck is Lyc or CT when you need them. Not that I trust anything they would post. SR what about the genetic part ?

[TC]

Where in the heck is Lyc or CT when you need them. Not that I trust anything they would post. SR what about the genetic part ?

Sure it could be genetics, as this species is the forerunner to bigger things. As a small carnivore the use of a claw would be essential. The use of the name Grallator came from the first discovery of these prints in the Connecticut, as they had no idea as to what it was, it wasn't until a similar species was found in Arizona that the name coelophysis began to be used.

The problem with several tracks is the matrix their in, as it conflicts with local geological formations. But this is still an ongoing science, and as you say, we don't know all the story.

[TC]

Here is a set of plates from the cococino formation in Arizona, they contain tracks from a smaller and much earlier species. If you the click on the image you can see the difference in the matrix. This is the classic sandstone sediment formation.

[Freddy]

Here is a set of plates from the cococino formation in Arizona, they contain tracks from a smaller and much earlier species. If you the click on the image you can see the difference in the matrix. This is the classic sandstone sediment formation.
Cool fossils! I am thinking more will be found in time.

[Tired Old Man]

SR we use to haul what was called mud balls at the phosphate mines to make dirt roads drivable. It was a mix of rock, clay and things.... This is where I use to find the shark teeth. The mud balls are a by product of mining the phosphate. One of the reason I never found any grade A teeth is everything is pumped through miles of pipe under high pressure. I have a couple of bones I am just guessing came from a cow. That's my luck.
What is fascinating about all of this is how from a few foot prints to a few bones over time we can put together a picture of what was. And just when we think we have it figured out something changes. After looking at the first link you posted some of the shark teeth I gave away might not have been shark teeth. I think I'll keep the cow bones just in case.

[TC]

These sandstone tracks ( click on image) come from a desert like environment were several species of mammal-like and lizard-like species lived during the Upper Paleozoic Era, and are approximately 280 million years old... Pre dinosaur in other words... this is the period were small carnivores began to emerge, making the jump from 4 legged small creatures, ( large dog size) to bipedal reptiles.

These mammal-like reptile tracks seen below have been given the name of Cheilichnus, and is comprised of three different names based on the size of the tracks. No fossilized remains have been found of these creatures, therefore it is unknown exactly what they looked like.

The plates ( 6 altogether) are from 1in thick down to 5mm thick with the smallest one. ( Amazingly they got through the post in one piece..lol)

Holding it feels like a piece of house plaster with a sandy texture, vary fragile. I'll have to mount them on some solid surface material.

I would keep the bones you have Tom, at least until you have them identified. And yeah, I have heard the term mud balls when building a road surface, when packed, its hard as nails...lol

[Cartesiantheater]

Flintstones meet the Flinstones.......yadayadayada.

This is all Fut004 fault and I had nothing to do with it.....cough cough.



Kissing cousins ? Evolution ? Genetics ! That has to be the answer. Gallator #1 could not mate with anyone but his sister. Hey they were stuck in a valley or something. And they got very hungry after mating which produced a sibling ( ? ) which had a extra claw. I only added the hungry part to show they had wild sex and was starving and ate bones and all of anything that was around. So much for me trying to make a point for humans ( cough ) and dinosaur's at the same time. This is so much fun.
But now we get back to carbon dating. Would a reverse of poles or magnetic north have any effect on carbon dating ? I don't know and I am just asking.

Carbon dating would not be used on dino bones.


Couldn't say Tom, its a bit out of my study. I would assume measuring radioactive decay wouldn't be effected by magnetic reversal.



Where in the heck is Lyc or CT when you need them. Not that I trust anything they would post.

No, it would not affect it. The strong nuclear force is the most important thing going on, and the weak nuclear force (in beta decay) and electrostatic force are involved. Nuclear and electrostatic.

This whole idea is just yet another desperate attempt by creationists to argue for a young earth. You'll find it on creationism websites.

[Rabid1]

Shortround,

Have you heard of an area in South America that has fossil tracks that appear to be of the same species but in many of the tracks the known claw in some prints is missing. Not from a single set of tracks but from individual sets. Could that be something similar to your track?

