Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Carl Baugh's latest Fake

Carl Baugh of Glen Rose Texas is the proprietor of the Creation Evidence Museum. Baugh is best known for his unaccredited degrees and his many fraudulent evidences that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. His latest is the Alvis Delk Cretaceous Footprint.


Oh be still my fluttering heart.


From the famous scientific journal, the Mineral Wells Index, of Mineral Wells Texas we learned that the source of the fossil was, “Amateur archeologist and Stephenville, Texas, resident Alvis Delk, 72, shows a lime cast replica of the limestone rock he found in July 2000 near Glen Rose, Texas. Initially he kept the 140-pound because it contained a dinosaur footprint. Two months ago, he was brushing the stone and discovered a human footprint in the rock – partially beneath the dinosaur print. The actual stone is now in the possession of the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas.”


Baugh wrote on his website that, “The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered. “


Baugh told the Mineral Wells Index that, “The compression lines, the density features, do show, and there is no way to fake that,” he said. “It is possible to carve a track in limestone. But there is no way to compress the material in the rock under the track. That is absolutely impossible. That’s why the CAT scans are so important.”


First of all, a medical CAT scan uses a lower energy beam than could be useful on a sandy limestone. That is why real paleontologists use industrial facilities. The University of Houston (added 8/15/08, this was inccorect- I was thinking of The University of Texas, Austin) has a laboratory that has many years of experience with just this type of analysis. This points to the next problem; a medical facility is not staffed by paleontologists or geophysicists. Baugh has no accredited degrees either. He wouldn't know "compression lines" from his own butt crack. However, you don't even need more than the photograph from the Mineral Wells Index, which was much higher resolution than from Baugh's website, to see that this is object is a fake.

I downloaded the photo at full resolution. If you closely examine the photo, you will easily see that there are sandy lenses in the rock; four are visible in the exposed rock between the "toes" of the dinosaur print. Now look at the "human print," particularly the area of the little toe. You will see (with a little magnification) that the top most layer is penetrated by the "toe" and not compressed, and the second layer is partially exposed. The same lens is exposed across the base of the four distal toes. This could not have happend unless the "toes" had been carved out of the rock.

Returning to the "dinosuar" print, there is no compression folding of the sandy layers between the toes which is interesting. First, there must have been if this were a legitimate track. However, there appears to me to be evidence of removal of material from between the central and the medial "toe" as well as along the top edge of the "track."

There also appears to be a patina coating the bottom of the basin. This has two interesting features. First, it is pealing and cracking. This is not appropriate to a real patina. Second, the patina appears in parts of the basin and not others, nor does it appear consistantly in the "human toe prints."

(If this were a video game walkthrough, I would place a big Warning: Cheat Follows ).

Here is how to fake a patina that will look like this fake fossil: Brush the surface with vinegar, and then sprinkle with baking powder followed by baking soda, and let dry. Repeat until you are happy with the results. This is not the only way, or even the best way. But it is simple, and will fool the average fool. Especially easy if they want to be fooled.

So, having spent a little bit more time on the photo of this fake, I feel that I understand a bit more about how it was produced. A legitimate dinosaur track was found and removed. Incompetent, unprofessional "Cleaning" damaged it. An parital overprint, or simple erosion depression was "improved" by adding "toes." The faked surfaces were smothed over with a simple kitchen concoction to make a "patina." Artifact fabricators next bury the fake for a year or two, or they smear it with fertilizer and leave it exposed. This helps weather the object and obscure tool marks.

Added later:

The bubble pops.

If you used the cheap kitchen patina method I mentioned above, there is the chance that the acid will create a gas bubble in a depression. This lifts the fake patina and is visable as little bumps, or they form pits.

I just enlarged the photo again, focused on the center toe of the "dinosaur." There are two obvious pits of broken bubbles created by a recently applied acid wash seen on the distal portion of the "track." Looking further, there is one more near the distal end of the medial toe.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

What appear to be scholarly references is confusing. If this were a recent discovery, as claimed, why would the claimant reference articles such as "Milne, David H., and Schafersman, Steven D., Journal of Geological Education, 1983, V.31, p.111" from 25 years ago to substantiate this recent (pseudo-)discovery?

Tom G(eologist) said...

In addition to the excellent critique of this canard, there is an even simpler mistake made by the counterfeiter.

