Posted on 07/31/2008 6:20:38 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
LOL!!
Looks pretty fake.
There is no evidence anywhere, over all these years that man was on the scene when dinos ruled.
Another creationist pipe dream/hoax
Really? That’s some awesome countryside. LOTS of campers in that park. The river is so clear. My kids loved it! The beautiful part of that region of Texas is that after the sun goes down, it cools down dramatically. I live in Houston and it just doesn’t cool much at night.
Sorry, my bad. Your #66 this thread, was pretty funny.
In a walking stride the heel strikes first, then the foot rolls forward. The weight is often distributed more laterally because of the arch. Finally the foot pushes off into the next step by flexing. At this point the front of the foot generally digs into soft soil slightly. Finally, the toes dig in slightly more as the foot pushes off.
A running gait is even more distinctive. This is not even close.
A lot of Bigfoot prints have been shown to be fakes because they are flat. This print also seems flatter than it should be. There is no sign of the arch. The heel and toes are not deeper than the center of the foot. And there is no ridging at the toes from pushing off.
To me it looks fake. Someone upthread mentioned little pits down the center of the footprint, possibly remains of drill marks. I can see those as well, and they certainly need explaining if this print is to be considered genuine.
But a forensic expert could tell you a great deal about this in short order. They deal with this kind of evidence on a regular basis.
See An Alleged Cretaceous Finger, by Glen J. Kuban.
AbstractAn elongate rock found loose in a gravel pile has been claimed by Carl Baugh and a few other creationists to be a fossilized human finger. Baugh, who asserts that the object refutes evolution and conventional geology, maintains that CAT-scan images show human bones inside the finger. However, the supposed finger shows no clear internal features, exhibits a number of anatomic problems and is inconsistent with preservational features of other fossils from the area. Even more importantly, it has not been convincingly linked to any host formation, severely undermining its status as a possible geologic anomaly.
Conclusions
As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Baugh and other promoters of the "fossilized finger" have not conclusively established that it is a real fossil. Nor have they demonstrated a clear association with an ancient formation, undermining its possible value as an out-of-place object. Without this evidence, the object is no more than a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place fossil.
Scientific examination by actual geologists and paleontologists would put a lot of these questions to bed, though I somehow doubt serious scientific tests will ever take place.
some interesting segments from the article detailing Alvis Delk's miraculous (and financially convenient) discovery :
A domestic fall from a ladder eight months ago nearly crippled Delk, resulting in surgeries, a long recovery and expensive medical bills. He decided to try and sell some of his archeological treasurers, so he turned to the large piece of limestone, thinking he could clean it up some and sell it to the Creation Evidence Museum
Dr. Carl Baugh is the founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum ... Baugh said the fossil is the proof he has been searching many years for. He acquired the stone from Delk and has it in safekeeping.
follow the money.
If you read the whole article it takes on a different slant.
>www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_210093256.html<
I have fossils collected from my farm (late Cretaceous upthrust) over many years. These look way past phony.
Apparently neither have actually been examined by others than creationist bloggers, so unless science has nothing to do with the argument, it’s less than compelling to anyone other than those who really are looking for anything to hang their pre-existing beliefs on.
Let a skeptic look at the evidence. Science has been self-correcting for quite some time. I think this is the Creationist Piltdown Man, and they don’t want it to be examined.
Science corrected Piltdown Man, not creationists. Consider that.
If it’s somehow proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed, so be it. Let’s examine the facts, not use them as weapons without full disclosure.
Sounds like a big scam to me. If it were truly authentic, they would have no problem releasing it to be tested by real scientists.
Follow the money!
Jay Leno will probably have to comment on this story...it was John McCain’s footprint, he just cracks himself up on those ‘he’s so old jokes.’
Yes, I saw them 40 years ago. The land is the land that the gentleman built the park—it has been there for decades. My aunt has a place less than 2 miles from this “site.” The dinosaur prints are real, but the guy that owned the land carved the footprints into to the creek bottom for obvious reasons. You can believe anything that you want to believe, but they are not footprints of a man. Go down and check it out for yourself.. Glenrose is about 60 miles south of Fort Worth, so you can fly in and pay whatever he charges now...BTW most people that live in Glen Rose have known that the gentlemen was a charletan. You quoted “The finder/owner of this particular rock, claims he didn’t see the *human* print, until he went to carefully clean the rock with a brush. It was then that the man says he first saw the human print. As the article mentions, he claims he was cleaning the piece, prior to offering it for sale, to help pay for medical bills incurred by himself.” I am sure he is the same gentleman that I talked to 40 years ago, also selling his place due to medical problems—he was 40 then, so maybe he is 80 now...But you said-”Then again, it could still be could totally bogus. I really don’t know...” You quoted “The finder/owner of this particular rock, claims he didn’t see the *human* print, until he went to carefully clean the rock with a brush. Why did he tell me the same story 40 years ago? Why don’t you go down and investigate for yourself..if you need directions, give me a call..
You go to the cemeteries in Glen Rose and around like Squaw Creek and White Church you’ll find my relatives. My Great Grandfather owned the second Ford Dealership in Texas and it was in Glen Rose. My sister still lives there. My relatives were some of the first residence in that area. In fact, Goodnight and Alford Lane were the first to have cattle on the Brazos there. Alford Lane is several greats grandfather. It was a neat place to be as a small child...lots of fun on the Paluxy and at ‘Big Rocks.’
Well I am majoring in geology, so a lot of this comes natural. Couldn’t tell you what dinosaur left the print though.
My Great-Great-Great Grandfather is buried at Bluff Dale, East of Stephenville. He came to the Republic of Texas in 1839. My kids are 5th generation. Most of my roots are in Nacogdoches County.
So what you’re saying is that one of the absolute qualities of conventional wisdom is that it can never be proven wrong?
“they can be found in any order, youngest on oldest, oldest on youngest, and in almost any other imaginable combination.”
In that case, the “scientific” ordering of the strata must be arbitrary and meaningless.
As to the one you are referring to (the one you met 40 years ago), having himself carved footprints next to real and actual dino prints --- you (and many others) could well be correct.
You say (i'm just trying to make clear sense of your meaning here); "Why did he tell me the same story 40 years ago?"
What story was that? The part about "medical bills" --- or other?
As far as needing directions to Glen Rose, it's been a long while since I've been there, but I can read maps quite well enough, thank you.
What I WAS pointing out to you, is that IF the details concerning the acquisition of the fossil are as stated (in the article) --- then you haven't seen that one.
Don’t worry, there are hordes of scientists out there who are willing prove it’s a hoax, if such is the case, using some sort of scientific dating method.
No. What I’m saying is that hoaxes have a certain “fingerprint”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.