• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buzz lightyear and the JREF Challenge

OMGturt1es said:
Why do you think that's a "comfy sleeping hole"? I don't understand.
Click to expand...

These "comfy sleeping holes" are a common feature of this critters habitat. They conform to the shape of the creature fairly well.
They are usually found just under high spots at the top of cliffs like this one.



But what I am really looking for, is formations like this one at the Sete Cidades national park in Brazil.



Have you seen anything like it?
 
buzz lightyear said:
Hey Tricky, you still a geologist?

If you are, how about you wrap your book learning around this little gem and hit me with your 50 cents worth on how it came about.

Its a little number I took some pics of during this years mid winter dragon hunt.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14323485dbb4d38af3.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14323485dbb7be628d.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14323485dbc11e1eca.jpg[/URL]

But look, if it is too tricky, dont worry about it:D
Click to expand...
Looks like a regular old rock ledge, probably sandstone or limestone. Differential erosion from drainage patterns or hard streaks in the rock leads to irregular "jags". Often things like this get names like "Indian head rock" or whatever they resemble. This one, from Carlesbad caverns is called "Bashful Elephant", but it's not really an elephant.
 

Attachments

  • bashful elephant.jpg
    bashful elephant.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 4
buzz lightyear said:
These "comfy sleeping holes" are a common feature of this critters habitat. They conform to the shape of the creature fairly well.
They are usually found just under high spots at the top of cliffs like this one.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1432348621738ad38c.jpg[/URL]

But what I am really looking for, is formations like this one at the Sete Cidades national park in Brazil.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_14323486217d5390b7.jpg[/URL]

Have you seen anything like it?
Click to expand...
The first one looks like a large rock which fractured. The smooth, lunate curves are typical of this kind of break. This sort of thing is common as dirt.

The second resembles the same kind of tessellated sandstone we discussed earlier. No need to go over this again.
 
buzz lightyear said:
Main Entry: con·ten·tious [URL]http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif[/URL] Pronunciation: \kən-ˈten(t)-shəs\ Function: adjective Date: 15th century 1 : likely to cause contention <a contentious argument> 2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes <a man of a most contentious nature> synonyms see belligerent

— con·ten·tious·ly adverb
— con·ten·tious·ness noun

....................................

After all we have been through...........contentious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am hurt, truly hurt:D
Click to expand...
I'm glad you learned a new word. You're a bright lad. Why are you so resistant to learning geology, when it is obvious you love nature? Believe me, the real stories of rock origins is so much more fascinating than tales of fantasy.
 
HERE'S PROOF!!!
godzilla_4.jpg

Yes, the giant serpent walks among us!!!
 
Almo said:
Just looks like some odd rock formations to me.
Click to expand...
Some are rare, others are common. Rock formations are fascinating things that are created by a myriad of geological processes. Common geometric patterns are easy to find. Geologists spend lifetimes trying to explain them, often with some or even great success. But to date, I'm unaware of any scientific following for the "silicon serpent poop" origin of any formation. I admit, I haven't read all the recent literature.
 
Maybe it's because before visiting this thread I read a long one about evolution, but when looking at the 1st picture, I was expecting a comment about how them rocks appeared to be one mounting the other :o
 
Molinaro said:
Maybe it's because before visiting this thread I read a long one about evolution, but when looking at the 1st picture, I was expecting a comment about how them rocks appeared to be one mounting the other :o
Click to expand...

Ha, Ha, Ha,,,,,,,,,,,,,LOL.
Molinaro you have made my day.
After almost 2 years of grinding away on this forum I was almost about to quit in despair, and then you came up with this gem.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart!

You are absolutely correct in your observation.
You can see them cant you, the two serpent heads, one on top of the other.
This is exactly what they meant to represent.

I will explain:
If you had read any of my previous ramblings you would have seen that I stated that each of these sites pertained to a particular activity of the creature. Feeding, shedding skins, resting etc.

Well Pearl Beach just happens to be the mating site.
And as the critter left records of its activities and thoughts in the landscape it created, so it left a sculpture of it locked in its nuptial embrace on the rock shelf above Pearl beach.

Thank you Molinaro, thank you :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:)
 
Tricky said:
I'm glad you learned a new word. You're a bright lad. Why are you so resistant to learning geology, when it is obvious you love nature? Believe me, the real stories of rock origins is so much more fascinating than tales of fantasy.
Click to expand...

Couldn't let this thread die without at least addressing this post ,Tricky.

Don't you find it just a little ironical that you push the "geology" book learning thing as some "be all", when it was the absence of this that allowed James Hutton to make his original observations.

He was just an interested person that saw what was there, no preconceived ideas. And he is reputed to be the father of the geology that you push.

Can you see what you are doing?
You look at a formation, cast you "knowledge" over it, compare it with something you know about, and call it quits. No questioning or thought.
As a geologist, Hutton would be ashamed of you.

Look at this:


You say you have explained this all before. Well lets recap.

Dried mud!
No mud ever dried consistently in a heap 20 meters high......Debunked!

Stress relieved formation!
The stress would have been relieved at different rates down the heap not producing a uniform pattern........Debunked!

And lastly the old "natural" weathering.
Look at the bottom of the formation. See what "natural" weathering is doing, its just randomly falling apart..........Debunked!

Come on Tricky, you are supposed to be a skeptic, be one!
Be skeptical of the current geology beliefs, just as Hutton was..........THINK!
 
Last edited:
Your posts are truly astonishing Buzz Lightyear.

Absolutely and utterly astonishing.
 
Why are there quotation marks around natural weathering? Is there no natural weathering?

Does folding exist either?
800px-Millook_cliffs_enh.jpg
 
Naughtyhippo said:
Why are there quotation marks around natural weathering? Is there no natural weathering?

Does folding exist either?
Click to expand...

Holy mashed up rock, Naughtyhippo.
That bit of old sediment has been to hell and back. Call it folding if you like, Id say its more like it has been fractured and then pushed back together.

The first set of quotation marks were because the brains trust here have been trying to argue that the forces of wind and water produced formations like this.



The same "rock" under the same conditions, one is heavily patterned, the other is not.................natural?

The second set of quotation marks were a mistake. I was rushing to get to work.

And thanks schlitt, if I can progress from this geology bit I could get into some really interesting stuff.
 
buzz lightyear said:
Holy mashed up rock, Naughtyhippo.
That bit of old sediment has been to hell and back. Call it folding if you like, Id say its more like it has been fractured and then pushed back together.

The first set of quotation marks were because the brains trust here have been trying to argue that the forces of wind and water produced formations like this.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_143234869f3c832194.jpg[/qimg]

The same "rock" under the same conditions, one is heavily patterned, the other is not.................natural?
Click to expand...

Ummm, okay. I find it telling that you have also put rock in quotation marks, but hey, I am not a practicing geologist. For starters, if the weathering is different; then perhaps they are NOT the same rock?

buzz lightyear said:
The second set of quotation marks were a mistake. I was rushing to get to work.

And thanks schlitt, if I can progress from this geology bit I could get into some really interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

I can accept that you are postulating that what I learnt about strata formation and deformation is incorrect. I would enjoy hearing about some really interesting stuff.
 
Naughtyhippo said:
I would enjoy hearing about some really interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
I feel I should warn you that, going on past experiences, enjoy would not be the word you are looking for; be mildly amused, confused, frustrated, eventually irritated, and almost certainly not at all convinced by, but most likely not enjoy. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom