human and dinosaurs tracks together?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Its been awhile since we had a good evolution-creation debate. This stems from a comment on the "Jehovah's Witness" thread in Christianity, where it was quite a ways off topic, so I brought the discussion here.

Regarding the human prints found in the same strata as dinosaur prints, I realize my interpretation of the site may differ from "professionals," but I also find their explainations rather curious and inconsistent with the facts on the ground:

The Taylor Site. This was the Paluxy site most often claimed to contain human tracks, beginning with Stanley Taylor's research and film in the late 1960's and early 1970's,[4] and continuing with other claims throughout the 1970's and 1980's[5]. However, the most thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked.[6] When the digit marks of such tracks (which are common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. Most of the tracks on the Taylor Site are largely infilled with a secondary sediment which hardened into the original track depressions. When the tracksite surface is well cleaned, at least some tracks in each trail show shallow tridactyl (three-toed) digit impressions indicating dinosaurian origin, as as well as color and texture distinctions corresponding to the infilled material and further confirming the dinosaurian nature of the tracks.[7] Recent claims that some of these tracks have human prints within them have been shown to be as baseless as the original claims.[8]

Summary of Paluxy "Man Track" claims

By "subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse)" these persons are implying what I have been calling selective erosion. Now, selective erosion is not unheard of in other fossil sites. But the cards are definitely stacked against selective erosion without conflict with the laws of physics in this example. These eroded tracks are *up*hill from the more pristine tracks to the side and running more or less parallel. This is in a riverbed. Water erodes rock. If a set of tracks *should* be more eroded than another set nearby, would it not make sense that the tracks more likely to be eroded by water would be those *downhill and closer to* the water should have eroded first, in complete contradiction with the facts on the ground?

It has been suggested elsewhere that the shape of the questionable tracks were created by a dinosaur walking funny (because it didn't want to get its feet muddy?). Which would imply the tail would be dragged more, considering it is a bipedal dino with tail that is suggested as having created the tracks. Further, the shape of the tracks would imply a point in the middle of the foot going forward (what would be the middle toe on a human foot), rather than the actual shape which is pointed where a human big toe would be. And there are no claw marks present, even though claw marks are present everywhere else in abundance, even on those prints laid down by dinos like the one suggested for having made this particular set. In more than one of the tracks in the set, I found distinct impression of 5 toes, not three as would be required by the dino advocates. My smallish for a grown man 8 1/2 size bare feet fit about as perfectly into the prints as one could hope...whoever made these prints could wear my shoes in comfort. This is why I know about the prints that "dig in" to lengthen the stride, I presume because the creature started to run, at which point claws would have *had to* make themselves known because the prints sink even deeper! Yet, still no claw marks?

The Taylor Site contains a long trail of deeply impressed dinosaur tracks, and several shallower trails, four of have been claimed by many creationists to be human: the Giant Run Trail, the Turnage Trail, the Taylor Trail, and the Ryals Trail (which includes a large hole reported to be the spot from which a human track was removed many years ago). Many of these alleged "man tracks" were fairly shallow and more or less oblong in shape, and did not match the shape of any dinosaur tracks known to the Taylor crew. Some of the these tracks did vaguely resemble human footprints, however, many of the tracks also showed problematic (non-human) features (discussed further below). This site has received more acclaim than other "man track" sites for the following reasons: 1) The elongated tracks on this site are numerous and occur in clear right-left sequences; 2) At least some of these tracks were excavated from under previously undisturbed strata, precluding the possibility that they are carvings or erosion marks; 3) Many of them show "mud push-ups" and other features confirming that they are real tracks and not erosion marks or carvings; 4) Several of the "man tracks" were reported to show clear human toe marks when first uncovered[4] (although no published photographs have ever shown this); and 5) Three of the alleged human trails (Taylor, Turnage, and Giant Run) intersect the trail of deep and distinct dinosaur tracks, providing clear evidence that the elongated tracks and the deep dinosaur tracks were made at approximately the same time.

Not sure which specific set I saw, but they were in the open and protected from the river by sandbags. I am of the opinion that they were the Taylor tracks. They were about parallel with a set of *baby* brontosaur tracks, within three to six feet. The *human* prints were not oversized, they were not carved, they were in the exact same strata of rock as the bronto prints. The mud "push-ups" were clearly evident in some tracks, and it was here that the FIVE toes were most evident.

