Monday, August 11, 2008

Baugh's Fake Foot, Round 2

I was planning to drop my attention from this hoax. Anyone capable of seeing the plain evidence has done so.

However, we are entering round two with the publication this morning of a new news article in the Mineral Wells Index.

Aug. 12, 2008

CT scans of empty space

David May of the Mineral Wells Index wrote in a recent article that the latest creationist hoax was authenticated by a medical CAT scan. Charles Myers, a radiologist looked at the images taken of the rock and stated that he thought the marks could have been produced by footsteps. Dr. Myers probably has little experience with the CT scanning of empty voids surrounded by hard material, unless he has scanned the heads of small town journalists. The result this produces is a bright outline along the edge of the void. This is called “beam hardening,” and described in considerable detail by an article hosted by The High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography Facility at The University of Texas at Austin (UTCT).

(Based on Ketcham, R.A. and Carlson, W.D., 2001. Acquisition, optimization and interpretation of X-ray computed tomographic imagery: Applications to the geosciences. Computers and Geosciences, 27, 381-400.)

The most commonly encountered artifact in CT scanning is beam hardening, which causes the edges of an object to appear brighter than the center, even if the material is the same throughout (Fig. 5a). The artifact derives its name from its underlying cause: the increase in mean X-ray energy, or "hardening" of the X-ray beam as it passes through the scanned object. Because lower-energy X-rays are attenuated more readily than higher-energy X-rays, a polychromatic beam passing through an object preferentially loses the lower-energy parts of its spectrum. The end result is a beam that, though diminished in overall intensity, has a higher average energy than the incident beam (Fig. 2). This also means that, as the beam passes through an object, the effective attenuation coefficient of any material diminishes, thus making short ray paths proportionally more attenuating than long ray paths. In X-ray CT images of sufficiently attenuating material, this process generally manifests itself as an artificial darkening at the center of long ray paths, and a corresponding brightening near the edges. In objects with roughly circular cross sections this process can cause the edge to appear brighter than the interior, but in irregular objects it is commonly difficult to differentiate between beam hardening artifacts and actual material variations.

Beam hardening can be a pernicious artifact because it changes the CT value of a material (or void) depending upon its location in an image. Thus, the attempt to utilize a single CT number range to identify and quantify the extent of a particular material can become problematic. One measure that is sometimes taken is to remove the outer edges of the image and analyze only the center. Although this technique removes the worst part of the problem, the artifact is continuous and thus even subsets of the image are affected. Furthermore, if the cross-sectional area of the object changes from slice to slice, the extent of the beam-hardening artifact also changes, making such a strategy prone to error.


The bright areas in the published medical CT scan of Baugh’s rock which appear around the “foot prints” and between the “toes” are obviously the result of beam hardening, and not compression. Looking at the central portion of the photo from the Mineral Wells Index July 29th article, we can plainly see that there was in fact no compression at all. In the blowup section below, I have outlined the multiple sedimentary layers that are easily visible. Had this object really shown a dinosaur’s footprint, or a human’s these layers would have been erased. Instead they obviously extend across the slab, and are even continuous from the “dinosaur” to the “human” marks. There is only one possible way that this could have happened, and that is by carving out the rock. It could not possibly ever have happened by compression.



These sediment layers are also obviously of different density which is why they appear in the photo as discrete lines. This variation in density is well known to further add to X-ray beam hardening. This has created the second misleading CT image published by the Mineral Wells Index.

Fake footprints, fake paleontologist?


David May in his Aug. 11th newspaper story quotes from a purported paleontologist, Floyd Nolen Jones. The Rev. Jones has doctoral degrees in theology and education, and unlike Carl Baugh’s multiple “doctorates” Jones attended accredited graduate schools. Dr. Jones also claims work experience in petroleum geology. It is this later work that justifies his identification as a paleontologist.

However, is it reasonable to still call Rev. Jones a paleontologist? Over 34 years ago after “resigning from his scientific vocation,” (Jones biography online at http://www.floydjones.org ) Jones devoted the rest of his life to the young earth creationism he still promotes. His 1993 dissertation was titled, “Chronology of the Old Testament: A Return to the Basics.” He should have subtitled it, “A return to the 1600s.” He has also written that the King James Bible is the only translation that is the Word of God, the others are all corrupted by Satan himself. Oh dear!

For over 34 years, Jones has not published a single article on paleontology. In fact, a search of available data bases and journals fails to return a single example of Jones ever publishing anything related to paleontology. Jones probably had taken some college courses on paleo, but to claim to actually be a paleontologist demands an active participation and contribution to paleontological study. There is no evidence that Jones has ever done this. The oil industry certainly does hire people in paleontology, particularly micropaleontology. This is the study of things like pollen, and tiny microscopic critters. There is no justification for Jones to call himself a paleontologist, and an ordinary sort of journalist knows these days how to use Google.

