Monday, June 29, 2009

Paleocene Dragons



Fassett, J.E., New Geochronological and Stratigraphic Evidence Confims The Paleocene Age of the Dinosaur-Bearing Ojo Alamo Sandstone and Animas Formation In The San Juan Basin New Mexico and Colorado, Paleontologia Electronica, Jan 2009

Dinosaur fossils are present in the Paleocene Ojo Alamo Sandstone and Animas Formation in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, and Colorado. Evidence for the Paleocene age of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone includes palynologic and paleomagnetic data. Palynologic data indicate that the entire Ojo Alamo Sandstone, including the lower dinosaur-bearing part, is Paleocene in age. All of the palynomorph-productive rock samples collected from the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at multiple localities lacked Cretaceous index palynomorphs (except for rare, reworked specimens) and produced Paleocene index palynomorphs. Paleocene palynomorphs have been identified stratigraphically below dinosaur fossils at two separate localities in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone in the central and southern parts of the basin. The Animas Formation in the Colorado part of the basin also contains dinosaur fossils, and its Paleocene age has been established based on fossil leaves and palynology.

Magnetostratigraphy provides independent evidence for the Paleocene age of the Ojo Alamo Sandstone and its dinosaur-bearing beds. Normal-polarity magnetochron C29n (early Paleocene) has been identified in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone at six localities in the southern part of the San Juan Basin.

An assemblage of 34 skeletal elements from a single hadrosaur, found in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone in the southern San Juan Basin, provided conclusive evidence that this assemblage could not have been reworked from underlying Cretaceous strata. In addition, geochemical studies of 15 vertebrate bones from the Paleocene Ojo Alamo Sandstone and 15 bone samples from the underlying Kirtland Formation of Late Cretaceous (Campanian) age show that each sample suite contained distinctly different abundances of uranium and rare-earth elements, indicating that the bones were mineralized in place soon after burial, and that none of the Paleocene dinosaur bones analyzed had been reworked.

13 comments:

Jeffery Keown said...

The paleocene lasted from 65.5 mya to today. That's a lot of time. What this report is saying is that some dinosaurian critters survived the impact?

Big deal... lots of them did, we call them birds. The previous evidence you presented is far more compelling in your Flintstones Hypothesis than Paleocene fossils.

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Of course, I still check on what you are posting, you've had good material on a wide-range of subjects.

I don't comment as much because the posts speak for themselves.

@ Jeff,

Thanks for identifying the age of the sediments that these dinosaurs were discovered in.

But it is a "big deal" as the commonly held view is that ALL dinosaurs died-out at the 65 million year CT line (or whatever that line is called).

Ask almost anybody, even among paliontologists, and they will tell you dinosaurs died-out 65 million years ago.

Jeff, give OilIsMastery some credit for finding this report.

Jeff, no matter how acrimonious the disputes, the highest purpose is Science and not the personal.

Never let the "personal" get in the way of appreciating the Science.

OilIsMastery, you may be onto something with this line of research.

I know form earlier conversations that you don't watch T.V. to speak of, so I thought I'd let you know the History channel has a show called "Monster Quest", where they look for various "monsters" some more mythical, some with a definite scientific bearing.

Anyhow, two of the shows caught my eye because they fit with this line of research you have been pursuing (dinosaurs didn't completely die-out at the assumed 65 million year CT line).

In one, on the island New Guinea where the last of the head hunters plied their trade in the Papua New Guinea half, there where reports of pterodactyls, more formally known as pterosaurs. The locals called them "night demons" and they supposely have the ability to glow in the dark.

No findings on the show, but people are seriously looking for them.

On the second show, there were reports of a "brontosaurus" type animal in remote stretches of river in the Congo, deep within the "darkest" part of the African rainforest.

Supposedly, these animals hide-out during the dry season in caves in the river banks much like crocodiles will do. The locals gave descriptions consistent with a small "brontosaurus" like animal: Long neck and all the rest.

