Skip to comments.Archaeopteryx: X-rays shine new light on mystery 'bird'
Posted on 05/22/2014 2:17:38 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Using a new "camera obscura" technique - inspired by Leonardo da Vinci - scientists have captured some of the clearest ever images of Archaeopteryx.
For the first time, they can see the complete skeleton in 3D. Not just the surface outlines, but all the hidden bones and feathers too.
They hope to discover how "the first true birds" evolved from feathered dinosaurs and took flight.
And what's more, to answer a riddle that has puzzled palaeontologists for 150 years. Could Archaeopteryx fly, or not?
In the past, large fossil slabs were too bulky to be scanned in a synchrotron light source - a type of particle accelerator which generates high-energy X-rays.
But now scientists here are experimenting with a clever new trick, inspired by a very ancient and simple idea - the pinhole camera
... In a synchrotron, the pinhole system allows large fossils - too bulky to be rotated and scanned via conventional techniques (such as tomography) - to be captured in full by an extremely narrow X-ray beam.
"It's a beam that's only the thickness of a human hair. But extremely powerful. If you stood in front of it you would be killed," says Dr Paul Tafforeau, a palaeontologist at ESRF.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
Undoubtedly, that could fly! But only if you fermented up a batch of wild berries and distilled them sufficiently before happy hour!
Looks like a turkey with mange.
He probably could glide in any event.
a synchrotron... If you stood in front of it you would be killed
Synchrotron on kill.
Prehistoric yard bird.
Alhazen beat Leonardo to the optics involved a few hundred years earlier.
Some days the chicken eats you!
We’d need one of the FRenginners to weigh in on it.
The answer may be that range could be increased by putting more feeding it the ray.
But, would it kill quickly enough to be useful?
turkey-lurkey was right, the sky did fall, who knew,
“Nice to met you, (what did you say your name was...) Colonel Sanders!”
Note: this topic is from 5/22/2014. Thanks BenLurkin.
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor
The Missing Link that Wasn’t National Geographic’s ‘Bird Dinosaur’ Flew Against the Facts
many many more, its a hoax.
“It’s a beam that’s only the thickness of a human hair. But extremely powerful. If you stood in front of it you would be killed,”
I need this fore the neighborhood teenagers!
You must be joking.
Most likely a runner rather than a flyer.....
The feather imprints of the London Archaeopteryx fossil specimen were forged. Evidence for this is that
- the feather impressions appear only on the slab, not on the counterslab.
- the surface texture is different between the feathered and unfeathered areas;
- slightly elevated “blobs” appear which are not always matched by depressions on the counterslab;
-the feathers show “double strike” impressions.
-Hairline cracks which pass through both bones and feathers could have formed by slight movements to the slab after the cement was in place.
- Under magnification, the limestone appears different in fossil and non-fossil areas of the specimen.
=Unknown material appears within the matrix in the fossil area.
= An x-ray chemical analysis showed chemical differences, including silicon, sulfur, and chlorine in the fossil area that were not present in the non-fossil area.
“These points indicate that the feather impressions were made by someone impressing feathers in a cement-like matrix that was added to the stone. Without the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be identified as the dinosaur Compsognathus, not as a transitional fossil.”
= Watkins, R.S.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C.; Watkins, J.; Rabilizirov, R. & Spetner, L.M., 1985a. Archaeopteryx - a photographic study. British Journal of Photography 132: 264-266.
-Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985b. Archaeopteryx - a further comment. British Journal of Photography 132: 358-359,367.
=Watkins, R.S. et al., 1985c. Archaeopteryx - more evidence. British Journal of Photography 132: 468-470.
-Hoyle, Fred, Wickramasinghe, N.C. and Watkins, R.S., 1985. Archaeopteryx: Problems arise — and a motive. British Journal of Photography 132(6516): 693-695,703.
= Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra, 1987. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
-Spetner, L.M.; Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N.C. & Magaritz, M., 1988. Archaeopteryx - more evidence for a forgery. British Journal of Photography 135: 14-17.
Sorry. Not buying it.
How do you ‘evolve’ feather that would EVENTUALLY allow you to fly?
Unless you sprout a set of full wings, anything less would be a detriment to your health and safety
I’ve heard the same argument for evolution of eyes - a bump turns into a ‘shadow sensor’ which evolves into a hole then closes up to form a pinhole camera and then grows a covering which grows an eye..
But at the intermediate steps you would have a hole that collects dirt and prone to infections which would probably hurt, no?
Ancient turtles had teeth, too. Now, not so much.
Back when everything was giant sized having big teeth and lots of ‘em was probably a really big deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.