And actually folks, it doesn’t even need an expert to look at the photos and see these “footprints” are a hoax. Go out in the yard with the water hose. Take of your shoes. Do your own footprints. Now look again at those photos of Baugh's Rock.


But wait, there is more


David May is obviously pleased with his diminishment of our Nation’s collective intelligence. He wrote on Aug. 11th, “The Mineral Wells Index to date is the only news agency that has published information pertaining to the reported discovery…”

Not too surprisingly, this too was incorrect. There was a much more revealing article written by Bud Kennedy, of the Star-Telegram. Kennedy talked with Zana Douglas, a descendent of the family that discovered the famous Glen Rose dinosaur tracks nearly a century ago. She also described how her grandfather carved fake dinosaur tracks and even added human “footprints” to make them more interesting. She told Kennedy,

"My dad [Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day — I don’t know if it was to make money, or what — to start carving man tracks alongside the dinosaur tracks," said Douglas, 67 and now living near Houston.

They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged limestone, she said. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track.

"That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing it off as real," she said. "So he and Daddy took it out and buried it."


Personally, her mentioning using acid to fake the aged appearance, which would also hide tool marks, was the most convincing information in Zana Douglas’s testimony since I had pointed out last week that this latest hoax had been treated with an acid wash. Her Granddaddy Adams was more honest it seems than today’s crop of footprint sculptors in Glen Rose.

August 13, 2008

I thought I might add a variation on the photo which shows more clearly that there was no distortion of the rock's natural stratification when these prints were made. The blue and red lines each trace a separate layer, and the green lines are probably the same. There are aditional layers as I showed the other day in the photo above.


Someone with better photo editing skill than I have might overlay the newly released CT scan of the "toes."

14 comments:

deadman932 said...

"Frogger" If you are who I think you are, you might want to look at some posts (on CT scan issues, temporal paradoxes, literature citations etc.) that some folks put up here:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=4695&page=6
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=4695&page=10

Caution: the site is a bit rambunctious so the language isn't suitable for all tastes. But the thread might be worth your while to read.

Gary S. Hurd said...

Howdy DM, and anyone else,

I was off today, and again Thursday.

I thought I might add a responce on the front.

Frogger said...

Not sure who is more dense, Hurd or the rock.

Again, assumptions are made by Hurd based on no firsthand, factual information evidence he has other than a total now of three images -- the rock photo and two CAT scan images.

How was material displaced from the under the prints? Somehow the scan misconstrued that as well?

All the story is a radiologist looking at medical lab CAT scans and forming an honoest, professional, clinical observation based on the images.

Hurd can really make no definitive judgments of the scans. He is not an expert on CAT scans, he has not seen or reviewed these scans.

And, nowhere did the article, the reporter or the radiologist Myers say the rock is real based on the CAT scans, just that the scans show the material was compressed. When, by whom or what is not known.

And Bud Kennedy's column is legit based on what? No evidence or facts, just someone who said their grandfather once carved tracks?

Good grief. You people are good for a laugh and easy to rankle. It's amazing the blind following, the leaps of faith made by people.

Personally, I find Gary Hurd to be a joke and a bit of a hoaxster. He seems to be fooling a lot of people around here that he knows definitively any facts about this rock.

It probably is a fake. But apparently not because it was etched or carved.

See ya. lol ...

Gary S. Hurd said...

I have been trying to think of ways to get an age estimate of the carving. One posibility would be cosmogenic beryllium-10, less likely iodine-129, or aluminium-26. These are about the length of exposure to the surface. So the test would be contrasting the bottom of the "footprint" against the bottom, and the top side of the slab. Not a "date" per se, but, if they are nearly the same then it is a phony. If the "foot print" and the bottom of the slab are nearly the same it is a phony.

But, there are some preliminary checks that would need to be done.

Then there is the faked patina made with an acid and probably baking soda. Pollen is not attacked by acids. Since this was probably carved in somebody's backyard, I predict that typical garden plant pollens are in and under the fake patina.

The simple visual facts are enough to prove this is a hoax. This does not mean it would not be fun to waste some of Carl's money.

The vague claim that some mystery lab in Canada is going to do some unspecified study is laughable.

Rather than go vist one of the best facilities in the world that is only 155 miles south of Carl Baugh's trailer, they pretend there will be something done at medical clinics and anonymous laboratories somewhere.

Gary S. Hurd said...

There was a time that insults from anonymous warrior boys like froggy would have irritated me. Years ago. In fact, probably before that fake was carved.

The obvious point from inspection of the photographs is that the rock matrix had not been displaced, it was removed.

Sotiris said...

