first impressions :

1)- another example of a photograph with no reference scale , how bloody hard is it for " investigators " to put a rule or identifiable object in fram for scale prposes ?

are they all idiots ??????????????

2)- how old is the print ? it looks lke there is vegitayion growing in it - my opoinion is that it was created durnig a rainy season , probally 2 years ago - and has since been baked hard in the mud ,

further more it is possible that the rain / sun cycle has distorted the size / stape of it - you can see clear cracks and evidence that the edges are crumbling

3 )- i dought it was origionally an elephant print - elephant toes are more numerous and less pronounced

though i cannot remember what a hippo foot profile is , the rhino is a possible culprit - they have distinct toes

in conclusion - without far more information it is simply an annecdotal discovery of an unspecified print

i am very leery of the claims of massive dinosaurs and other cryptids - but sub saharan affrica has huge tracts [ bigger than the uk ] that are so poorly expolored / maped that a un catalogued species could still be extant there .

the congo would swallow 10 times over the habitat that hid the south asian deer sub species that was recently discovered [ that was 24" tall ]

a creature at least double that could easily be hidden in affrica

I think the tracks looklike rino tracks but I am no expert.

Not sure what you;re trying to say OP.

Are you saying this track is claimed to be fresh? or fossilised? We need more information, and more pictures of other tracks, if this print is isolated there is no reason to think it is even a footprint.

Originally posted by COWBOYCON
I searched up the ever famous africa Mokele Mbembe on google, and came across this photograph,

I think it might be fake, maybe an elephant or hippo track, but Im not sure...

in the sites 'encyclopedia' and going to the cryptozoology pages,
(mind you its in Italian, not English)
it seems the photo was taken in 1983, during an expedition in the Congo region

looking at the imprint in 'soil' rather than in a 'rock',
leads one to think that this impression is recent & isn't a fossilized relic

as for it being fake?
a single enterprising local having access to libraries &
pictures of other dinosaur prints could 'sweeten' the local lore with some evidence which might lead to future expeditions & research personnel returning to the area....bringing $$ and temporary employment to their local community,

That looks like a classic Rhino foot print. It has the typical Lotus shape and clearly defined three toes. A rhino is a perrisodactyl (having one or an odd number of toes). Horses and tapirs also fall into this category. I see no evidence of a dinosaur like creature other than the fact that Rhinos, or creatures much like them, have been arround for a very long time. Mokele Mbembe, Nope.

Assuming it's not a rhino (i know very little about rhino tracks)..........

Are we sure that this is a footprint in soil...I know I see soil, but maybe the layer of soil is on top of a layer of rock, and the footprint is in the rock.

If this is rock, then the photo is no big deal. There are many examples of fossilized dinosaur footprints that have beed found. While it would be of some scientific interest, it would be just one more footprint.

Although the foot print link Gazrock provided was of a different species, the comparison is still quite valid. Rhinos exhibit the classic lotus leaf or three leaf clover shape in their foot prints. The shapes vary a bit from species to species, and between individuals, but in general they resemble the supposed dinosaur print mentioned at the top of the thread. Logic dictates that it is not a dinosaur. Observation of the shape provides a clue. Species comparison provides further clues. Rhino seems like the most reasonable guess when further data is lacking. Dont forget to use Occams razor.

From Wikipedia..."Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."

There is simply too much data that we don't know. How old is the print. What is the soil material? When did it last rain? What size is the print? Etc. There is also the posibility that it isnt even a print at all but simply erosion or other geological event. Was the soil soft and muddy at the time of the print and it then dried out and changed shape?

Reasoning that the photo is of a Dinosaur without any other cooberating evidence is sheer speculation. Given the region, there is some merit to Rhino. Perhaps it was a juvenile. Perhaps it is aged and erosion has taken place. Perhaps the moisture content in the soil has changed and altered the shape. We can never know given the lack of further data.

Whatever it is, it's certainly not a dinosaur footprint. At least not a "classic" dinosaur.

More than likely, it's a rhinoceros.

If this critter is a cryptid, it could be an African forest rhinoceros, a new species of tapir, or perhaps even a new large flightless bird. I believe cassowaries have prints similar to that?

[edit on 9-1-2007 by TheWalkingFox]

I have 2 questions:

1. What kind of dinosaur made that footprint?

2. How old is that footprint?

Although the foot print link Gazrock provided was of a different species, the comparison is still quite valid. Rhinos exhibit the classic lotus leaf or three leaf clover shape in their foot prints.

Bingo, I was just trying to provide a visual for a basis of comparison....

its found that its not a dinosaur foot print it was 5000 african foot prints chasing a chicken