posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:47 PM
Originally posted by spaceman16
If a track has been damaged at all by weathering effects then the fossil imprint is also affected.
True, however, these tracks aren't damaged.
And if you look at the authentic track it has been distorted and is not a clean cut fresh track.
Why do you think its been distorted?
The size is a difference but that could be explained by it being a baby.
And we have to keep in mind that (if this animal does exist) that it’s been around for millions of years and is susceptible to
But then we can't really say that its a dinosaur track, because it could look like anything. Also, there is no reason to think that the track would
be altered while the rest of the animal remains exactly the same. I mean, any evidence that we get, if there's something that doesn't make sense
about it, we could
just say that the thing has changed over time in some way that explains the problem in the 'evidence'.
Plus why would a native go trough all the trouble of creating a false foot and walk around imprinting it in the ground.
I dunno. Why does anyone do that sort of thing? We know that people sometimes do it.
Just to point out it may look like there’s only three digits in the new image but if you look close enough right before the dirt lightings up
in color there’s another digit imprint it’s hard to see unless you look close.
Yeah but the problem is the entire shape of the track, its not something that would be made by a sauropod.
Also, we are just seeing a single print, and apparently there is a track of a few prints, however in sauropods there is a wide degree of
differentiation between the forefoot and hindfoot. See this photo of the Glen Rose track:
The half-moon shape above the really big print is the foreprint. Its radically different.
Here is a schematic of tracks:
A is a theropod, B a sauropod, and C is an iguanodontid.