Frogger:

Apparently, you have no intention of dealing with this matter seriously, so don't expect any respect for your opinion.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you are certain that the print was not carved, but compressed. You have avoided this issue like the plague.

Repeatedly, I explained to you that:

An MD is NOT qualified to determine sediment compression oi a rock. it can't get any simpler than that; No matter his years as a radiologist, he doesn't deal with ROCKS. And there IS a difference, believe me; I have seen (and diagnosed) a CT scan or two myself the last 8 years.

There is NO indication of sediment compression under the print, if by "sediment compression" one means the lighter parts of the scan. The lighter parts around the edges and between the toes, as many have already explained, are most certainly a result of beam hardening.

And there are all the features GH mentioned, REAL features, evident on the photo, that need explaining.

So, THE VERY LEAST one can say about the "print" is that carving remains a possibility.

And yet, you keep asserting that carving has been ruled out with cettainty, and the only way for the print to be a fake is to be compressed on soft rock. And you persistently REFUSE to address the points of those who dispute that, avoiding all conversation.


Do you know something we don't, Frogger? Are you involved in this, somehow?

Doesn't matter either way. If you are not prepared to support your claims with arguments in a normal discussion, then kindly take your rants and your snake oil elsewhere. DLTDKYAOTWO.

Susan said...

Mr Hurd: I've started a thread about this latest Baugh hoax at the James Randi Educational Foundation's discussion forum, and I've taken the liberty of including a link to your blog. You can find the thread here.

Frogger said...

I took it upon myself to contact the Mineral Wells radiologist about your "beam hardening" theory.

I think you are going to have to try another theory.

I also contacted the Mineral Wells reporter, and he said he had also spoken with the doctor about this.

lol ...

Gary S. Hurd said...

There are some new photos posted on a website by Baugh supporter David Lines.

One in particular showed that I was mistaken about the bubble pattern in the "dinosaur toes." At the same time, the bubbley pattern of applied "patina" is clearly seen in the ball of the "human foot print."

Additionally, when examining this same photo, it is even more obvious that there was no "compression" or distortion of the natural stratification of the original rock. The only possible way these marks were made was by removal, and not by impression.

Sotiris said...

So, what EXACTLY did the radiologist tell you, frogger? I'm VERY interested.

Although something tells me it was probably something like South Park Saddam's replies: "Beam hardening? Where? Nooo, relax guy, take it easy, look over there..."

Gary S. Hurd said...

Personally, I am not particularly interested in what a medical radiologist has to say about this hoax. There are only a limited number of facilities and personnel who have the necessary experience to have anything authroitative to say. Fortunately, one of the best in the world is only 3 hours away from Carl Baugh's double wide trailer, The University of Texas, Austin.

Instead, froggy the wart and his pal Baugh the Humbug will avoid real experts and prattle on about mystery laboratories in Canada

Steve said...

Gary, Ian Juby says it can't be beam hardening because:

Finally! A half-reasonable criticism! Alright then - the high density is not visible around some of the cavities - like the outer toes of the dinosuar track... because?

Gary S. Hurd said...

I made a new post to comment on Ian Juby's defence of Baugh's fake foot.

deadman932 said...

I've been relatively polite towards you, Frogger. I'm going to ask you a question --

Suppose you were a reporter. Suppose you'd read in the news about another reporter that misrepresented sources concerning man/dino prints...lied about them.

Then you find out the reporter lied about his credentials and he's not really a reporter by any real standards. That he lied about his education. Then you find out that this same person is trying to sell the same kind of story...exactly the same kind of dino-man footprint story...to local newspapers.

Would you trust that person? Maybe you would. Maybe you really have no biases and forgive a person lying immediately, then trust them without reservation. Maybe you're that naive, I don't know. see, there's no evidence that Baugh has even a undergraduate degree in *any* field of science.

I'm simply going to lay out the facts as they are concerning this matter:

------------

Carl Baugh is a known fraud.


The information I'm going to compile and condense is taken from these sources, that have been online for years:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh

Have the ethics to read through the first site very carefully, Frogger.

Carl Baugh has lied repeatedly the "degrees" he claims to have.


He has fraudulently misrepresented his credentials as being authentic, when in fact they are all from one or a combination of the following: (1)unaccredited schools (2)schools that have no authority to grant degrees, (3)unaccredited schools that Baugh is "chancellor" or "Dean" of...or (4) diploma mills. OR (5) they simply can't be verified at all-- some of his claimed schools don't seem to even exist.

--------------------

Okay, so much for Carl Baugh's credentials.
-------------

We also know that Carl Baugh has fraudulently misrepresented claimed "Dino-man" trace fossils before. This is a fact.

-------------

We also know that even though Carl Baugh is first and foremost a Young Earth Creationist, that every major Creationist group I know of has disavowed his work.

