Thoughts?

[3RZUL13]

Howdy! It’s been a while since my last inquiry, as I’ve been doing my best to uncover as much of the site as possible without removing as much of the floating individual pieces as possible in the hopes of being able to show in photos what I’m seeing since I have had next to no luck in conveying whatever I’ve got to anyone thus far. Despite my efforts, there are just so many loose pieces which aren’t fused together that I’ve had to remove most of them from this area to allow me to uncover the ‘base plate’ regions— which I’ve been hoping could give me a better idea of the frame and expose more edges and ideally lead me closer to some potential id’s. I’d really like to know more or less what sort of creature it could be so that I can have a better idea of the orientation and better judge the total area it might be encompassing. I’m sorry I didn’t include anything to show the scale in these photos—they’re screenshots from a video I took—mainly to focus on the indentations towards the upper rim of the exposed area. I removed dozens of pieces of what were arranged and appear to be teeth. I’m happy to get some shots of those pieces when I’m back home but it occurred to me that it’s possible that the indentations in (I venture to guess would be-) the section of gum line you can see pretty clearly in these shots—might be enough for someone to give some potential suggestions or even just a super rough ballpark of potential types of creatures it could’ve belonged to. I’ll grab exact diameters when I’m back home to add to the diameters of those indentions but from what I’d be able to guess the most prominent one was about 3” across the longer side. Give or take. 
 

I know I’m not situated in an area where it’s common to find things like this due to the vast amount of limestone and sedimentary rock—and I’m not saying it’s not limestone, k, but what I’ve come to conclude since I’ve been working on this is that for one reason or another, (hot spring,  geyser, tar pit, something else..) whatever this section was, these pieces I’m uncovering are overwhelmingly silicified. There’s a stark difference from the upper 2-3 feet of soil to the layer below in which these pieces are laying. The upper soil is loose and a lighter color until this bed which is super dark, very tightly compacted and tarry—to the point where it’s not even really dirt anymore suddenly it is nearly black asphalt crumbles—which also seems to be rich in numerous different types of mineral deposits. I’ve got pretty decent uv footage of this same are should anyone feel that seeing it could help determine anything else helpful to know about the site. 
 

any input or suggestions appreciated and should anyone like to know or see more of any aspect of it please feel free to ask. Thanks. 

[3RZUL13]

Here are some pics taken from a video from a day or two before the pics originally posted up there^^. The base layer which seems to run underneath the fused upper area all around the rim of the site, is buried in these ones but is partially shown in the first set of pics above.  The indentations I’m asking about are the ones better seen in these pics and there’s a series of them along the upper edge of the rock, I’ll markup a pic and post it in a minute just in case that could help. 

[3RZUL13]

These. 

[3RZUL13]

I’ve also got a pic of the largest pieces I removed from that area which were floating above that ‘gum line’. In the pic I have them arranged exactly the way they were in the ground, as you’ll notice they sort of nest in together—obviously none of them have been cleaned up whatsoever but I’ve come to feel that sometimes just leaving them with the dirt that comes up with them sometimes just seems to show they’re features better sometimes. While these were the largest pieces, there is a whole several handfuls of smaller pieces and tips which had clearly been fractured off and separated slightly long before I found them, I didn’t include any of those fragments in this photo. 

[3RZUL13]

Again sorry for the lack of scale in the photo, the best ref I have would be that red latch on the dremel bit box—it’s about I’d say an inch and 1/4 to 1.5” in length. I can add a specific measurement later today. If it matters. 

[Fin Lover]

I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing rocks, not a creature.  There may be some fossils in this rock, however:

 

[jpc]

I have to agree with Fin Lover

[Fossildude19]

I'm only seeing rocks here, unfortunately.
No bone texture, no enamel, no skeletal anatomy or morphology. 

 

 

[3RZUL13]

fair enough. Appreciate the feedback. 

