Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 62 of 62 (405777)
06-14-2007 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by pseudotruth
06-14-2007 6:13 PM


Footprints and Scams
Welcome to the fray pseudotruth.
Creatortionistas are not interested in truth but in selling their scams to the gullible and the ignorant. And anyone who takes one of those elongated footprints as human is clearly both.
Enjoy.
ps - In case you don't already know, type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy
Edited by RAZD, : subt

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 61 by pseudotruth, posted 06-14-2007 6:13 PM pseudotruth 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