[Cartesiantheater]

Maybe this is offtopic. But...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v154/matzamafia/20090602.gif

[TC]

Here's a fun note on dating..

"There are two types of carbon 14 dating technologies. The original oldest one is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. The newer method of "Accelerator Mass spectrometer" ( AMS technology) requires smaller sample sizes and is more accurate.The earlier process is more prone to possibility of errors in each of the many phases. The latest technology (AMS) involves actually counting the carbon 14 atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them. This newer method uses a much smaller sample size and can provide dates going back to maybe 100,000 at best. Generally dates older than 70,000 are considered tentative ages.
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old. Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made. In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems. If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be once molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones. If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14. Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem.

[Cartesiantheater]

Here's a fun note on dating..

"There are two types of carbon 14 dating technologies. The original oldest one is a multistep process and requires sample sizes of several grams. The newer method of "Accelerator Mass spectrometer" ( AMS technology) requires smaller sample sizes and is more accurate.The earlier process is more prone to possibility of errors in each of the many phases. The latest technology (AMS) involves actually counting the carbon 14 atoms as they are separated from the sample. The equipment accelerates streams of charged atomic particles to high velocities in order to sort and analyze them. This newer method uses a much smaller sample size and can provide dates going back to maybe 100,000 at best. Generally dates older than 70,000 are considered tentative ages.
Compare this with a dating scheme such as potassium argon dating which generally is considered accurate for 100,000 years and older. We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old. Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made. In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems. If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be once molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones. If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14. Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem.

I copy and pasted the last 6 or 7 sentences in your post, put quotes around them and googled it.

It led me to this link:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

This link then sites another link in the passage you quoted. Here is that link:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/c14.htm

The title is:

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL



You quoted bullshit science, my friend.

[Tired Old Man]

I find it amazing that most of our knowledge on carbon dating itself isn't that old and yet it is taken as gospel. Now I understand we have to use something. And that something will continue to change as our knowledge grows. The advance in science in the last hundred years in amazing. Kind of makes me wonder if carbon dating will be out dated not to long from now.

[TC]

I copy and pasted the last 6 or 7 sentences in your post, put quotes around them and googled it.

It led me to this link:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

This link then sites another link in the passage you quoted. Here is that link:

http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/c14.htm

The title is:

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL



You quoted bullshit science, my friend.

To be honest CT I didn't check any trace links with that quote, as it was stated as a "neutral" ( which is what I wanted when I googled) position. If I had known it was a young earth led, I wouldn't have used it....my bad.

As I said earlier on in this thread I have 0 knowledge with that subject, ( C14) as it doesn't apply with this topic.

Sort of a mine field huh...trying to avoid that debate.

[TC]

Shortround,

Have you heard of an area in South America that has fossil tracks that appear to be of the same species but in many of the tracks the known claw in some prints is missing. Not from a single set of tracks but from individual sets. Could that be something similar to your track?

Coelophysis had four digits on the hand, but it had only three functional digits, the fourth embedded in the flesh of the hand. ( probably the beginnings of a ripper type claw)

And the hindlimb ended in a three-toed foot, ( the track left in stone) ( photo)

It was Edwin H. Colbert who suggested that the Connecticut Valley formation footprints referred to as Grallator may have been made by Coelophysis. But the majority of intact fossil remains are found at Ghost ranch new Mexico, ( a huge graveyard of this species)

Herrerasaurus and Eoraptor both have South American relatives, so yes, the possibility exists that this particular track could have come from South America. It would come down to a comparison of matrix material the tracks are found in, if they proved identical, then the origin could be established.

[Cartesiantheater]

I find it amazing that most of our knowledge on carbon dating itself isn't that old and yet it is taken as gospel. Now I understand we have to use something. And that something will continue to change as our knowledge grows. The advance in science in the last hundred years in amazing. Kind of makes me wonder if carbon dating will be out dated not to long from now.

Evidence supporting the underlying theoretical background for things relating to radioactive elements:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg

Pretty convincing.

[Tired Old Man]

Evidence supporting the underlying theoretical background for things relating to radioactive elements:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg

Pretty convincing.

