Originally posted by Abigail

He didnt say very much in his write-up other than to post a picture and say the guy needed money when he sold the thing. I want to know things like why it is not possible the claw impressions were missing because the dinosaur was running, possibly chasing the man to eat him (maybe that's why the man's toe print is so deep - a quick cornering manoevre to get away).

Dr.GH covered this in post #23 when he noted that “when one track overprints another, there is an unavoidable ‘kickup’” and there is absolutely no indication of this which there should be if the tracks were authentic. This effect would be even more pronounced if the creatures responsible for the tracks were running. You can see this for yourself if you find a patch of muddy ground walk over it to leave some prints and then run over the same area stepping on top of some of your earlier prints. You’ll also notice that the first prints get distorted when stepped on as well which is yet another thing we don’t see here. These prints look as if those who made them carefully left the marks like you would if you wanted to leave prints in wet cement.

Further, Myers article did more than point out that the guy who “found” the print was in need of money, he also points out problems with both the alleged man track and dino track.

Transparent fakery

Unfortunately, they both look ridiculously fake. The human print has toes like tubes and a wierdly dug-in big toe, and looks ridiculously fake. The dino print is even worse — it's basically a three-pronged flat plate, looking like it was modeled after the smooth bottoms of a plastic dinosaur toy. Here, for instance is a photo of a cast of an actual dinosaur print.


Source

---

© source where applicable

Further, the comments section contains numerous observations amidst the sarcastic comments like this: “Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't limestone typically form under rather a large quantity of water?” raising the question of just how such footprints could possibly have been laid down in the first place.

I'm curious as to what the resident scientists have to say about this statement by Dr. Baugh:

[Baugh] took it to a medical lab at Glen Rose Medical Center, where he said 800 X-rays were performed in a CT scan procedure.

Baugh said the scans prove that the impressions are real and could not have been carved or etched into the stone.

“The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”

Originally posted by Steviepinhead

I'm not talking about the part of the arch that makes a print, dear person, I'm talking about the high part of the arch, that doesn't. That's the part that's on the big toe side, not the part that's on the little toe side...


D'oh. No fooling. But the big toe on this "foot" isn't just "relatively" shorter, it's much too short.

Dream on.


But why are the inner joints of each of the smaller toes visible and that of the big toe not. You can't just wave it away. What's the reason "on the ground" why the mud would accept the imprint of the other toes, and then leave this outlandish and obviously fake "big toe" looking the way it does.

Well, you have personal experience both with mutation and variation between generations. Don't give up! You're part way there! And, given that variation between generations, there may indeed be some hope for your daughter's intelligence. Failing that, maybe she'll be lucky enough to marry a podiatrist.


If only I'd made that assumption. And if only you could demonstrate it. I did, however, make the more reasonable assumption, given the odds of a fossil print even being made in the first place, that the critter making the print would most likely fall within the bell-curve for human feet, rather than assuming that the one and only foot-print left by all those humans living in Dino-time was a mutant with feet well out in the tail of the bell-curve.


Segovia had a big long thumb on his "fingerboard" hand, too. Rod Laver, the long-time Aussie tennis champ, had a grotesquely large forearm on his racket side. But, again, the odds are not on for the one-and-only, already-long-odds-to-be-preserved track to be that of a mutant oddball. But, again, it's good to know that you are aware of the wide range of variation available for natural selection to work on in the real world...


Yes, ma'am. Again, points for realization of the broad variation available within even a species like ours, with relatively little genetic variation compared to many...


Nope. But keep trying if you've got any really cool info.


Ah, good. Maybe your toes really do signal intelligence, after all.

I don't "believe" in evolution. The evidence is so overwhelming that only the faithful are able to systematically ignore it. Nor do I care for your "assumption" that assumptions or a different worldview account for the different reactions to that evidence.

But I do wish you joy of your daughter (not as sure about the sister...).

Well, aren't you just all nice and sweet!



I never said I don't think there is great diversity in nature. How you got that from my post, I will never know.

