Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated

It is true that AIG (and, as I recall CRI) list the Texas footprints as evidence creationists shouldn't use. I disagree. Their information isn't up-to-date, and it would be better if they didn't mention the issue.I find it noteworthy that the large cat's paw-print at the Creation Evidence Museum isn't mentioned in any of the "dubunking" stories I've seen.I made the trip down there about four years ago, and just missed the chance to participate in a dig. They were doing them every July.While I can't vouch for where anything was found, I had familiarized myself somewhat with the "dubunking" stories beforehand, and I saw nothing that would indicate carving or "toes of dino prints falling in to make them appear human". I was not able to view everything I had seen on the internet, however. I do wish I had time and resources to investigate further.It is 80% likely in my opinion that at least some of the prints are genuine, but I don't have a problem with that situation so I suppose that makes me "biased".Regardless of which side one takes on the issue, I consider it disgraceful that there is little or no effort being made to preserve the dino tracks, and they are rapidly weathering away.Since the only ones digging for more tracks are creationists, anything that is found will be subject to "dismissal" on the grounds that it wasn't found in the right place. Pictures and videotape mean nothing to many of the detractors - no amount of documentation is likely to satisfy them.The best evidence against the human footprints and "tracks" is the lack of a particular marking. It should resemble a pair of bowling balls in a gunny-sack having been drug along the path, and smearing the footprints. I've always said that type of marking really should be there, but I didn't see any sign of it there or in pictures.I must add that it is a profound experience to walk barefoot in the tracks left by dinosaurs. The trip was worth it for that alone.

I don't know how to make quotes here, so I won't try.I don't have the resources to verify 100% whether or not anything was faked. If that qualifies me as "gullible", too bad.I may have seen 2 or 3 human prints. One in particular sticks in my memory. I'm certain it was a human footprint, but I cannot say how it was found because I was not present. Neither did I take samples and compare them to the site - that wasn't an option. If it was faked, other methods were used to "pull it off" - not carving or "fallen in toes".Off the top of my head, I would say clear plastic might be used to preserve the dino tracks in place. Maybe there is no cheap way to preserve these things, and future generations are just going to miss out. I don't see that it's been pursued at all. Perhaps it is because I see this kind of thing as a treasure for all people of all times that I feel it's a higher priority.The erosion over time is clearly evident in pictures, and pictures don't do justice to 3-D images in a one-color background. {There are exceptions - I once took some pics at the Alamo that turned out surprisingly well.}Now as for the credibility, and the need for excessive documentation... Perhaps I'll just point out that even when media "pet" evolutionists find things that are "too old", they are also dismissed. I understand the fellow who discovered Java Man also found remains that were "too human" and "too early", as well as that Leaky fellow. Perhaps "your scientists" would do well to overdocument as well, if they intend to report everything they find, should they choose to go looking in this area.I don't think we need fossil evidence of giant humans when we have humans alive now that are giants - unless you mean some of the old sasquatchesque tracks that people confessed to forging.The forgeries don't help matters one bit. Those who made them, and those who accepted them uncritically have done a disservice to anyone trying to discover the truth. Both sides of this controversy have reason to consider the fakers as traitors.Even if only one print is legit - even if only the cat print is, it says a lot. Maybe not enough - maybe so. The luminiferous aether was thrown out based on just one set of experiments: that of Michelson & Morley. In the minds of many, there was no need to verify it. Ain't science funny?I shall do my best to consider all meaningful evidence in this matter as it becomes available. If things are shown to be falsified, I will not be pleased with those behind it. Neither will I support any attempt to suppress legit evidence.

Most of the prints were under water when I was there. There were some on the shore, but not many.The river isn't eroding much at all. The main problem is that the level of the river can drop drastically, and if this happens in winter and a freeze comes, it's highly destructive. Even frost chews away at the rock, and removes details.There are expected to be more prints (some have been found) under the banks and other ground in the area which is naturally higher than the river (because water follows the lowest path it can).Dino tracks have been found many other places, but these are the most famous because of the reports of human prints found with them.

I have no problem with such a position, as long as one is consistent. Would you also classify Michelson-Morley as a "head scratcher"?As to how such a thing could be considered legit, that's a question of documentation in most cases. But if I were actually present when the thing was discovered, I'd have a pretty hard time dismissing it. That's one way how.Edit to add:
Not all agree with your opinion. RAZD seems to think otherwise. Check out the first sentence of the first post on this page:
EvC Forum: Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
Re-edited to (hopefully) repair linkEdited by CTD, : add to response, clearly markedEdited by CTD, : Fix link

I think if fixed the link now. It's #51, and the source of the above quote. I'm a little spoiled about having quotes automatically available.The point is that some may take a single piece of evidence and assign a lot of value to it. Others may write it off as a "head scratcher". I don't see a problem unless double standards come into play. One should be consistent with oneself, but need not apply the exact same standards as another. Understand?Looks like there's more material for me to respond to. I wanted to get this part sorted out. Thanks again for the quote demo.

