Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,570 Year: 4,827/9,624 Month: 175/427 Week: 88/85 Day: 5/20 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 62 (391466)
03-25-2007 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by CTD
03-25-2007 3:24 AM


Re: Totally OT
I agree it is totally OT - please start a new thread - then you can define the topic.
This is the second time you have brought up something off topic by implication in your arguments while failing to address the issues of the topic.
I fail to see anything this has to do with footprints in the paluxy river, other than being a creationist attempt at distraction.
Can we get back to the issue of facts on tracks and footprint fakes and footloose fraud?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CTD, posted 03-25-2007 3:24 AM CTD has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 47 of 62 (391623)
03-26-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RAZD
03-23-2007 7:53 PM


Thank you. Perhapse I will not speak with the geologist, for the moment, thank you anyway.
However, it doesn't seem easy to found another image of the "man footprint", which shows better its shape, and if in the nearness there are other similar prints or not (olso if it is very unlikely since otherwise one supposes they would have been photographed).
The most strange thing is (I think) that the print is alone, so I suppose that it could have been really carved by someone.
..... bye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2007 7:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Footprint, posted 03-26-2007 3:02 PM Footprint has not replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2007 10:21 PM Footprint has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 48 of 62 (391624)
03-26-2007 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Footprint
03-26-2007 2:50 PM


Also if, observing the print very closely, couldn't be possible to see some mark left by the chisel used for carving the rock?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Footprint, posted 03-26-2007 2:50 PM Footprint has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 49 of 62 (391708)
03-26-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
03-25-2007 7:22 AM


Re: Totally Evasive and off topic
RAZD writes:
Yeah, I'd like to see it too. It is off topic here and this is the second attempt by CTD to deflect this topic from discussions of the validity of the "human" footprints in the paluxy river.
ps - MM could prove a geocentric earth ... Thread Flat Earth Theory
I deny making any such attempt. That has never been my intention. Any who would evaluate the issue need only read through the thread.
What I think has happened is that people feel compelled to dispute at every opportunity. Rather than agree that double-standards are bad, and note that they disagree with my interpretation of history when I give examples that should be fairly well known in this community; persons choose to directly challenge my examples, as if others aren't readily available.
Note that whether or not my interpretation of specific events is correct, it still does not justify the employment of double standards. So what's really the point behind these challenges?
Footprint, you are correct. A chisel, a contemporary 'Dremel'-type tool, or any other instrument would leave at least microscopic evidence (at least if there's any truthful basis at all for those stupid CSI TV shows). I don't know for sure if a sophisticated laser could theoretically do the trick without leaving telltale signs. It is arrogant to state that we're smart enough to detect absolutely all methods of forgery, but this problem applies to all types of physical evidence.
I still get "Page not found" when I try to use the link in the first post. Perhaps, just to play it safe, I should narrowly interpret this thread as addressing that print alone. In that case, I have nothing further to add until I know specifically which print is being discussed. I note that nobody has yet employed such a strict interpretation, and in the RAZD quote above the term 'footprints' is plural. RAZD also says validity is an issue, so I don't think it was inappropriate for me to discuss validity. Or was I inappropriately competent when I did so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2007 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2007 10:42 PM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 62 (391711)
03-26-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Footprint
03-26-2007 2:50 PM


However, it doesn't seem easy to found another image of the "man footprint", which shows better its shape, and if in the nearness there are other similar prints or not (olso if it is very unlikely since otherwise one supposes they would have been photographed).
The most strange thing is (I think) that the print is alone, so I suppose that it could have been really carved by someone.
Message 48
Also if, observing the print very closely, couldn't be possible to see some mark left by the chisel used for carving the rock?
There are chisel marks on the "Burdick Print"
The closest I found on google images was an Erich von Dniken photo where the proportions look funny and "Dino tracks" is plural and "Man track" is singular ... and the space between the prints is different.
http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html
If the print is real, shouldn't there be several different pictures of it? Wouldn't it be prominently shown on many of the creationist websites?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Footprint, posted 03-26-2007 2:50 PM Footprint has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 62 (391713)
03-26-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by CTD
03-26-2007 9:21 PM


