Replies

"I met the orignal owner of this land and he is a self promoter."

The original owner of what land?

The land where this find from 8 years previous is said to have originated, or the nearby land which is now Dinosaur Valley State Park?

You state;

"I have seen the prints that they refer to and they are not prints of man..."

You have? These are not some of the previously promoted finds which I believe you may be referring to.

Try reading the article. You may see what I mean. 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. As is further stated, this cleaning, and appearance of the human print occurred only a couple of months of so ago. "Third week of May", as is quoted..."

Do you still maintain that you have seen this particular print?

Now whether this alleged find is for real, or cooked up, I don't know. But the article claimed the rock had been subjected to CAT scans at the Glen Rose Medical Center (there is such a place?).
The scans purportedly showed compression layers beneath the prints, along with having embedded shells of the type associated with limestone rocks in that area.

If all of that is actually true, then the compression lines or layers, would seem to show the prints were not carved. If the imprints of the shells also found in the rock are of creatures no longer existent, then that would seem to be further indication (that the fossil prints were genuine).

Unless someone went to the trouble of carefully removing such shells from other material, then mixing them in with whatever other material one was making a slurry out of, how could they get there? If this was faked...

The presence of the shells, along with compression layers (if there are such?) makes at least the beginnings of a compelling case, regardless of what other evidences and theories might lead on to expect.

Then again, it could still be could totally bogus. I really don't know...

There are a couple of features of the footprint that do not appear consistent with an actual human footprint.

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.

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..