I posted in response to your implied thinking that everybody who ever existed has the same shaped feet, joints and all. I was merely giving you examples in my own family of differences.

Your post made it seem like you thought that because of certain characteristics of that footprint that were different from "normal" footprints, it couldn't be real.

You could be correct. I guess I should have simply asked, "What's a normal foot look like?"

Originally posted by superdan54

I'm curious as to what the resident scientists have to say about this statement by Dr. Baugh:

I say: prepare the results for publication in the requisite journal (e.g. Nature), and after achieving primacy of publication, make the unedited data used in the publication available to all researchers. (I assume the scans were digitally recorded. If not, they can be re-done on a scanner with this capability.)

-Neil

Originally posted by rogue06

Dr.GH covered this in post #23 when he noted that “when one track overprints another, there is an unavoidable ‘kickup’” and there is absolutely no indication of this which there should be if the tracks were authentic. This effect would be even more pronounced if the creatures responsible for the tracks were running. You can see this for yourself if you find a patch of muddy ground walk over it to leave some prints and then run over the same area stepping on top of some of your earlier prints. You’ll also notice that the first prints get distorted when stepped on as well which is yet another thing we don’t see here. These prints look as if those who made them carefully left the marks like you would if you wanted to leave prints in wet cement.

Further, Myers article did more than point out that the guy who “found” the print was in need of money, he also points out problems with both the alleged man track and dino track.

Transparent fakery

Unfortunately, they both look ridiculously fake. The human print has toes like tubes and a wierdly dug-in big toe, and looks ridiculously fake. The dino print is even worse — it's basically a three-pronged flat plate, looking like it was modeled after the smooth bottoms of a plastic dinosaur toy. Here, for instance is a photo of a cast of an actual dinosaur print.


Source

---

© source where applicable

Further, the comments section contains numerous observations amidst the sarcastic comments like this: “Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't limestone typically form under rather a large quantity of water?” raising the question of just how such footprints could possibly have been laid down in the first place.

Everyone seems to be commenting on the flatness of the dinosaur print and the lack of claws. If these are so obviously necessities then surely someone who had collected fossils would know to put these in his fake. My opinion is that I wont write the thing off on the say-so of people who say something could never be because we just dont see this blah blah and yet they havent actually handled the thing and seen if it is fake.

The origins of some of these footprints www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/portdino.htm were not so obvious at first but no-one just said 'they're fakes'


I agree with NielUnreal and hope the print is given for inspection to 'independent geological researchers'

I can assure you even though I am a creationist I wouldnt not want a fake posing as something real

Originally posted by rogue06

I think Mossy is trying to tell us that the print is her's.

If it's a genuine print, she's certainly old enough for it to be.

I don't "believe" in evolution. The evidence is so overwhelming that only the faithful are able to systematically ignore it.

Sackhead!


I enjoyed investigating the Paluxy river sites (thanks for the links, rogue06!). My favourite was the case where, rather than accept that a print might be human, scientists invented a whole new method of dinosaur locomotion! Nevertheless, if the tracks in this thread are genuine, I would also expect to see the fossilized human remains of severed limbs, half-chewed intestines and maybe a decapitated head. Or perhaps the human in question got such a fright when he saw the dino coming that his toes curled, hence the indentation!

A creationist faking evidence is indeed deplorable, but scientists do it all the time - especially when their grant is under review.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

A creationist faking evidence is indeed deplorable, but scientists do it all the time - especially when their grant is under review.

Bullcrap. Back this up or retract this vile slur on the scientific community.

BTW one or two examples out of the millions of working scientist does not constitute "scientists do this all the time", any more than a documented case of a priest molesting a child means the catholic clergy molests children all the time.

- T

erm. If someone was faking footprints, why would they bother to fake the human print? it's not as if they don't have access to a real human foot to use or anything. I can see faking the dino print, but why bother with the human one. why not use a real human foot? The prints are obviously NOT carved, since that would leave tool marks.