Re: Totally Evasive and off topic
I deny making any such attempt.
You introduced MM into this topic. It has absolutely no bearing on Paluxy River footprints. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Paluxy River footprints.
I still get "Page not found" when I try to use the link in the first post.
The first post was made in 2002 - the most likely conclusion is that the website no longer exists or has been moved.
A chisel, a contemporary 'Dremel'-type tool, or any other instrument would leave at least microscopic evidence (at least if there's any truthful basis at all for those stupid CSI TV shows). I don't know for sure if a sophisticated laser could theoretically do the trick without leaving telltale signs. It is arrogant to state that we're smart enough to detect absolutely all methods of forgery, but this problem applies to all types of physical evidence.
There IS evidence of forgery in the "Burdick" print.
So why don't the authors of the sites with those photos of "human" footprints take scientists to them to see if they can find such evidence? Let the evidence stand if it is valid eh?
and in the RAZD quote above the term 'footprints' is plural.
Because the more common references to "man tracks" really concern dinosaur tracks that are (miss)called "man tracks" -- read Glen Kuban's article where he shows these to be dinosaur tracks.
RAZD also says validity is an issue, so I don't think it was inappropriate for me to discuss validity.
You did not address the issue of validity of the footprints but went off on a tangent involving physics and then try to lump all of science under one umbrella.
Or was I inappropriately competent when I did so?
Where did you discuss the validity of the footprints?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by CTD, posted 03-26-2007 9:21 PM CTD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by pseudotruth, posted 06-14-2007 6:13 PM RAZD has replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 52 of 62 (391818)
03-27-2007 3:51 PM


We are primarily discussing the "human" print that you can see in the image on page 1 of this topic (in message number 12).
I asked if someone knew some more information about this print, because the shape of the "human" print is extremely more "human" that all the other prints I have seen on the web about the Paluxy river, (for exemple at Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS).
Furthermore, strangely, reading something of J. Kuban, (at http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm that is the most complete critic site that I've found on this argument) I have not found anything about this print.
The image in message 12 cames from Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah and from | www.ZILLMER.com | Die Evolutionslüge |, section "gallery".
"There are chisel marks on the "Burdick Print"" Ok.
There are a lot of human prints that seem very real (like the zapata track and others, http://paleo.cc/paluxy/zapata.htm) but this image could be more important, because it is close to a dino print.
The image posted by RAZD, in message 50, seems an image of another print, similar but not equal. How RAZD said, the space between the prints is different, in addition respect to the image "number 1" (message 12) (I don't know how to copy it here), the toe at the right in the dino print (left in the image) is bigger. And the other two toes are different respect to image "number 1".
So it seems to me a new image.
What do you think, where was it picked up?
Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.
Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 03-27-2007 4:06 PM Footprint has not replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2007 9:17 PM Footprint has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34046
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 53 of 62 (391822)
03-27-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Footprint
03-27-2007 3:51 PM


What do you think, where was it picked up?
In the same place almost ALL such evidence is picked up. In Photoshop.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Footprint, posted 03-27-2007 3:51 PM Footprint has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 54 of 62 (391885)
03-27-2007 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Footprint
03-27-2007 3:51 PM


The image in message 12 cames from Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah and from | www.ZILLMER.com | Die Evolutionslüge |, section "gallery".
Those are two copies of the same picture - the water stains and shadows are the same and there is a string down the line of the dino prints that goes over the prints in the same places. Interestingly one has more bottom and the other has more top, so the original picture is not used in either case.
images originally from sites
Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiah
Galerie
I don't think this picture is 'photoshopped' as it is claimed to come from Dr. Cecil N. Dougherty in the 60's and 70's, but the one one the right may have been "colorized" (there is a "funny blue" rock on the ledge at the top). One wonders why one (1) 40ish year old picture is all the evidence there is of this print.
Out of interest I googled {Dr. Cecil N. Dougherty} and only got two links, both in German, and they do not address what his degree is in, and both lump him with Erich von Daeniken (Chariots of the Gods) and who's work is questionable at best (see ancient astronauts - von Daniken - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com)
quote:
Where is the proof for von Dniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Dniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)!
(color mine for emphasis)
So it seems to me a new image.

