Human & dinosaur crossing trackways authenticated

I'm the author of the thread "Informations about an image of a footprint".- "the size of the "human" footprint is huge";
- "there are five (5) dino prints (spaced ~10 feet apart in a line) but only one (1) "human" print"Yes, it is true."the bottom of the "human" print is pretty uniform".
Honestly I don't think we can see a lot of the bottom of the print in this image.Infact, I'd like to found some others images of the same print, if they exists, in order to see the track from a different angle and to understand better its shape.
Did you see this print with your eyes, when you went to paluxy river?

Excuse me for my english...

Three days ago I was walking on a soil of dry mud in a city park and I noticed that in the path I was following there were a lot of dog's prints and some human prints. The dog prints were alligned in a long track, whereas the human ones were only 3 or 4 prints, all the others were absent. It seemed that the man who made the prints suddenly disappeared.
Probably it was because when the man was walking only one puddle had remained on the path, so he left his footprint only there, whereas the dog left its ones some day earlier, when the mud was wet for a longer stretch.
Similarly I wonder if it is possible that the "man" who left our print (in the image) began to walk on some "island" of dry soil, after the step that we watch in the photo, or that others steps were completely filled during some inondation, before to become petrified.
I don't know, may be not.
But if we suppose that someone carved the "human" print, one can wonders why such a men decided to grave only one print. Why didn't he carve three or four prints, making all more realistic, and why he carved a print so big. Why didn't he carve a series of human sized prints?The edges of the "human" print are fairly clear, but in "my" image also the edges of the dino prints are clear.I don't know why not one single human fossil has been found in that area, maybe because humans lived faraway from there?What do you think?Anyways it is possible that it was carved.

I didn't understand very well the phrase: "Most admitted carvings also claimed they started with a footprint like feature. That would also explain the size." Because I don't speak well english. I didn't understand what would explain the big size of the print.I have read many times that the prints we now see in the river bed are being evidently eroded by the water. If we appreciate that phenomenon in a little amount of years (such as the time elapsed from the prints discovery), how is it possible that such prints ("dinos" or "humans") are millions of years old? Wouldn't they must be already completely eroded from thousand of years?

Ok. I understand.Does the river uncover new prints that are under those that it erodes?

Does it mean that when the prints at the paluxy river were discovered the river had just changed his course, a little time earlier? That is, the water flows above the prints from only some ten of years (?)Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.Edited by Footprint, : No reason given.

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

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

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.

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. 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.

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...

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