Remember the human foot was not just planted, it was a foot in motion, rocking from heal to toe in mud. That will distort the print and even cause the big toe to go deeper and push back some of the mud toward the foot pad as the foot left the print, squishing the area between the toe and the foot down. Plus remember mud is elastic and sticks to the foot, so when you remove your foot from the mud, it will pull toward the foot and can distort the print more.

Originally posted by Tiggy

Bullcrap. Back this up or retract this vile slur on the scientific community.

Are you saying this never happens? Secondly, since he thinks it to be true based on whatever few facts, you would have no grounds for a case of libel.

And thirdly, I am of the opinion that the footprints are fake.

Originally posted by superdan54

I'm curious as to what the resident scientists have to say about this statement by Dr. Baugh:

At the risk of sounding like I’m attacking the messenger and ignoring the message itself (which I have directly addressed in posts #6, 14 & 33) it should be noted that Baugh is regarded as a pariah in much of the YEC community for his way-out and completely unsubstantiated claims that have brought embarrassment and ridicule upon their cause. That’s right, some YECs think he has actually damaged their credibility!

Furthermore, in the “Which arguments should definitely not be used” section of AnswersinGenesis’ (AiG) Arguments we think creationists should NOT use we find the claim “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.” While AiG still insists that humans and dinosaurs once lived together they recognize that the Paluxy tracks are not authentic. Even the more extreme Creationwiki begrudgingly admits that as to Paluxy demonstrating that man and dinosaurs co-existed: “The evidence for this does not stand scrutiny at the present time,” and refer to Carl Baugh’s “creation ‘evidences’” as being “Not scientifically sound.”

And here is an article from Christiananswers.net called “Creationism and the Paluxy Controversy: Part 1: History of the Paluxy controversy and some questions on method concerning Glen Rose creationist Carl Baugh: A caution to Christians.”

Originally posted by Tiggy

Bullcrap. Back this up or retract this vile slur on the scientific community.

BTW one or two examples out of the millions of working scientist does not constitute "scientists do this all the time", any more than a documented case of a priest molesting a child means the catholic clergy molests children all the time.

- T

To a limited extent I agree with Moose here. Scientists are people and subject to the same human failings and weaknesses as everyone else (look at the Korean cloning fiasco for instance). Having said that, what Moose fails to understand is the self-correcting nature of science that enables other scientists to spot cases of fraud and eventually weed them out.

Originally posted by Sparko

erm. If someone was faking footprints, why would they bother to fake the human print? it's not as if they don't have access to a real human foot to use or anything. I can see faking the dino print, but why bother with the human one. why not use a real human foot? The prints are obviously NOT carved, since that would leave tool marks.

Remember the human foot was not just planted, it was a foot in motion, rocking from heal to toe in mud. That will distort the print and even cause the big toe to go deeper and push back some of the mud toward the foot pad as the foot left the print, squishing the area between the toe and the foot down. Plus remember mud is elastic and sticks to the foot, so when you remove your foot from the mud, it will pull toward the foot and can distort the print more.

The reason you would fake such a print is to provide evidence in support of the contention that dinosaurs and humans onced co-existed and validate such idiocy as displaying dinosaurs as wearing saddles in their museums.

As to "obviously NOT carved" none of the pictures provide clear enough detail to make any sort of definitive statement. Having removed more than a few fossils from their matrix of sedimentary stone that encases it, I'm pretty confident that I could probably produce something of similar quality (if not better) if properly motivated (i.e., in dire need of money and with a gullible buyer at hand - though my personal ethics would forbid me from doind so).

Your comment about the different type of print the foot leaves depending on how fast the maker was moving is valid. It's just that it is one of the many things causing people to question this thing. The print looks like someone carefully stepped in the mud with the deliberate intention of leaving a print.

As I've already recommended, the next time you come across some muddy ground, run over it twice barefoot (the second time being sure to step on the first prints) and see what you get. It won't much resemble this thing.