This other print I posted is from von Daniken, noted above for faking evidence, and so I don't count him as a credible source for anything.
The proportions of the "human" print are different from the one above, the rock features between the prints are different, so it cannot be of the same print - if it is real.
One thing I note about these pictures is that the prints have been enhanced in contrast by putting water on the print areas, and on the von Daniken picture it looks more like the toes are "painted" in place than actual features in the rock.
It is also quite possible that the von Daniken picture is faked like the pottery pictures were.
That also does not prevent either of these two prints being "enhancements" of what Glen J. Kuban (not J. Kuban) has shown to be metatarsal prints:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
quote:
The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/onheel.htm
quote:
The West site turned out to be a veritable showcase of elongate dinosaur tracks and their variations. Besides containing many normal digitigrade dinosaur tracks, including some exceptionally long-strided "running" trails, the site contained several trails comprised primarily of metatarsal tracks of varying quality. Within individual trackways one could see typical digitigrade dinosaur tracks, distinct metatarsal tracks (with a well defined "heel" and three clear digit marks), as well as indistinct (mostly mud-collapsed) metatarsal tracks that appeared more humanlike. The site (which has since been named for Al West) clearly illustrated that a single dinosaur was capable of making multiple track types, including elongate prints similar to ones called "human" elsewhere. It also demonstrated that certain dinosaurs would sometimes alternate between a digitigrade and plantigrade (or quasi-plantigrade) walking gait (Kuban, 1986a, 1986d, 1986e).
Sketch made by author in fall of 1980, proposing what a clearer example of a metarsal dinosaur track would look like, and how such tracks may look superficially human-like when the digits are indistinct.
Other "man tracks" were vague, shallow, often isolated depressions (not in striding trails), with only a remote resemblance to human footprints. One set of "toe marks" were composed of an invertebrate burrow system (made by ancient worms or crustaceans). Other alleged "toes" were small notches or grooves at the margins of vague depressions, formed by selectively abrading or pushing into firm marl (limy clay) left at the margins of incompletely cleaned depressions, or gouging at friable portions of the limestone. Often this was done under the pretense of "uncovering" toes; such misconduct by Baugh was repeatedly witnessed by myself, Alfred West and others present at the site, and can be seen in one of Baugh’s own video tapes (Baugh, 1982).
(color mine for empHASis)
So one or two could have been carved in the riverbed, and not necessarily into the rock to be visible (and those would not last long, so pictures would be few).
"There are chisel marks on the "Burdick Print"" Ok.
There are also other features that show the print was carved into the rock - truncated elements in the foot area - and evidence that the footprint is in the bottom side of the rock for the orientation when it was formed. If you can figure out how to walk on the underside of a sedimentarly layer with it as a ceiling before hardening please let me know eh?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added al west site info

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Footprint, posted 03-27-2007 3:51 PM Footprint has not replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 55 of 62 (392166)
03-29-2007 3:26 PM


Post #12 print, etc
The "click to enlarge" print from post # 12 isn't very impressive. I suspect it's a trick of shadows & water creating the illusion of a print where none exists. It would've been nice to verify this, but the opportunity is probably long past, with erosion and whatnot.
I hope nobody will be terribly disappointed if I say this picture is the thinnest sort of evidence. Now if the print were located and sectioned, and the pressure lines supported the picture... my opinion of it would be higher. Especially since its location in the same strata as dino prints would be difficult to effectively deny (yes, they would try, some of 'em).
It's even less work to fake a photo than it is to carve a fake print. The only value this picture could have would be to provide a clue where one might start to investigate. On its own, it's about as valuable as a National Enquirer alien baby pic.
There are plenty of other topics that may be more suited for whatever I might add to the discussion of Paluxy prints in general. I need to review them so I don't just repeat what's already been said. So I'll try to wrap up here.
The author of the following link is closer to what I would call "fair" about Dr. Baugh and the Creation Evidences Museum.
http://creationanswers.net/reviews/BAUGH1.HTM
It may be some time before I post anything more on this issue. Of late, every time I think of the prints my interest is drawn to the issue of vandalism. Had I xxx tons of money, it would still be difficult to investigate; but I can't help wondering how many legit prints have been destroyed by chiselers creating "giant" prints.
There are other cases beyond these, but I doubt I'll find out just what happened in this lifetime. I firmly believe all persons should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and means + motive + opportunity isn't even enough to automatically satisfy me. I don't see too many motives available for what appears to have happened; but I hope you'll understand if I keep the rest of my thoughts to myself. I seem to be rambling, and I owe no explanations...

