Back to the dino-in-human footprint

[beartheweak]

Hey guys, I was feeling like revisiting all the claims of dinosaur and human footprints being found side-by-side. I found this video on youtube that seemed to clear up all of the forgery arguments against the "Delk" track. Let me know what possible pit-falls you see with this particular piece and the methods used by someone to have possibly forged it. I don't care to see this particular thread go onto other debate topics unless they're relevant. Let's also refrain from using other, isolated scenarios as "proof" that this is a hoax (such as some of the other Paluxy River finds which can't necessarily be proven to be fact or faked).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA

P.S. I read through some of the youtube comments, but a lot of the focus was placed on other arguments surrounding Creation Vs. Evolution.

[Peter]

Well, I guess this single piece of something from somewhere that looks like a dinosaur and human footprint trumps all of science to date. You creationists were right all along and the universe is only 6000 years old.

[beartheweak]

Well, I guess this single piece of something from somewhere that looks like a dinosaur and human footprint trumps all of science to date. You creationists were right all along and the universe is only 6000 years old.

I'm taking the evidence one piece at a time. I never said there's only this one piece of evidence. You proved yourself to be the stereotypical atheist by trying to get out of answering this- as you have not given one good fact.

[Peter]

I'm taking the evidence one piece at a time. I never said there's only this one piece of evidence. You proved yourself to be the stereotypical atheist by trying to get out of answering this- as you have not given one good fact.

Guilty as charged and I'll have to refrain from mentioning anything about the pot calling the kettle black... Carry on with the rest of your "evidence".

[Dave In Canada]

Below is a criticism of the Delk track.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

[beartheweak]

Below is a criticism of the Delk track.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm

Hey Dave, I did read that article; and I'll address why the arguments don't stand.

I'll start with where it says "To be more specific, the hallux (big toe) of the "human" print is exceedingly deep compared to the rest of the print."
From what I see, there are two things wrong with this argument. 1) The CT scans in the YouTube video (original post) show proportional compression (density) of the rock that both the prints are in. In other words, the prints are realistic and the rock most likely wasn't carved. 2) Also, the big toe that is "hooked" into the rock seems as though it would be too obvious of a fake for anyone to want to fake the rock that way. It would make more sense if someone made a fake that had a big toe in a more normal position.

"The lesser toe depressions are on a plane considerably higher than the rest of the print, and jut out at an unnatural angle... The division between the toes and ball also seems unusually angular and sharp"
The lesser toes are not "considerably higher than the rest of the print" given it appears the big toe was used to exert the majority of the pushing force. We can see from the deeper-than-normal big toe and the high density of the rock, exactly in the place it should realistically be in, to understand why the lesser toes aren't a little bit deeper. Regarding the "unnatural angle" of the lesser toes, everyone has differently structured feet. It isn't unrealistic to believe that this was just how this person's toes grew- especially in a culture that may not have worn shoes. Shoes would obviously help some of us get the compression of the toes that is believed to be "normal". Furthermore, and probably a better reason why the "unnatural angle of toes" argument is invalid, is the fact that when most people hook their big toe downward the toe next to it tends to pull more away from the rest of the toes. Go ahead, put your foot in the mud and use it to angle your big toe downward, if you can't do it yourself. You see exactly the "unnatural angle" effect happening. Finally, a third reason is once again, why wouldn't a seasoned forger go with a design of the lesser toes that was more realistic. Why wouldn't a forger have personally stepped in a mold in order to have a visual of what he had to do to design a realistic looking footprint?

"The middle three toe marks are also unusually long (or overly separated from the ball area)."
The author is trying to make it sound as though it's not possible (and apparently, not even plausible) that someone can have long middle toes. Some toes on people are so long, that they are even longer than their big toes!

"There are some harsh angular features between the ball and heel. The instep (left) side of the print appears unnaturally straight."
There is, once again, nothing unnatural about this. The highest part of your arch is only 1/4 to 1/2 of an inch away from the bottom-most part of your foot. If you step deep enough into the mud (which this print is), the full, top-view outline of your foot will be shown. Which means, yes, there will *naturally* be a roughly straight line going down the left side of your right foot.