First off, Michelson-Morley was the basis for abandoning the aether before (about 10 or 15 years) anyone bothered to repeat it. It was later repeated (Michelson-Gale and Dayton Miller); different results were obtained, and these results were duely ignored. Note that Miller was associated with Morley, so this isn't strictly "independent". Also, those who are credited with "disproving" the aether continued the search, although "their job was done". I won't post links since it's not directly on-topic, but it's an easy search.I conclude from history that modern "science" as a whole, does occasionally apply double standards. You are free to disagree. So we disagree again. I admit that my vision isn't perfect; but I have a very strong tendency to believe what I see unless there is some reason I shouldn't. After all, my hearing isn't perfect either; so if I listen to the "experts", there's also a chance I'll get it wrong. But no matter. It seems we're not likely to agree on very much. I don't see much mystery as to how such a thing could happen. Now there is a mystery about what stories would inevitibly be concocted about it to avoid the obvious answer; but that's not my department.Now what's left for us to disagree about? Perhaps ending sentences in prepositions?

The human footprints I saw were in the Museum. There was another museum in town, but it had closed down and was no longer in business. Locals said they used to have at least some of the fakes on display. The visitor center at the entrance to the park had no human prints. I was somewhat disappointed.Now RAZD, if I agree to let you call me gullible, can I choose an adjective for you? Other than a surname, I don't know what a PRATT is. But this bears a resemblence to a typical evolutionist ploy of attempting distraction. We don't need a thread arguing that no amount of documentation will convince a person (or group) who is predisposed against a thing to accept it. Even as a C, I should expect at least a few E's would join me on that one. The rest may not be so sincere...Neither do I agree that documentation and credibility are neccessarily off-topic here. In fact, I don't even think that's what you actually meant to say, but it's not entirely clear what's going on. Maybe that's why it looks so much like the aforementioned ploy, eh? Some of us are just gullible. I googled size 24 shoes. 1st link:
Webshots - Desktop Wallpaper and Screen Savers
But that's only 17". So I googled size 28 shoes. 1st link:
Please update your bookmark. Veuillez modifier vos signet. I didn't see a length in inches, but I suppose 4 shoe sizes => one inch.Now during these googles, I didn't notice any peer-reviewed papers, so I'll just give up now & say my info's not the most reliable. Sometimes it's just more efficient timewise to be gullible.And if I have ever given any indication of anything physical being 65 million years old, I take it back. In future, if you see me communicate any age over 50,000 years, please understand that I would be strictly speaking in terms of hypothetical years. I would never intentionally assert or imply that such ages exist for any non-eternal thing. I don't recall mentioning such an age, but if I did I was grossly mistaken. How prudent of you to include the qualifier "essentially". Wouldn't want to warp their meaning in your paraphrase.Now I already acknowledged that AIG and CRI don't support this evidence. AIG appears to be following the lead of CRI, and they provide this link:
The Institute for Creation ResearchOkay, pardon me. I've been saying "CRI" when I should have said "ICR". But the last date given for any of their visits is 1985. What they say may have been the case 20+ years ago; but I don't think it's the case today. I understand they don't have the resources to go trotting down to Glen Rose, TX all the time. I'm fine with them not "backing" the museum. I think they should refrain from putting it down until they have a chance to look at what's been found since 1985.If they had reason to believe any of this evidence actually is forged, I personally would hope they would find a way to do something about it. Let's see, I first heard about these tracks from Weekly Reader Magazine, when I was in kindergarten. They've been mentioned in Nat'l Geographic or Time or something also. I could look up which, but I'm running short on minutes. And "famous" is such a subjective term that I doubt certain persons would agree anyhow on what qualifies.Anyhow, I gotta leave now.

Easily done. Einstein's 1905 papers were essentially and "overnight success" and within a very short time the aether was discarded.Now check the date chart on your link. Note the sequence 1887...1902-1904 (a minor "Morley-Morley" set I hadn't heard of, but I'll look after this eventually. No rush, Wiki being Wiki)...1921By 1921, those still working on this were a small minority; and the theory was largely considered dead. Now what was it I said? "There was no confirmation until 10-15 years later", or something like that.Let us apply a little formula here. We can even use some familiar letters!C - E = MC = confirmation E = Einstein's Day in the Sun
M = my marginSo 1921 -1905 = 16. 10 to 15 < 16 . Looks like I missed by one. If we allow that it took a few months for everyone to get the news, E can = 1906 or even '07 or '08. That would make me look a little better, wouldn't it?Now 1921 is a Miller date. As one of Morley's buds, he can't be considered very independent. I'll give you Tomascheck 1924. I know it hurts me vs. my formula, but facts are facts.If this doesn't support my conclusion, well... I doubt that anything could support it in your opinion.If you'd care to try again, it's a free shot. I won't risk the wrath of the mods next time. But please try to do better. It's too easy when your own link verifies what I'm saying.

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?

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.HTMIt 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...

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).