CT I don't really know anything about carbon dating but I don't see where a nuclear explosion has anything to do with it. A key would you posted , theory. Yes I understand we need theories in science. Without a absolute you have to go with a theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. "Presumed" I love that word.

Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

Would this have something to do with your use of a nuclear explosion ? What other changes in the atmosphere from ice ages to forest fires to comet hits to sun spots could affect carbon dating ? Would a plant eater compared to a meat eater be the same ? I would think a plant eater might show a higher carbon-14 rate. But that can't be right. The meat eater consuming a plant eater in my line of thinking would consume the carbon from the plant eater.

On a side note I still think digging up bones is cool. A completed skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus is just so damn big. Hell everything ( almost ) was so damn big in that time. To hell with the age question I want to know the why of the size question.

[TC]

CT I don't really know anything about carbon dating but I don't see where a nuclear explosion has anything to do with it. A key would you posted , theory. Yes I understand we need theories in science. Without a absolute you have to go with a theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. "Presumed" I love that word.

Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

Would this have something to do with your use of a nuclear explosion ? What other changes in the atmosphere from ice ages to forest fires to comet hits to sun spots could affect carbon dating ? Would a plant eater compared to a meat eater be the same ? I would think a plant eater might show a higher carbon-14 rate. But that can't be right. The meat eater consuming a plant eater in my line of thinking would consume the carbon from the plant eater.

On a side note I still think digging up bones is cool. A completed skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus is just so damn big. Hell everything ( almost ) was so damn big in that time. To hell with the age question I want to know the why of the size question.


Here's a track I picked up this week from a guy in Florida. Its also called a Grallator print, but notice the back of the print has a indentation of what looks like a back claw? As for size, as these where the first of the bipedal carnivores, in other words the transition from smaller herbivore plant eaters, I would assume going from four lags to upright hunter type would be a process of adaptability and body size.

Judging by the print size, this puppy was between 4 and 6ft standing height and something around 80kg in weight. ( guessing here by imprint)

The print below is about the size of my hand. Click on image.

[Cartesiantheater]

CT I don't really know anything about carbon dating but I don't see where a nuclear explosion has anything to do with it.

That's why you ought to open up a physics book instead of just blindly throw ideas out in the dark. Radioactive decay is closely related to what goes on in a nuclear explosion.

Radioactive decay is sometimes due to spontaneous fission. (some) Nuclear explosions are due to controlled human induced fission. They are two forms of the same process.



Now, you posted a hyperphysics link. Did you not notice that "radioactive dating" was withing the NUCLEAR section?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuccon.html#nuccon




A key would you posted , theory. Yes I understand we need theories in science. Without a absolute you have to go with a theory.

In science, for the millionth time, "theory" more or less means an explanation that is verified by experimental observation to within our measurement capabilities.

Do not confuse the word "theory" with the meaning of "hypothesis."





http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html

Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. "Presumed" I love that word.

You will not find a living organism that does not have that equilibrium. Hence it is a much more than reasonable "presumption." It's like presuming that water in the ocean tasted salty 4000 years ago.

It's very simple, ToM: when a creature is alive, it eats things, including carbon. It just so happens that throughout the world there is a very reliable proportion of carbon-14 and carbon-12 (regular old carbon) in every chunk of naturally occurring carbon. It also just so happens that radioactive atoms spontaneously decay at a very reliable rate. Now, carbon-14 is radioactive. That means it decays. That means if you stop replacing your carbon in your body, the level of carbon-14 will drop.

That's why it works.

The only problems are from calibration, including use of other dating methods.








Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

That's why it's calibrated. The dating is not as trustworthy if it is not calibrated.

Now, when was there an Industrial revolution within the last 50,000 years other than the recent one?

Also, carbon-14 dating is not used on dinos.




Would this have something to do with your use of a nuclear explosion ?

Radioactive decay is a NUCLEAR process. Just like a NUCLEAR explosion.



What other changes in the atmosphere from ice ages to forest fires to comet hits to sun spots could affect carbon dating ?

Forrest fires will not affect it in any statistically meaningful way. Nor will any short-lived disaster, like a heat wave.




