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.