That dinosaurs were capable of making elongated impressions by impressing their metatarsi into the sediment was confirmed by my documentation in 1982 and 1983 of another Paluxy site, bordering the Alfred West property, about a mile south of Dinosaur Valley State Park. On the West Site are many typical tridactyl tracks, and several trails composed primarily of elongated dinosaur tracks. Some of the trails with elongated tracks also contain some non-elongated and partially elongated dinosaur tracks, apparently indicating that the dinosaur would sometimes alter the extent to which it impressed its metatarsi into the sediment. The clarity of the individual tracks also varied greatly, especially in the region of the digits. Many of the elongated tracks showed three distinct dinosaurian digits, as well as a posterior extension with rounded "heel." In other tracks in these very same trackways, the digit impressions were indistinct or absent altogether (in most cases this appeared to be the result of mud back-flow and/or erosion), leaving oblong depressions which superficially resembled human footprints. This site clearly demonstrated that dinosaurs were capable of making elongated, even "man-like" impressions. Many of the elongated dinosaur tracks on the West Site closely resembled the size and shape of the elongated tracks on the Taylor Site, supporting the theory that the Taylor Site tracks also represented a metatarsal impression phenomenon. Alfred West had known about the elongated dinosaur tracks bordering his property for years, and had suspected that they related to many of the "giant man track" claims.
John Morris once visited this site (which he calls the "Shakey Springs" Site), and includes photographs in his book showing some of the elongated dinosaur tracks with distinct digit impressions. However, he either did not notice, or neglected to mention, that the site also contains many elongated dinosaur tracks which do not show distinct digit impressions, and, oddly, he did not even hint that these elongated dinosaur tracks might be related to the renowned "man tracks" on the Taylor Site.

The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"

If this were anybody else suggesting a dinosaur walking on its heels, I think they would be laughed at resoundingly. I mean, c'mon, this really stretches credibility. Especially in light of the circumstances, placement and condition of the tracks already mentioned above.

Conclusions. Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.

Summary of Paluxy "Man Track" claims

Interesting, it was pointed to the continuing study of the Taylor site, among others in the area, by creationists, yet "(claims) in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists." Either there is continuing interest in the site, or there is not. The "man tracks" are not the result of spurious phenomena (at least at the site I studied), so much as spurious (and inconsistent) explanation. To be sure, there are abundant frauds in the local area, certain people are not above trying to make a dollar from the regional folklore. I cannot speak to all of the purported sets of human tracks, I was only with the one set for a couple of hours. But what I personally experienced soundly contradicts the "official" explanation of the tracks.

[Neemai]

Hi Juantoo,

you might also be interested to see the Anomalous Artifacts on the Forbidden Archeology website:

Michael Cremo and Forbidden Archeology

I've come across quite a lot of info like this scattered across the web. It certainly makes you question certain historical assumptions...


... Neemai

[wil]

Namaste 123,

Got any pictures?? ...I can't find any good images

In the articles you link to...

Conclusions. Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.

and then this one...

Several known loose "man tracks" are reported to have come from Glen Rose, Texas, or nearby areas. Four of the slabs are strikingly similar in appearance: all having long toes, very wide ball, and other abnormal features, possibly indicating a common carver. At least three such "long-toed" slabs still exist, including the "Burdick track" and two slabs that led paleontologist Roland Bird to Glen Rose in 1938 (discussed below). A fourth long-toed slab is known only from a photograph. Yet another slab, often called the "Caldwell track," has a very different appearance (with short toes and narrower ball); although still promoted by Carl Baugh and a few others, it was shown to be a definite carving years ago (Neufeld, 1975).
Figure 2. The Burdick Print (side view). (C) 1986, Glen J. Kuban At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks. First, a suitable-sized stone slab would be found (preferably one that already had some depressions, to save carving time), and a shady spot under a tree would be selected as a workshop. Next, the footprint would be carved using hammer and chisel. A center punch was used to simulate raindrops, followed by an application of muriatic acid to dull the chisel and punch marks. For an aged appearance (p. 73) the slab would be covered with manure for a few days. Last, the edges of the slab were chipped to give the impression of a track chiseled from the riverbed (Morris, 1980, p. 111-12).
Two of the "long toed slabs" were first publicized after being seen by Roland T. Bird in a trading post near Gallup, New Mexico in 1938. Bird immediately recognized the tracks as carvings, but wondered what prompted someone to make them. His curiosity was further piqued upon seeing four dinosaur track carvings in a nearby shop. After learning the tracks reportedly came from Glen Rose, Bird redirected his travel route to that location, leading to his now famous dinosaur track excavations there (Bird 1939, 1954).