[3RZUL13]

8 hours ago, Fin Lover said:

I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing rocks, not a creature.  There may be some fossils in this rock, however:

 

 

So I’ll have to maybe post a pic when I get it all uncovered again but that rock stretches seemingly about all the way from about centerpoint of the dug up part all the one end of the pit where that pic was taken and then it curves around underneath the rocks on the other side of the pit  like a big flat cradle  it is smooth like the part in the photo the entire way as far as I’ve been able to see so far. I believe that the rocks that sit on top of this flat rock are largely fused together at least the rocks left shown in the photos are  as in they are all one fused together pile which is seemingly in some places fused to that flat rock   Like it’s all one thing. The rocks that look like individual rocks are fractured sections of larger parts. Like you wouldn’t be able to really see fossils in the rocks…the rocks are broken larger parts. Like the spots I’m talking about that look like sockets are big. So big that whatever it was at one point is in no way intact. Looks to be only a few of those marks that I was asking about in that section before it fractures on either side —so you likely wouldn’t be able to rly gather very much from looking at all of it, I definitely haven’t and I’ve seen it from the beginning but I was more so specifically wondering whether (if they are indeed sockets, (just for a moment bear with me, if you can) hypothetically) if we imagine that they are sockets let’s just say, would there be anything that we could gather from having just the shape size and distance of about 3 consecutive tooth sockets ?—just I guess even generally speaking  

[3RZUL13]

8 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I'm only seeing rocks here, unfortunately.
No bone texture, no enamel, no skeletal anatomy or morphology. 

 

 

Honestly I can’t even disagree with you because it isn’t what a fossil would be expected to look like but I’ve come to believe that’s because it was rapidly silicified whenever it ended up in whatever this weird spot was at the time  like a hot spring it’s not skeletal remains it’s fleshier remains  —-if I’m correct or on the right track   And if I’m at all correct or on the right track whatever it was it was very very big  like if you see those spots I’m talking about in the photos, if those are what I think they are then they suggest that the bases of the teeth sockets in that small section were about 3” in diameter   

[Fin Lover]

@Fossildude19, can you fix our quotes please, since the OPs responses are typed in our quotes?  Thank you so much!

[Fin Lover]

37 minutes ago, 3RZUL13 said:

would there be anything that we could gather from having just the shape size and distance of about 3 consecutive tooth sockets ?

If they were actually alveoli, then yes.  But, they aren't. 

 

Here's a section of a mandible, so that you can see the difference:

 

Bone texture is clearly visible on the ends of the mandible.

Edited yesterday at 01:03 AM by Fin Lover

[Randyw]

All I’m seeing is a geological specimen. (It’s a bunch of rocks). It has never been alive. There may be smaller fossils in some of the rocks as fin lover suggested but we would need better photos of those to tell. . But the large pieces you think are jaw pieces are not and never have been jaw pieces… sorry

[Fossildude19]

11 hours ago, 3RZUL13 said:

 

 

Honestly I can’t even disagree with you because it isn’t what a fossil would be expected to look like but I’ve come to believe that’s because it was rapidly silicified whenever it ended up in whatever this weird spot was at the time  like a hot spring it’s not skeletal remains it’s fleshier remains  —-if I’m correct or on the right track   And if I’m at all correct or on the right track whatever it was it was very very big  like if you see those spots I’m talking about in the photos, if those are what I think they are then they suggest that the bases of the teeth sockets in that small section were about 3” in diameter   

 

 

Fossilized "Fleshier remains" are  not really a thing. Fossilized Mummies EXTREMELY rare.

And what you are seeing aren't fleshier remains.  They are rocks. You've invested a lot of time in digging up these rocks under a mistaken impression.

Unfortunately, I cannot see anything even slightly related to fossils in any of your pictures except for the one Fin Lover noted that may have some sort of invertebrate fossils in it. 

The picture is blurry, and far from definitive. 

 

I'm afraid you are mistaken with your theory of what this is.

[Ludwigia]

I would also agree with the above assessments. If you still have any doubts about this, then I would suggest that you contact a local paleontologist at your nearest natural history museum or university geology department who is familiar with the geology of your area and ask him or her for an assessment.