Would a plant eater compared to a meat eater be the same ?

Not relevant. The RATIO between normal carbon and radioactive carbon is what is used to measure the date.




I would think a plant eater might show a higher carbon-14 rate.

And you would think wrong.





But that can't be right. The meat eater consuming a plant eater in my line of thinking would consume the carbon from the plant eater.

You are being a smartass because YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE has made you think you found some silver bullet.

It is always funny when someone who is too ignorant to realize they are ignorant gets arrogant about something.



Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of carbon-14 versus carbon-12 IN THE CREATURE. The ratio




On a side note I still think digging up bones is cool. A completed skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus is just so damn big. Hell everything ( almost ) was so damn big in that time. To hell with the age question I want to know the why of the size question.

You will not find a competent scientist using carbon dating to determine the age of a dinosaur.





These threads would be a lot more compact if people would actually know something about basic physics. It's sad, though, because everyone in the west has the opportunity- IN HIGH SCHOOL (or the equivalent)- to take the physics course if only they get off their asses and take the math courses, do their homework, get chemistry, algebra, geometry and trig out of the way before their senior year.

But instead we have a bunch of lazy people who only want to take one math course per year. This stuff is taught in every high school in the country (and every equivalent in the Western world). Why is it that only around 15% of this board knows any of it?

[DontBeAfraid]

Call me Fred Flintstone but I still think man and dinosaur walked together.That is fucking retarded.

[TC]

I really didn't want this to be a debate as to date and age, ( I was throwing out the possibility of a single species in regards to the fossil tracks) but if it has to happen, then so be it.

Tom, please explain why you think man existed with dinosaurs. I mean there has to be some physical evidence that would lead you to this conclusion.

[Tired Old Man]

You will not find a competent scientist using carbon dating to determine the age of a dinosaur.

So why are we even talking about it.



You will not find a living organism that does not have that equilibrium. Hence it is a much more than reasonable "presumption." It's like presuming that water in the ocean tasted salty 4000 years ago.

It's very simple, ToM: when a creature is alive, it eats things, including carbon. It just so happens that throughout the world there is a very reliable proportion of carbon-14 and carbon-12 (regular old carbon) in every chunk of naturally occurring carbon. It also just so happens that radioactive atoms spontaneously decay at a very reliable rate. Now, carbon-14 is radioactive. That means it decays. That means if you stop replacing your carbon in your body, the level of carbon-14 will drop.

That's why it works.

The only problems are from calibration, including use of other dating methods.



Here you are making a point for carbon dating and THEN you tell me it has nothing to do with determining the age of a dinosaur.





These threads would be a lot more compact if people would actually know something about basic physics. It's sad, though, because everyone in the west has the opportunity- IN HIGH SCHOOL (or the equivalent)- to take the physics course if only they get off their asses and take the math courses, do their homework, get chemistry, algebra, geometry and trig out of the way before their senior year.


Hey I was busy fishing !! CT this is the part of you, as I see it that sucks. I wasn't trying to be a smartass with what I asked. Hell if anyone in AO is smart and an ass you would fit the description as I see it. I honestly hope your not getting into teaching as a career.


I really didn't want this to be a debate as to date and age, ( I was throwing out the possibility of a single species in regards to the fossil tracks) but if it has to happen, then so be it.

Tom, please explain why you think man existed with dinosaurs. I mean there has to be some physical evidence that would lead you to this conclusion.

SR that was more tongue and cheek than anything BUT......


There are so many inconsistencies with what we think we know and what is. I'm still waiting for proof that man and dinosaurs walked this earth together. Now the word dinosaurs might have to scaled down a little.

Scaled down a little bit. SR do you still want proof ? I could give you time to think about it. But I could be wrong with my thinking.

Crocodiles are the ultimate survivors. Having arisen some 200 million years ago, they have outlived the dinosaurs by some 65 million years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/crocs/dinosaurs/

From crocodiles to Komodo dragons to maybe even Nessie. Big foot ? Didn't we just find some fish in deep waters from the dinosaur age that are alive and doing good .