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste 123,

Got any pictures?? ...I can't find any good images

In the articles you link to...and then this one...

Aw, now, you wouldn't be *one of them* now, wouldja? May I remind?:

Paluxy River, Glen Rose Texas, south of Dallas...should anybody be interested. Oh, and fair warning...there is an organization there that sponsors a "Creation Evidence Museum." It can be found on the web by that name, or at least it could when last I checked about 4 years ago. They have been trumped by some locally made artifacts such as the Burdick print which have been shown to be false. THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM REFERRING TO. I cannot emphasize that enough. The museum is a neat little sideshow of its own, but I hardly take what they propound as gospel or definitive. No, the tracks I examined were on private property just down the road from there, and the old guy that owned it then was in poor health. Sad to say, but he's probably passed by now, it's been almost ten years.

If you care to look, the picture you presented is specifically the print known as the Burdick print, which is a known forgery local to the area from around the 1930's as I recall the history. I am familiar with this, and the story behind it. May I emphatically, once again, ad nauseum, repeat: This is not the print I am speaking of. The *set of prints* in situ are still on location in the riverbed in proximity to the acknowledged dino prints. The Taylor tracks are not those debunked by the Burdick expose. In short; right location, wrong *set of* prints.

BTW, yes, I do have pictures. Unfortunately (like the fish that got away, right?), the conditions for taking pictures with my little dimestore instamatic were not very favorable. I know what I took pictures of, but anybody else would have a lot of difficulty deciphering the pictures. It didn't occur to me at the time to maybe put water in the prints to make them stand out or something. Hindsight is 20/20. To do things again I would be considerably better prepared.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

By "subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse)" these persons are implying what I have been calling selective erosion. Now, selective erosion is not unheard of in other fossil sites. But the cards are definitely stacked against selective erosion without conflict with the laws of physics in this example. These eroded tracks are *up*hill from the more pristine tracks to the side and running more or less parallel. This is in a riverbed. Water erodes rock. If a set of tracks *should* be more eroded than another set nearby, would it not make sense that the tracks more likely to be eroded by water would be those *downhill and closer to* the water should have eroded first, in complete contradiction with the facts on the ground?

There are in fact good reasons why the slightly elevated tracks would suffer more erosion than those deeper in the river bed. The seasonal ebb and flow of this river bed carried with it much silt which would soon fill the depressions left by whatever made the prints. Preserving them better. Those higher up may have been subject to a longer period of time at the edge of the flowing water causing more erosion. A seasonal river carries a huge volume of loose debris at its leading edge which quickly settles into any depressions, those lower in the river fill faster because the debris tends to sink to the deepest point. That is just one reason that immediately sprung to mind. I'm sure there are more and better ones.
As I understand there are no independent geologists or archaeologists that support the claims of these prints being made by humans. The human eye is dependent on the mind to interpret what it sees. The human mind has an uncanny ability to see what it wants to see.

It has been suggested elsewhere that the shape of the questionable tracks were created by a dinosaur walking funny (because it didn't want to get its feet muddy?). Which would imply the tail would be dragged more, considering it is a bipedal dino with tail that is suggested as having created the tracks.

No, because it was trying to keep its balance on a difficult surface. And a bipedal dinosaur with a balance tail would have it lifted high in the air negotiating such a slippery surface.

Really there is no good evidence to support any of these tracks was made by a human.

Tao

[juantoo3]

Will these links to pictures suffice?:

The Upper Taylor Platform (UTP) McFall Trail

Taylor Trail: Evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted

Chadwick, A. V. --- Of Dinosaurs and Men

Out-of-place artefacts 19 and 20

default

http://origins.swau.edu/papers/vario...wick1/fig1.jpg

Mind you, these sites may or may not agree with what I am saying to this issue. I did not check any of them out deeply, I just went looking for pictures, although what little I scanned I saw pretty much the same two adversarial arguments, both of which I am trying my best to remain outside of.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The human eye is dependent on the mind to interpret what it sees. The human mind has an uncanny ability to see what it wants to see.

Indeed.

Likewise, the human eye refuses to see what the human mind refuses to acknowledge...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Neemai!

