Re: Monster find at Hell Creek

[Guy Leahy <xrciseguy@sbcglobal.net>]

There is additional video footage of the possible T.
rex print at this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7036411.stm

Guy Leahy


--- "franklin e. bliss" <frank@blissnet.com> wrote:

> The more I look at it, the photo in the story below
> seem incongruent  
> with my slowly growing experience of literally
> living on top of Hell  
> Creek outcrops.  The mud (with cracks) seems
> unnatural on top of the  
> lichen.  Most local lichen (of the type this looks
> to be) grows on  
> sandstone surfaces devoid of any mud.  Lichen (of
> which individual  
> colonies may be quite old and very slow growing)
> seem to prefer  
> really long term stable rocks with clean exposed
> sunlit surfaces.  In  
> other words, the grain of the surface surrounding
> the lichen doesn't  
> look like a natural occurring surface of Hell Creek
> sands.  It looks  
> like wet down scattered mud.  The bentonitic muds in
> HC wouldn't let  
> lichen grow on the surface (or rather the lichen
> wouldn't grow there  
> because of the swelling nature of the bentonitic
> clays).  So what I  
> am saying is, it looks like a photo of some lichen
> with some mud  
> splattered on top which seems to "enhance" the shape
> of a foot  
> print.  I am not saying it is a fraud, just that the
> photo doesn't  
> look convincing to someone who looks at Hell Creek
> sand/muds/clays  
> nearly every day.
> 
> In my experience, chunky mud that looks like this
> from Hell Creek was  
> freshly dug from an outcrop and got wet once. The
> wetting breaks it  
> into small irregularly shaped chunks as in the
> photo.   Mud that has  
> been weathered on a lot would be very smooth, fine
> and a consistent  
> floury grain size.  I would love to see more, higher
> resolution  
> photos of it with a scale showing the surrounding
> outcrop.   
> Everything just seems wrong to me.
> 
> Again this is all speculation from an inadequate
> photo but the other  
> thing that it could be is highly weathered bone
> (powdered) weathering  
> out in some odd cross sectional exposure with the
> muddy surface.  
> (Assuming my lichen identification is incorrect.). 
> I have seen very  
> similar things (in different shapes of course) from
> the root zone  
> (highly weathered portion) of HC bone beds .
> 
> It would also be interesting to know where in the
> 700 feet thick  
> sequence of Hell Creek formation, this was located. 
>  Oldest rex  
> footprint?   Hummm.  Typical press coverage of
> oldest, biggest,  
> baddest, most, smelliest, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Frank (Rooster) Bliss
> MS Biostratigraphy
> Weston, Wyoming
> www.wyomingdinosaurs.com
> 
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Denver Fowler wrote:
> 
> >> Beautiful prints only a few mm thick can appear
> on the foreshore  
> >> at Hanover
> >> Point, Isle of Wight, England only to be washed
> away by the next  
> >> few tides so
> >> thickness doesn't seem to be important.
> >
> > Not really. Most of the IOW prints are visible
> because they are  
> > infilled with clay or sand of a different colour.
> It's not so much  
> > that the print/cast itself is only mm thick: most
> of the sst prints  
> > are pretty darned thick, up to a foot or more (!)
> and often show 3d  
> > twisting of the foot etc. really cool actually.
> The clay prints are  
> > still 6 inches deep or more: about what you'd
> expect for a large  
> > animal stepping onto soft mud. These thick prints
> get slowly  
> > serially sectioned by the erosion of the tide, and
> can look not- 
> > much-like prints once they get a little eroded.
> >
> > Some iguanodon footcasts:
> >
>
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/df9465/iguanodon209-05x.jpg
> >
>
http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q290/df9465/100_0075x.jpg
> >
> > and I have US14 (UK13) size feet for scale.
> >
> > There's a big range of tracks visible there..
> sauropods,  
> > ankylosaurs, theropods and ornithopods of
> different sizes: thing is  
> > the big iggy prints are the most conspicuous.
> >
> >
> >
> > As for size - with the bigger  beasts
> >> unless there are great claw marks can anyone
> really tell the  
> >> difference
> >> between an ornithopod and a theropod from the
> outline?
> >
> > Yes they can.
> >
> > And anyway.. the footprint described as t-rex from
> new mexico, is  
> > certainly theropod, and the sheer size of it would
> suggest a large  
> > tyrannosaur.
> >
> >
>
http://www.nmnaturalhistory.org/trex/specimens/tyrannosauripus.jpg
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >        
> >
>
______________________________________________________________________
> 
> > _________Inbox cluttered with junk? Clean up with
> Yahoo! Mail.
> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/isp_targeting.html
> 
>