[Cartesiantheater]

So why are we even talking about it.

Because people for whatever reason don't learn about it, so they keep making the same mistakes.




Here you are making a point for carbon dating and THEN you tell me it has nothing to do with determining the age of a dinosaur.

You know, I assumed you knew how half-lives worked. That was a mistake on my part, and if you didn't then your question is completely reasonable. My apologies.

Here's why:

A radioactive element decays at a rate that is measured by how long it takes for half of it to decay into a stable compound. That means at approximately each iteration of the time interval, half of the radioactive material will be gone.

It's just like if you walk across a room only going halfway to the door each time: each time your distance to the door gets smaller, but each time you are only moving half way to the door.


Essentially, (one of) the reason(s) carbon-14 won't be found in dinosaurs (and ISN'T except in a VERY few OUTLYING cases where CONTAMINATION occurred) is because the half-life of carbon-14, that is, the amount of time it takes for half of the radioactive material to decay, is by comparison to the time the dinosaurs died out WAY too small for any significant amount to be traced. But there is a bigger reason: fossilized dinosaurs aren't really made of organic material in nearly every case. The material was replaced by minerals in the fossilization process.

For dating dinosaurs, what is done is that the rock on either side of the dinosaur is dated, and the dino is estimated to have lived at a time somewhere in between the times measured by the rock on either side of it.


Carbon dating just won't work. They use other radiometric dating techniques, with radioactive elements that have much longer half-lives.




As for half-lives, they are OBSERVED REALITY, and explained theoretically by a atomic physics.






Hey I was busy fishing !! CT this is the part of you, as I see it that sucks. I wasn't trying to be a smartass with what I asked.

Maybe I'm just used to your style. You have to admit, you take that smartassy style quite a bit. It's usually humorous too, so by all means, continue ;)



Hell if anyone in AO is smart and an ass you would fit the description as I see it.

I am quite the smartass, no question.




I honestly hope your not getting into teaching as a career.

I can teach. But what I can't do is teach someone who doesn't want to learn. In fact it causes me to turn into a huge asshole.

Which means that IF I teach, it will have to be in college, where I can tell students that are just wasting my time to GTFO and not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. If I teach high school, I'll get sued a lot... and it won't always be for sexually harassing the jailbait.

http://www.randomfunnypicture.com/pictures/1136Jailbait.jpg

[TC]

Originally Posted by tom
"Call me Fred Flintstone but I still think man and dinosaur walked together."



Ok I was replying to the above quote, so I was interested as to how you came to that idea. Its not a tongue and cheek question if its in regards to age.

There is strata that's hundreds of feet thick ( part of the dating system used to identify a geologic period) and some of these lay under vary old lava flows, which are eroded by thousands of years of weather and wind. Obviously this would suggest the lower sediments are even older.

And if the matrix containing the fossil is made from those older sediments, then we have to believe it preceded the advent of man.

[Tired Old Man]

For dating dinosaurs, what is done is that the rock on either side of the dinosaur is dated, and the dino is estimated to have lived at a time somewhere in between the times measured by the rock on either side of it.

This is for real ? I didn't know that. I did read something about dating techniques and still had the impression the dating was done on the bones. I'll have to go back and do some more reading.




Which means that IF I teach, it will have to be in college, where I can tell students that are just wasting my time to GTFO and not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out. If I teach high school, I'll get sued a lot... and it won't always be for sexually harassing the jailbait.



I guess we can both be a smart-ass . But if you ever do go into teaching stay with the college part. First day, seventh grade math teacher. His words, I'm here to teach. If you don't want to learn just sit and shut up and I'll give you a passing grade. Needless to say no one learn anything in that class.


Originally Posted by tom
"Call me Fred Flintstone but I still think man and dinosaur walked together."



Ok I was replying to the above quote, so I was interested as to how you came to that idea. Its not a tongue and cheek question if its in regards to age.

There is strata that's hundreds of feet thick ( part of the dating system used to identify a geologic period) and some of these lay under vary old lava flows, which are eroded by thousands of years of weather and wind. Obviously this would suggest the lower sediments are even older.