Originally Posted by Neemai

you might also be interested to see the Anomalous Artifacts on the Forbidden Archeology website:

Michael Cremo and Forbidden Archeology

I've come across quite a lot of info like this scattered across the web. It certainly makes you question certain historical assumptions...

Sounds somewhat intriguing, perhaps when I have more time.

I really don't have any axe to grind...I just don't think the overly simplistic answers from either side of the issue are fully true. I'm not saying Dinos are less than 10k years old, and I'm not saying anatomically modern humans are 65 million years old. I suspect the truth actually lies somewhere in between.

There are examples of funerary art among Peruvian Indians that suggest human interaction with giant reptiles, what we would call dinosaurs. The Conquistadors did what they could to erase such heathen devilry, but there are a lot of examples left in certain private collections.

Here's some links to pics, same caveats as above:

Dinosaur Art From Ancient Tombs In Peru: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted

omniology.com

omniology.com

(this design is remarkably reminescent of the Sumerian Sirrush of the Ishtar Gate)

Dinosaurs in ancient Cambodian temple

(stegosaurus in Cambodia?)

The Photogallery of the Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico

(dino figurines in Mexico?)

Dinosaur Art By Native Americans (Petroglyphs)

Images of Dinosaurs in Embroidery and Drawings on Burial Items From the Ancient Civilization of Nazca

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Its been awhile since we had a good evolution-creation debate.

{{ puts head in hands and sobs }}

[Tao_Equus]

The clay dinosaurs are obvious recent fakes and those in possession of them refuse to release them for accurate ageing. The pebbles too are fakes produced by locals to sell to tourists. The claimed original finder when arrested for selling 'artefacts' confessed that he and his family were making them. Everything else can equally be seen as stylised art. Many of them are clearly llama's, lizards etc. Nothing so far presented has not been firmly discredited. Sorry

Tao

PS I would love to see something that really cannot be debunked but not found it yet.

[wil]

Namaste 123....

Am I one of those?? One of those who points out that these sites, the links you gave us for pix repeatedly put those Burdick carvings right there amongst the others...and deny they are carvings?? It taints the whole lot.

I've got to travel to these places and take a look at them as so many of them you'd have to use a lot of leeway to even think they are close to footprints, and others with their highlights look good...but I'd love to see them in person and after a trip to the museum with all the proofs, take a trip to the local university archeology department....see if I could get anyone to answer with a straight face...

Don't get me wrong I don't outright discount this...I'm a willing to look skeptic, but in general it seems to me if they had something they wouldn't have started carving to try to prove their point in the first place...they want to prove this too bad...want it enough to fake it....and if they had the real deal....what is the purpose of the fakes...the devil madem do it?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The clay dinosaurs are obvious recent fakes and those in possession of them refuse to release them for accurate ageing. The pebbles too are fakes produced by locals to sell to tourists. The claimed original finder when arrested for selling 'artefacts' confessed that he and his family were making them. Everything else can equally be seen as stylised art. Many of them are clearly llama's, lizards etc. Nothing so far presented has not been firmly discredited. Sorry

I thought the same when I saw them.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

PS I would love to see something that really cannot be debunked but not found it yet.

Do you mean to suggest the Ishtar gate is a fabrication? I haven't looked closely at the Cambodian example, but a cursory glance shows in situ, carved into relief in a wall panel, like Ishtar. The Peruvian stuff is well known and documented, and confirmed if uncomfortably so.

As with any of these types of things, certainly there are forgeries. But there are also some very difficult to deny artifacts. Casual dismissal is easy unless one is willing to set aside preconceptions and dogmatic convenience. There are times when Occam's Razor is not appropriate...when the simplest answer doesn't cover all of the questions.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste 123....

Am I one of those?? One of those who points out that these sites, the links you gave us for pix repeatedly put those Burdick carvings right there amongst the others...and deny they are carvings?? It taints the whole lot.

I've got to travel to these places and take a look at them as so many of them you'd have to use a lot of leeway to even think they are close to footprints, and others with their highlights look good...but I'd love to see them in person and after a trip to the museum with all the proofs, take a trip to the local university archeology department....see if I could get anyone to answer with a straight face...

Don't get me wrong I don't outright discount this...I'm a willing to look skeptic, but in general it seems to me if they had something they wouldn't have started carving to try to prove their point in the first place...they want to prove this too bad...want it enough to fake it....and if they had the real deal....what is the purpose of the fakes...the devil madem do it?