Remember the coelecanth, a prehistoric fish that was thought to be extinct for millions of years, but has been found alive and well.

Could it be that among the wide-spread extinction at the CT boundary 65 million years ago, there were pockets of environment on islands and in deep rainforests that were no wiped-out by the devestation and continued to support dinosaurs?

I would suggest that is highly likely as if it was a complete extinction, no animals would have survived and yet, obviously enough some did (if not dinosaurs per se).

OilIsMastery, I think your recent several lines of research have been fruitful, keep up the good work.

But throw in an Abiotic Oil post for old times sake, will ya:-)

* Off-topic -- You asked about giants. We know that "giantism" is common among animals, based on the fossil record. This would seem to result from bountiful food and territory resources.

Giants among the animals seem to be the first to die-out when food sources and territory diminish.

I don't believe this is scientifically controversial in the slightest.

We know that Man seperated into many isolated bands and troops as he spread out on the continents (some even developed different color skins as a result of environmental influences), so is it that big a scientific leap that some groups of Man developed into "giants"?

Even today, occasionally giants are born among us and in sports they get paid very well. So, who's to think an isolated or a number of isolated bands of humans developed great size, maybe there was even "breeding for size".

Say, the king or leader of the "tribe" was of great size and as is the custom in many societies, those that were rich and powerful, the "smart" and giant, had many wives to produce many children with "giant" characteristics.

Anaconda said...

(Continued)

But owing to large food requirments the numbers were small in comparison to other "tribes", so as the Liliputins overcame Guliver, so the small bodied, but larger number tribes overcame the giants.

Also, severe food shortages due to natural disasters and so forth would have been disproportionally hard on giants.

Anyhow, keep going and happy hunting.

Good Luck :-)

Jeffery Keown said...

But this is not the first report I've seen on the matter. Popularly, this is thought to be the case, but I've read of dinosaur species (big ones, not just birds) surviving for up to a million years after the impact.

It would be a big win for science if some were found alive today. But Oil's posts are not about how much win this would be composed of. He just does it to expose more fringe science and undermine the "commonly held" views. He honestly beleives that scientists would be embarrased by new theories and new ways of thinking, and he wants to be the one doing it.

I just hope that in the process of creating all this nonsense that some actual useful research rises to the top and something is gained.

Nothing would make me happier than for Oils to really overturn something... but his posts often amount to "here's something wacky I get to quote about"

Like with the electric universe stuff. That may be very correct... a little gravity a lot of EM and boom... new theory. I'd love it.

Jeffery Keown said...

Coelecanths are a type of fish not a specific species. The fossil ones really are gone, in their place are the ones that have been getting caught for years without the notice of the rest of the world.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeff,

Why do you keep insisting that the Anasazi Indians live in Bedrock? Kill your television.

Anaconda,

Glad to hear it. I was starting to worry about you and thought that maybe my posts were boring you....haha.

Thx for the headsup on the Monster Quest DVD.

"OilIsMastery, I think your recent several lines of research have been fruitful, keep up the good work."

Thx. From you, that means a lot to me.

"But throw in an Abiotic Oil post for old times sake, will ya:-)"

There has only been one recent abiotic oil article here and it was so poorly researched I didn't bother to post it.

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

I have to agree with you, the article is "boilerplate" Abiotic Oil straight from the two books cited by the author of the article (and not really worth posting).

I was thinking along the lines of oil discoveries or developments that can be interpreted as evidence of Abiotic Oil :-)

Although, some press is better than no press, I guess...

I'm glad you linked your website in the comments to the article. I hope web surfers know enough to go down the left-hand side-bar far enough to get to the scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Oil or go back into the old posts, where all of my comments are :-)

Also, I should add that I've been battling it out on Universe Today regarding Plasma Cosmology and where appropriate on Watts Up With That?, this has taken up time and writing energy, but it's good to be tapping out copy in the old stomping grounds :-)

Jeff, OilIsMastery may be right or he may be wrong (I've had my disagreements with OilIsMastery from time to time), but I don't think he does it just to bring up fringe theories per se.