And if the matrix containing the fossil is made from those older sediments, then we have to believe it preceded the advent of man.

SR I was replying to Fut004 and as CT noted I tend to be a smartass at times. I've already side tracked this thread enough and I wasn't even trying.

Not sure if this helps but it was an interesting read.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210153532.htm

Based on an analysis of the relationships among Tawa and other early dinosaurs, the researchers hypothesize that dinosaurs originated in a part of Pangea that is now South America, diverging into theropods (like Tyrannosaurus rex), sauropodomorphs (like Apatosaurus) and ornithischians (like Triceratops); and then dispersed more than 220 million years ago across parts of Pangea that later became separate continents.

Another good reason to protect the boarders....: ) I sorry SR, sometimes I just can't stop.

[TC]

Another good reason to protect the boarders....: ) I sorry SR, sometimes I just can't stop.

I knew it !! That car wash on 34th street! those guys had longer legs than normal, and scaly....

[Tired Old Man]

This looks like a good web site for people like myself to learn a little bit.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/indexg.shtml

OK so it might be a little childish for some of you, they even have coloring printouts. Where did I out my crayons ?
Looks like you stuck with an earlier and smaller version of coelophysis SR.

[TC]

This looks like a good web site for people like myself to learn a little bit.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/indexg.shtml

OK so it might be a little childish for some of you, they even have coloring printouts. Where did I out my crayons ?
Looks like you stuck with an earlier and smaller version of coelophysis SR.

Well its still up for grabs ( until the test comes back) Grallator or Coelophysis, size was 6 to 10ft on average. And the print would suggest adult size. Stuck? ...gladly. ( I'll take 10 more thanks)

[Tired Old Man]

Well its still up for grabs ( until the test comes back) Grallator or Coelophysis, size was 6 to 10ft on average. And the print would suggest adult size. Stuck? ...gladly. ( I'll take 10 more thanks)

When I was working at the phosphate mines I was always looking for any rock that had a imprint of something but never found any. So let me see if I understand this so far.

GRALLATOR
(pronounced GRAL-uh-tore) Grallator (meaning 'stilt walker') was a herding dinosaur known only from its fossilized footprints. It is an ichnogenus The relatively common, three-toed tracks average about 7 inches (17 cm) long. The shape and pattern of the bipedal prints (including the ratios of the lengths of the toes) indicate that it was probably a small theropod (a bipedal meat-eater) similar to Coelophysis. The tracks date from about 200 million years ago, during the very late Triassic period to the early Jurassic period. Grallator trackways have been found in the USA (NJ, PA, CT), Canada, and Europe.

The grallator name refers only to fossilized footprints ?

[TC]

When I was working at the phosphate mines I was always looking for any rock that had a imprint of something but never found any. So let me see if I understand this so far.

GRALLATOR
(pronounced GRAL-uh-tore) Grallator (meaning 'stilt walker') was a herding dinosaur known only from its fossilized footprints. It is an ichnogenus The relatively common, three-toed tracks average about 7 inches (17 cm) long. The shape and pattern of the bipedal prints (including the ratios of the lengths of the toes) indicate that it was probably a small theropod (a bipedal meat-eater) similar to Coelophysis. The tracks date from about 200 million years ago, during the very late Triassic period to the early Jurassic period. Grallator trackways have been found in the USA (NJ, PA, CT), Canada, and Europe.

The grallator name refers only to fossilized footprints ?

Yup, as no fossil remains have ever been found in the formations that hold the tracks, thus the dilemma.

And the track is set in a matrix that's different from CT formation. The "similar to Coelophysis" is almost identical, yet that creature is found in the south western part of the U.S

The ones in Europe are also classed as Grallator and no skeletal remains either.

So the two tracks I showed pictured on this thread are called Grallator ...at least until the test results come back with an ID on the material ( matrix) they are made of.

[Tired Old Man]

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/th_bones002.jpg (http://s527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/?action=view&current=bones002.jpg)

Took me some time to get around to posting these pictures SR but here they are. The one one the right is 3 inches by 3 inches. I called them cow bones but have no idea what they are. They are fossilized and came from the Four Corners mines. I kind of hope they are something cool and not cow bones.