You raise some important issues...such as wanting something so bad as to want to "fake" it. I agree. I do see something else though...what started the whole foot carving shebang? Why in tarnation would anybody initiate such a hoax without cause? I suspect, not knowing the area intimately, that there may have been something found that sparked the whole thing, a catalyst. Some places have strawberry festivals, some places have zucchini festivals, some places erect statues of giant donuts, some places place dolmens atop one another to create clocks, some places carve human footprints (apparently). This was the claim to fame for Glen Rose, and some enterprising young starving artist in the depression (fitting irony, actually), decided to carve footprints (I suspect to feed a growing mythos already established).

It is not uncommon for anthropological findings to languish. There is still debate over the Clovis "point" concerning the peopling of the Americas, despite now several sites that conclusively argue for earlier, even much earlier, immigration dates. The first Neandertal, and the cave paintings at Lascaux, were first greeted with scoffing and scepticism.

As for large reptiles surviving into "modern" age, we still have frequent announcements of sightings like Nessie and various other "sea monsters." Mokele-Mbembe, Ogopogo, Komodo Dragons and assorted others as hints and allegations in this general direction. The entire Dragon mythos of cultures circling the globe had to be built around something concrete, it couldn't have been a collective figment of ancestral imagination. In the strictest sense, even a Galapagos Tortoise is a Dinosaur, in a very real manner, and still living amongst modern humans. Similar could be said concerning the Crocodilian family.

So I do accept and understand that there is room for fraud, and indeed no doubt unscrupulous persons have taken advantage of the situation in places and at times. But I also think there are some examples that do show some intrigue, especially if one can get past the curt "canned" dismissals that are usually presented without any genuine consideration.

[wil]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

As for large reptiles surviving into "modern" age, we still have frequent announcements of sightings like Nessie and various other "sea monsters." Mokele-Mbembe, Ogopogo, Komodo Dragons and assorted others as hints and allegations in this general direction. The entire Dragon mythos of cultures circling the globe had to be built around something concrete, it couldn't have been a collective figment of ancestral imagination. In the strictest sense, even a Galapagos Tortoise is a Dinosaur, in a very real manner, and still living amongst modern humans. Similar could be said concerning the Crocodilian family.

Let's say humans were around earlier than we think or dino's later than we think...what does that prove??

The avid creationists are going for the earth being less than 10k old our grand canyon created overnight by instant canyonification from the great flood, 7 literal days of creation all starting with Adam...done.

Is that your argument?

Now the cave paintings, carvings, stegosaurus...et al...as you indicated we have pictures of lochness monsters, flying fire breathing dragons, flying monkeys, rampant imaginations or based in fact? It HAS? to be built around something, it couldn't be collective imagination?? So all our current movie zombies, predators, aliens will eventually be in the archives as proof what actually occurred in civilization at this time...art is reality or will be deemed reality??

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

Originally Posted by wil

Let's say humans were around earlier than we think or dino's later than we think...what does that prove??

Only that our educated guesses are not as smugly certain as we delude ourselves into believing...that there is still room for questions even amongst all of the pat answers.

Originally Posted by wil

The avid creationists are going for the earth being less than 10k old our grand canyon created overnight by instant canyonification from the great flood, 7 literal days of creation all starting with Adam...done.

Is that your argument?

No, that is not what I said or advocate. Look anywhere here that I have addressed the issue and you will find I have kept myself decidedly neutral on the subject.

Originally Posted by wil

Now the cave paintings, carvings, stegosaurus...et al...as you indicated we have pictures of lochness monsters, flying fire breathing dragons, flying monkeys, rampant imaginations or based in fact? It HAS? to be built around something, it couldn't be collective imagination?? So all our current movie zombies, predators, aliens will eventually be in the archives as proof what actually occurred in civilization at this time...art is reality or will be deemed reality??

Could it be that imagination has a different context in pre-history? Why would cave people bother drawing zombies when they were too busy with the first attempts to draw and paint real animals...hmmm, real animals like the Przlewski's (sp?) horse, rhinocerous in Spain, sabre toothed cats, cave bears, and others long extinct. Why bother decorating the Ishtar gate with 3/4 real animals, and 1/4 imaginary ones? Why imagine dragons when "real" ones exist...or at the least used to exist. Zombies...well, I suppose one would need to ask a person familiar with Voodun to clarify that one, I really can't speak to that.

As for art becoming reality...isn't that the operating mantra of any art appreciation class?