Answers in Genesis and the Creation Science Foundation issued this statement:

" We are positive about biblical creation, but WE ARE NEGATIVE ABOUT THE SPREADING OF MISINFORMATION IN THE NAME OF CHRIST...

All the creationist scientists that we have spoken to regard Mr. Baugh's teaching as a serious embarrassment.


Carl Baugh is a 'loner'. He does not interact with others in the mainstream creationist movement and so is not getting his ideas challenged and corrected." --From
Answers In Genesis "What About Carl Baugh?"


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html
-------

Okay, so now here's Carl Baugh with yet another claimed Dino-man track, from the same area, with the same mysterious lack of information about it.

Who does Carl Baugh go to FIRST?

A radiologist.

I'm not trying to disparage Dr. Charles Myers, head of the radiology unit at Palo Pinto General Hospital, who reviewed purported CAT scan images of the dino-man prints, but -- he graduated from University of North Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine with a DO degree ( *NOT* an MD)
and has been in the profession for all of 4 years according to this: http://www.vitals.com/v/index.php?v=doctors/12612951351/Charles+M+Myers+Jr+DO

I'm sure Charles Myers knows how to run a CAT scanner to deal with human problems and what to look for there. BUT dealing with fossils, particularly trace fossils in what appears to be a homogenous slab of rock (said to be limestone) ....well, that's a different matter entirely, particularly when one is claiming to "see" rock compression.

In other words, he better be able to cite literature on the topics, and how he calibrated his machine, accounting for beam hardening and resolution. I want to know what software was used to manipulate the images. He should be willing to back that all up and show his report.

I'd be real impressed, because I have yet to find ONE citation on CAT -scanning trace fossils for compression.

So this would be a first, to my knowledge.

So, I'd like to know where Charles Myers' expertise in procedures for compression-band scanning and imaging was gained, and the full specifics of the scan.

Proper study of the alleged trace fossil would likely involve a machine suited to the task and an operator aware of and capable of dealing with issues specific to ...y'know...ROCKS.
Calibration might entail dealing with the fact that "The linear attenuation coefficient of mineral phases is a poorly known parameter, As the latter depends mainly on the density and the atomic number of the studied object and the used X-ray energy."

Attenuation - "beam hardening" and it creates "artifacts" that are false visual impressions of what Baugh was wanting..."compression."


http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn399/idn399.htm

-----------

Then there's the "archaeologist" / "paleontologist that Baugh goes to FIRST, despite being in a state with literally thousands of archaeologists?

Why, he goes to his old friend and fellow Young Earth Creationist, "Dr." Floyd Nolen Jones...who CLAIMS to be an archaeologist, geologist and paleontologist, but lists no degrees at all in those fields, only that they were "majors" in his study at schools he doesn't name on his web site.

Were they "schools" just like Carl Baugh's? Probably. Given Floyd Jones' other claims that I can read online, he seems to be just as much of a shyster.
---------

Okay, so that's all information that can be had before I even bother to look at the rock.

1.
Carl Baugh is a known fraudster
2.
Floyd Nolen Jones has all the appearances of presenting fraudulent claims.
3.
The radiologist isn't an MD, and appears to be using improper and inefficient procedures for studying a mass of limestone. I also find no data on using CAT scans for determination of trace fossil "compression" in any online science database.
4
"Friable" Limestone is EASY to carve/chip using other rocks like basalt and then deer-antler tools as you follow the layers and contours of the rock itself.

----------

Then there's your side of it, Frogger. You claim to have seen it, and you claim to have a copy of the image disc, but you won't place the images online ( or just refused to answer my request for that).

You also keep appearing at this site, questioning the idea that fakes can be spotted through photographs? You claim there's no carving, hammering, use of any tools at all (deer antler chisels smacked with a hammer work fine on soft, weathered limestone, so do stone tools) to achieve the " man footprint" of etching or use of aging agents to fake a patina? You claim that there's compression?

How do YOU know this, how do any of the "experts" you and Baugh claim to have dealt with...know any of this?

Why don't you put all the data online, including all the CAT slices?

Be a mensch, step up to the plate if you want to play. Using fallacies like arguments from incredulity ...about anyone being able to spot a fraudulent human footprint, when the guy pushing the footprint has already been shown to lie about trace fossils...well, gee, that's not impressive to me, either.

I've been careful not to say that it IS a fraud, and I had been relatively respectful towards you, Frogger, but this is beginning to stink , especially when you conveniently overlook Carl Baugh's past, and his "buddy" Floyd Jones (where ARE his "degrees" from?). Sure, people in that area of Texas have been by all accounts been making fakes for a long time and they can get good at it. But simply avoiding the hard questions won't do it, baby.


Start investigating some of that, "Frogger" and REPORT back here, k?