Again, you are letting the "personal" color your view of OilIsMastery's postings.

OilIsMastery follows the evidence to where it leads him.

And you are right that coelecanth is not a species of fish, fish are a species. But just the same, it is an example of something that was thought extinct, not being extinct. That's why it got nick-named the "living fossil".

A miilion years after the CT event might not draw the crowds as you suggest, but what is the time line we're talking about specifically with regards to the instant post's findings?

And what about that idea that some flying dinos could shoot "fire"?

Intriguing.

Maybe, and I'm thinking out loud here, the bright lights reportedly seen associated with the Papua New Guinea "night demons" has something to do with what OilIsMastery has posted?

Wouldn't that be a hoot!

These "night demons" reportedly are nocturnal.

Papua New Guinea has been called the "Lost World", in some sense maybe it is :-)

Suzannah said...

Hi there Oils, Anaconda, and Jeffrey. I have been reading the blog (and commentary)for about two months now. I find it intriguing. I studied basic philosophy and history of science and historical patterns show that more than half the time the lesser view is the true one.
Being fairly new to the blog and a "noob" at most things science, I disclaim any kind of upper hand on astrophysics, astrogeology, geology, etc. However, I see a continuous effort by Oils to point out mainstream science's shortcomings and open our eyes to possibilities.
On the other hand, I do appreciate Jeffrey's adversarial approach, makes me question Oils and sometimes makes me giggle because it seems to be against Oils just to be against Oils.

Today, Jeffrey got a small win in my book for his saying, "Nothing would make me happier than for Oils to really overturn something," SO help "us" overturn something Jeffrey. You are a smart guy. Buy into some of Oils endeavors and see where it takes you.
To Anaconda, THANKS! It was such a relief to read: '...no matter how acrimonious the disputes, the highest purpose is Science and not the personal...Never let the "personal" get in the way of appreciating the Science.'
WELL SAID!

Anaconda said...

Suzannah,

Thanks :-)

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

I believe that we might all agree that only by publishing what may be factual, can we truly encompass those and other facts and arrive at a correct theory of application to areas other than those specific facts, a scientific theory in other words. By publishing widely, OIM is doing us all a service, even those who might oppose him, as those who love to learn, love correction.
Stifling debate and publication because theories may then look stupid or incomplete, is to deny challenge to those theories and allows any error in them to continue to pollute science. It requires a little courage to challenge what some say is established but what others say is a working theory, subject to new verified facts and observations.
You are logically inconsistent, Jeffrey, if you truly believe what you wrote.
Diminishing new facts that disturb a working theory may discourage finding new facts. Your words may cause less investigation, yet you say you favour scientific progress? Is it your judgement that this publication is of no significance at all? I'd like to know your reasoning?

Jeffery Keown said...

I'm not inconsistant. I do admit to a certain amount of personal bias.

We all have a point we stand on in these matters, everyone more open is on one side, and everyone more hidebound is on the other. We often see ourselves as right in the middle, along with every reasonable person. No one thinks of themselves as a loony, do they?

In my opinion, Oils gives too much credence to discredited theories, fringe science and nonsense. He feels the same way about me; with his use of words like occultism, mythology, and dogma to describe numerous theories that match our best observations.

I mean, an open mind is great, so long as it's not so open that your brain falls out.

As I've said, I'd love to see some of this proven... especially in living, non-avian dinosaurs. Does anyone realize how amazingly cool that would be?

Every Oils needs a Jeffery. Without us Jefferies, none of the Oils would get any work done.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

"Every Oils needs a Jeffery. Without us Jefferies, none of the Oils would get any work done."

So true Jeffery. I am very happy to have you here and critique.

"Ignorance is always ready to admire itself. Procure yourself critical friends." -- Nicolas Boileau, poet/critic, 1674

diatreme said...

James Fasset's 2002 article published in GSA SP356 can be read with this link at Google Scholar:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZaIO8wl_OZIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0