"The heel appears overly square on the left side, insufficiently depressed compared to the rest of the print (the heel is normally one of the deepest areas)."
This completely depends on how fast the person is going, and how the person landed their foot in each particular instance. You could go into your backyard on a slightly muddy day, and come up with a footprint that has the exact same features.

"Also, the margin of the print lacks the "mud up-push" and other evidence of deformation usually seen on distinct prints."
He dare says this when neither of the other two dinosaur tracks, on his same page, even have the "mud up-push" that he declares as authentic?

I think I'll stop with debunking his debunks here, until some actually valid points are shown.

The most amazing thing, though, is that if I had some miracle-drying limestone (as the CT scans show it is highly unlikely that it was carved, due to proof of realistic compressions), I would just step in it, rather than mold a fake and unrealistic foot to artificially step into it with. So the thing is, this human footprint in this track is most likely a real footprint, and the whole debunkery obviously appears to be a desperate attempt to disprove creationists- which seems to happen every time "phenomena" like this happens in science.

[grandpa]

Wow, creationists still weird me out. I have to say it.

Grandpa h.

[Thanatos]

Running human:



Child, to give you a better idea of how humans run:



The lack of a proper crescent, the depth compared to the dinosaur, the freaky long and angled toes (which cannot be properly explained by not wearing shoes for Masai do not have freaky toes), and the repetitive claims that it cannot be a forgery because no artist would have gotten it so wrong all make me think this is just bollocks and that every reasonable human (who has feet) would reach that conclusion.

The dinosaur without toe bones and with columnar legs is something I can understand; not a lot of television gets that right. However, that human beings no longer know their own footprints... gaah, I don't want to sound artsy, but that bugs me and how artistically and naturally blind are we that we can no longer even draw our own footprints?

[beartheweak]

The lack of a proper crescent, the depth compared to the dinosaur, the freaky long and angled toes (which cannot be properly explained by not wearing shoes for Masai do not have freaky toes), and the repetitive claims that it cannot be a forgery because no artist would have gotten it so wrong all make me think this is just bollocks and that every reasonable human (who has feet) would reach that conclusion.

The dinosaur without toe bones and with columnar legs is something I can understand; not a lot of television gets that right. However, that human beings no longer know their own footprints... gaah, I don't want to sound artsy, but that bugs me and how artistically and naturally blind are we that we can no longer even draw our own footprints?

I just did another Google images search for bare footprints in mud/sand and while everyone has an arch, on some... it's almost not existant. Plus, the footprint suggests that the person was either standing, or strolling. The middle toe of the dino distorts that section of the foot a little too, so I don't know how you can rely on that. The "long and angled toes"... I have already explained away (see the post before this).

The rest of the stuff you said didn't make any sense. Please elaborate.

[beartheweak]

Oh, I also don't know how I could leave out the most obvious- even if there was no arch in this artifact, many people suffer from flat-feet for all sorts of reasons. I recommend you read all of this for all causes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_feet.

[Peter]

What's more likely? Five different branches of science have been totally wrong for the past 100 years or your footprint is a clever hoax or misinterpretation? Need a hint? I don't even know why I'm posting this because it gives your "footprint" an air of credence it doesn't deserve. Isn't your desperation for evidence embarrasing in the least?

[Dave In Canada]

Hey guys, I was feeling like revisiting all the claims of dinosaur and human footprints being found side-by-side. I found this video on youtube that seemed to clear up all of the forgery arguments against the "Delk" track. Let me know what possible pit-falls you see with this particular piece and the methods used by someone to have possibly forged it. I don't care to see this particular thread go onto other debate topics unless they're relevant. Let's also refrain from using other, isolated scenarios as "proof" that this is a hoax (such as some of the other Paluxy River finds which can't necessarily be proven to be fact or faked).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA

P.S. I read through some of the youtube comments, but a lot of the focus was placed on other arguments surrounding Creation Vs. Evolution.

The one big problem that I see with this video is that it only discusses the imprint itself. Where is the independent & peer-reviewed research and findings of this fossil?