I don't mean to address this last bit specifically at you Sparko but it amazes me that so many YECs will immediately label a new fossil a potential fraud (especially if it is Chinese &/or displays transitional features) and then condemn everyone else for being skeptical of something that has so many obvious difficulties.

Originally posted by rogue06

At the risk of sounding like I’m attacking the messenger and ignoring the message itself (which I have directly addressed in posts #6, 14 & 33) it should be noted that Baugh is regarded as a pariah in much of the YEC community for his way-out and completely unsubstantiated claims that have brought embarrassment and ridicule upon their cause. That’s right, some YECs think he has actually damaged their credibility!

Furthermore, in the “Which arguments should definitely not be used” section of AnswersinGenesis’ (AiG) Arguments we think creationists should NOT use we find the claim “Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.” While AiG still insists that humans and dinosaurs once lived together they recognize that the Paluxy tracks are not authentic. Even the more extreme Creationwiki begrudgingly admits that as to Paluxy demonstrating that man and dinosaurs co-existed: “The evidence for this does not stand scrutiny at the present time,” and refer to Carl Baugh’s “creation ‘evidences’” as being “Not scientifically sound.”

And here is an article from Christiananswers.net called “Creationism and the Paluxy Controversy: Part 1: History of the Paluxy controversy and some questions on method concerning Glen Rose creationist Carl Baugh: A caution to Christians.”

Thanks rogue, however I'm not concerned with Dr. Baugh's credibility, per se, as I am very familiar with him and already put him on the same level as Kent Hovind. I just wanted to know if there was any scientific legitimacy regarding his statment about CAT scans revealing compression in the limestone as a result of a footprint.

Originally posted by superdan54

I'm curious as to what the resident scientists have to say about this statement by Dr. Baugh:

[Baugh] took it to a medical lab at Glen Rose Medical Center, where he said 800 X-rays were performed in a CT scan procedure.

Baugh said the scans prove that the impressions are real and could not have been carved or etched into the stone.

“The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”

First of all, a medical CAT scan uses a lower energy beam than could be useful on a sandy limestone. That is why real paleontologists use industrial facilities. The University of Houston has a laboratory that has many years of experience. This points to the next problem; a medical facility is not staffed by palentologists or geophysicists. Baugh has no accredited degrees either. He wouldn't know "compression lines" from his own dandruff. However, you don't even need more than the photograph on Baugh's website to see that this is a fake.

I downloaded the photo at full resolution. If you closely examine the photo, you will easily see that there are sandy lenses in the rock; four are visible in the exposed rock between the "toes" of the dinosuar print. Now look at the "human print," paricularly the area of the little toe. You will see (with a little magnification) that the top most layer is penetrated by the "toe" and not compressed, and the second layer is partially exposed.

Returning to the "dinosuar" print, there is no compression folding of the sandy layers between the toes which is interesting. First, there must have been if this were a legitimate track. However, there appears to me to be evidence of removeal of material from between the central and the medial "toe" as well as along the top edge of the "track."

There also appears to be a patina coating the bottom of the basin. This has two interesting features. First, it is pealing and cracking. This is not appropriate to a real patina. Second, the patina appears in parts of the basin and not others, nor does it appear consistantly in the "human toe prints."

(If this were a video game walkthrough, I would place a big Warning: Cheat Follows ).

Here is how to fake a patina that will look like this fake fossil: Brush the surface with vinegar, and then sprinkle with baking powder followed by baking soda, and let dry. Repeat until you are happy with the results. This is not the only way, or even the best way. But it is simple, and will fool the average fool. Especially easy if they want to be fooled.

So, having spent a little bit more time on the photo of this fake, I feel that I understand a bit more about how it was produced. A legitimate dinosaur track was found and removed. Incompetent, unprofessional "Cleaning" damaged it. An parital overprint, or simple erosion depression was "improved" by adding "toes." The faked surfaces were smothed over with a simple kitchen concoction to make a "patina." Artifact fabricators next bury the fake for a year or two, or they smear it with fertilizer and leave it exposed. This helps weather the object and obscure tool marks.