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 56 of 62 (392271)
03-30-2007 6:36 AM


RAZD writes:
Those are two copies of the same picture
Yes, I know. I have indicated two links only for completeness.
Yes, perhaps the image has been colorized.
I don't know why you say that the toes (in the image from the site of Von Daniken) seem to be "painted". It doesn't seem to me so evident, but I'm not an expert.
CTD writes:
The "click to enlarge" print from post # 12 isn't very impressive. I suspect it's a trick of shadows & water creating the illusion of a print where none exists.
Do you mean that the "human" print is only a trick of shadows & water? It seems to me impossible.
Regarding what Glen J. Kuban wrote, it is not referred to this two prints. I think it is about the Taylor trail, McFall trail, Ryals track, Morris track, all visible at the site Dinosaur and Human Co-existence: FOOTPRINTS, where it appears evident how the shape of the prints is indistinct. But these two prints or have been carved, or are a photomontage, or are real.
Anyway an exhaustive research would must be done in situ, so perhaps we cannot add much more here.
If the photographs are a false or the prints have been carved would must be proved.
If you know others interesting images you can post them here, please.
Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 03-30-2007 9:32 PM Footprint has replied

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 5946 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 57 of 62 (392358)
03-30-2007 3:05 PM


It's my understanding that there is only one picture of this print, and it's from the 60's. If there were anything to it, there's a good chance someone would have followed up.
Photos are troublesome evidence. It can be difficult to get a genuine print to show up, while any element of contrast can create the appearance of features.
But suspect < think < believe. I'd be pleased if more info were available.
We may have different standards of evidence. I don't have a problem with that. It's hard to find people who agree 100% (especially in cases where double standards are likely to come into play).

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 62 (392385)
03-30-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Footprint
03-30-2007 6:36 AM


I don't know why you say that the toes (in the image from the site of Von Daniken) seem to be "painted". It doesn't seem to me so evident, but I'm not an expert.
In the past, it has been common practice to paint features in the rock to make them more visible. I have seen this in some of the dinosaur beds in the Morrison Formation. From what I can see, take away the black paint and the humanness of the print is gone.
A couple of items:
1. Would be easy to eradicate evidence of tool marks. After all, these were abraded sand grains comprising the sedimentary rocks and a season of running water would soften artificial tool marks to the point of disappearance.
2. This track does not look human to me at all. I walked on a beach a couple of weeks ago and I saw thousands of tracks, but zero that looked like this. The depression in the sediments is simply that: an elongate depression (with toes painted on).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Footprint, posted 03-30-2007 6:36 AM Footprint has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Footprint, posted 03-31-2007 6:33 PM edge has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 59 of 62 (392472)
03-31-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by edge
03-30-2007 9:32 PM


Yes
Perhapse if someone will search out these prints, and will examinate them nearly, if they still exists, he could definitively prove if they are a fake or not. Perhapse some method exists to prove it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 03-30-2007 9:32 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Footprint, posted 04-01-2007 1:49 PM Footprint has not replied

  
Footprint
Junior Member (Idle past 6282 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 03-18-2007


Message 60 of 62 (392597)
04-01-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Footprint
03-31-2007 6:33 PM


(((anyway prints left on a sandy soil are different from prints in mud or clay)))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Footprint, posted 03-31-2007 6:33 PM Footprint has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024