It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

70 Million Year-Old Dinosaur Track Found in Alaska

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
A student has found a 70 million year-old dinosaur footprint in the interior of Alaska, the first time evidence of dinosaurs have been found in that area:



ANCHORAGE — A track from a three-toed dinosaur believed to be about 70 million years old has been discovered in Denali National Park, the first evidence that the animals roamed there, scientists said.

The footprint was found June 27 by a University of Alaska Fairbanks student taking a geology field course.

The fossil is 9 inches long and 6 inches wide, officials said.

The discovery's importance was its location in Interior Alaska, far from the coastline where other tracks have been found, said Anthony Fiorillo, curator of earth sciences at the Dallas Museum of Natural History.

Source: USA Today


Good find!




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Oh yeah right. Please.


I'm sure someone or something would mess it up within 70 million years


And honestly, I don't see that to be a footprint. The toes rise up?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
now how can an age be defined by a footprint? how do they arive at a date of 70,000,000 years old, it is my understanding that you realy can't reliably date either rock or things made from rock. as such could this print be even 70,000, 7,000 700 or even say 500 years old?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
now how can an age be defined by a footprint? how do they arive at a date of 70,000,000 years old


Geological estimate based on the rock it is in.

Carbon dating is only acurate in the thousands of years and requires carbon/organics.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Not Surprising, unless you are a christian.

You see, the planet didn't always look like this. There was one land mass, and it eventually spread apart. Like Antartica had dinosaurs, cause it wasn't always a frozen wasteland.

Also, geological dating of the rocks is how they find an answer. Smart people know this, christians don't cause they condem anything real.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I would think their would be layers of new rock/sediment on top of it after 70 million years. Seems like a fake.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
It's a fossil, therefor it is rock, not mud or whatever.

Just like dino fossils are not really bones, they are rock/minerals that filled it up with calcium deposits and whatever. Let me get some links..

web.ukonline.co.uk...
www.infowest.com...

That should help the smart people.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
the first time evidence of dinosaurs have been found in that area[/url]

To be clear, its not the first time for alaska as a whole, just that part of alaska.

ken_allen
I'm sure someone or something would mess it up within 70 million years

If yer sure, then you're just sure wrong.

I would think their would be layers of new rock/sediment on top of it after 70 million years

Again, your initial thoughts on the subject are wrong. Why should it be buried? And why shouldn't things that are buried get revealed as the sediment is eroded?

Seems like a fake.

How do you suggest a fake like that was made, in the middle of the rock in alaska?

don't see that to be a footprint. The toes rise up

People that actually study these things recognize that there are lots of different types of footprints. When an animal steps into a soft layer, there is a series of prints that are made.
Amherst Stone Book


Drogo
now how can an age be defined by a footprint?

Its a fossil. They date it like they date all fossils.

it is my understanding that you realy can't reliably date either rock or things made from rock

Your understanding is incorrect.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Looks like a big chicken foot print. The other white meat.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
WooHoo!!!
We waz first!!!


Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Looks like a big chicken foot print. The other white meat.


I think the reason its "up" is the same reason that happens in snow.

Walking compacts the layer underneath (ash?), so its harder than the surounding material. The lighter stuff blows / erodes away leaving the impacted print standing out in relief.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Here is a relif print from a modern wild turkey, if anyone ishaving trouble beleiving that prints can form like that.



Here's two theropod tracks showing 'positve releif'
external image

As far as what makes positive releif prints, there's actually a bit of discussion as to what causes it. Generally its thought to be caused by material infilling the track from above, but netchicken's explanation sounds like what I've heard other people theorize about it.

The people who really study these tracks can really get into it. If you see them out in the field, they're like native trackers, indeed, some of them have met with native peoples to learn about tracks in general from them, and they can really tell a lot about what the animal was doing, walking, strinding straight legged, pausing in hesitation, smacking the ground with their fore-paws (in frustration, anticipation?). Its pretty interesting.

edit to add
here's a nice collection of pages
paleo.cc...
edit again to add
Here is a 'reprint' of a page from Martin Lockely, out of Colorado, who literally wrote the book on this sort of thing. It has a neat explanation of weird tracks:
www.stadiumweb.com...


[edit on 6-7-2005 by Nygdan]




top topics



 
0

log in

join