So the two tracks I showed pictured on this thread are called Grallator ...at least until the test results come back with an ID on the material ( matrix) they are made of.

So what are you hoping for ?

[TC]

http://i527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/th_bones002.jpg (http://s527.photobucket.com/albums/cc352/TiredOldMan1955/?action=view&current=bones002.jpg)

Took me some time to get around to posting these pictures SR but here they are. The one one the right is 3 inches by 3 inches. I called them cow bones but have no idea what they are. They are fossilized and came from the Four Corners mines. I kind of hope they are something cool and not cow bones.


Well its a pretty good chance its not a cow, as cows ( as we know it) weren't indigenous. Bison maybe? but what I have read of that area, its rich with marine fossills. It could be whale or Megalodon. Thats cool stuff..

[Tired Old Man]

Well its a pretty good chance its not a cow, as cows ( as we know it) weren't indigenous. Bison maybe? but what I have read of that area, its rich with marine fossills. It could be whale or Megalodon. Thats cool stuff..

Maybe some day I'll find out what it is.
Let me know what you find out with the foot print.

[Cartesiantheater]

This is for real ? I didn't know that. I did read something about dating techniques and still had the impression the dating was done on the bones. I'll have to go back and do some more reading.

Yep.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossildating.html


Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.

*lol I just realized you posted a link from this website



I guess we can both be a smart-ass . But if you ever do go into teaching stay with the college part. First day, seventh grade math teacher. His words, I'm here to teach. If you don't want to learn just sit and shut up and I'll give you a passing grade. Needless to say no one learn anything in that class.

If I'm forced to teach that young, I'd either do what the math teacher above did or kick every asshole out of the class until I get in trouble with the principle. At which time I'd go back to the other method.

Usually there are two or three students who are interested in learning, though.

[Tired Old Man]

I guess I know understand the big deal about not disturbing a dig site as far as bones go.

[Defiant Noquisi]

<---feels like a fossil.

T.O.M. if you ever work turquoise mines here in the states please let me know so I can orgasm all over then stow away in your lunchbox.

[Tired Old Man]

<---feels like a fossil.

T.O.M. if you ever work turquoise mines here in the states please let me know so I can orgasm all over then stow away in your lunchbox.

I swear I did a post to this but I don't see it.

What can I say.

Digging up bones
Digging up bones
Talking about things, better left alone.

We know return this thread to it's rightful owner.

[Tired Old Man]

SR I think I need some help here..................lol

[Tired Old Man]

Best I found SR is claw and North America.

"Because Balaur is related to dinosaurs like Velociraptor, it indicates that the European island archipelago had a faunal connection with other parts of Europe, Asia and North America where this group of dinosaurs has also been found in similarly aged rocks," says Norell. "It also shows how pervasive island effects can be in producing truly unusual animals."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830152523.htm

Hey this article was a good read. And anything that has the word Transylvania in it is a must read.

[TC]

I read a similar paper on island mammoths. They had a limited food supply and living space which over a short period of time produced a smaller species to adapt to its unique area. I would assume by the body configuration of the these smaller meat eating dinosaurs that they couldn't swim, so the species could over time become a separate type, different from their continental cousins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_elephant

[Tired Old Man]

Time lines.....what a headache.

Was it the continental drift that lead to different specie or the melting of the ice that allowed greater travel in search of food ? Now just having said that I think I am putting the ice age into the wrong time line. No wonder I went fishing all the time.
Hope you get an answer SR to your find.

[TC]

Time lines.....what a headache.

Was it the continental drift that lead to different specie or the melting of the ice that allowed greater travel in search of food ? Now just having said that I think I am putting the ice age into the wrong time line. No wonder I went fishing all the time.
Hope you get an answer SR to your find.

Well during that period, the earth was much warmer in the higher latitudes, ( thus the crocodiles and hypos in what is now England and the coal deposits in Norway) Plus the continents were different in size and shape. More inland shallow seas and isolated land groups that probably resulted in species affected by food shortages. They adapted in size and breeding habits, maybe creating one dominate small meat eater like Coelophysis.