The center "toe" of the dinosaur footprint was an indentation in a raised soil matrix which surrounds the distal end of the digit and which extends into the central area of the "human" indentation (which by the way is a remaracably flat foot). In order to step onto an existing indentation in soft sediment and raise a mound of soil in front of the digits to the same height as the native soil on the far side (outside) of the original indentation, the foot of the dinosaur would have needed to slide forward, pushing, or bulldozing soil ahead of it. There is no evidence of movement within the dinosaur footprint, but subsequent erosion could have removed shallow grooves. However, based on the heel of the dinosaur footprint it is evident that this animal was not moving forward at a rapid rate and that the foot did not skid in the sediment. The foot was placed pretty much directly downward and lifted in much the same manner. The flat base of the dino footprint is further evidence that the animal was not moving rapidly (there are typically deeper heel and toe indentations when an animal is "running" which is also the condition in which the heel indentation has an initial strike surface which is not vertical beutwhich records the angle of contact with the ground as the animal moved forward. Under that scenario, the toe imprints are also deeper as the animal spings off its toes to maintain forward momentum.

this is the footprint of either a stanionary animal or one which was moving at a liesurly pace but the raised soil in front of the prominent medial digit would require forward movement at a rate which is not supported by the other evidence int he print.

Tom

Ed Darrell said...

A non-expert commenter to my blog, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, wondered how it is that the two prints appear to be the same depth: Was it a two-ton man, or a 120-pound giant, very thin, dinosaur?

Tom G(ologist) said...

Gary: In response to “I am glad you liked the discussion. I think that Tom also made a good point. However, I don’t know to what extent a track could be distortied by slumping, recoil or burial, or during lithification”

The middle dino toe has raised matric at the leading and lateral edges, but the left toe terminates into the heel of the “human” print at the same depth. Can’t be!!!! Also, distortion by slumping occurs on the inside of fossile imprints, not on the outside. Moreover, no other part of the print is distorted. Burial would cause no distortion because preservation of a print of this type and quality occurs requires that the original sediment is hardened sufficiently prior to burial to maintain its original shape. Lithification (induration) can not accoujt for that kind of distortion - at least not if the counterfeiter wants to maintain a claim that X-Rays and MRIs prove that induration did not distort compression features in the matrix below the prints. A rock in which such features are preserved can not have undergone post-depositional deformation of the type which would be required to create the disparate features on the hand-specimen scale.

This is not even a good fake - it violates the principle of superposition on two accounts.

Tom

Frogger said...

The CAT scan images were independently reviewed, and the radiologist absolutely ruled out any etching of the prints. None. Not by tool or chemical. The rock was definitely compressed by the two prints. Compression and increased density is evident between the toes of both prints, around the edges, in the material pushed up in the human print by the intruding print. There is obvious displacement of material beneath the prints.

So, etching is out. The rock was compressed by the prints. When or by who or what are the questions, along with how old is the rock. Those are the questions.

I have a feeling Mr. Hurd's "expert" opinion of his facts and findings based solely on the photo of this discovery made in May of this year could be included in a follow up story that could publish this Sunday.

Frogger said...

Oh yeah, the radiologist also refuted Hurd's claim that medical lab CAT scan would not be able to perform a good scan. It did, top to bottom. across the top. at 120 kv, not all that high. The radiologist was not surprised at the quality of the images.

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frogger:
this one doesn't even pass a red face test on morphological grounds. But, as you say, we have only seen a photograph. We look forward to your side's upcoming publication in one of the geological journals which deals with sedimentology - the journal Sedimentology springs to mind for some inexplicable reason. This IS after all an issue for sedimentologists to sort out - the compression of soft sediment which later becomes indurated - and not for radiologists or MRI specialists.
The news that an interdisciplinary team has confirmed this new discovery will change the course of science and western thought, so I am certian that in the time since May, the discoverer of this treasure has begun assembling a team of experts in the correct disciplines. There is no worry about primacy in publication as no-one else has the specimen, so you can tell us who is being considered for the research team and what peer review team they plan to suggest to prospective publisher(s).

Now - tongue out of cheek. The onus of proof is squarely and indisputably on your side's shoulders. Don't come prancing around with the report of a radiologist to tell geologists about sedimentary structujres and fabrics. You might as well ask me to opine as to whether an MRI image indicates a metastasized cancer (which I patently could not do and would not have the balls to attempt).

Stop playing with something you know NOTHING about and do what anyone would with a civilization-altering discovery - have it examined by experts in the appropriate fields under controlled conditions.

You want to play scientist? - fine. Come back and crow in our faces with the appropriate, confirmed, refereed, published data and analyses and I will be first in line to eat that crow. Until then, however, please be aware that all you are doing i PLAYING scientist - even if you have credentials, what have tossed out does not constitute any degree of scientific content or validity.
Oh and while you are at it, please make sure you inform us (with data) of what formation this rock came from, where it was discovered, whether the mineralogy and elemental composition compare with the claimed parent rock if it was not intact but was float, and the exact locale so the rest of the world can make the owner of the property a wealthy person in prospecting rights.

In short - You put up and we will listen respectfully; You don't, then shut up. The test you all hold up as definitive doesn't cut it. Sorry.

Tom G(ologist) said...

Oh, I forgot to mention that the research team ought to have someone with expertise in desert varnishes - yes, there are such people. What does your radiologist know about semi-arid environment chemical erosion that he can make a pronouncement based on an MRI that there was no etching?

Again, please put up ....

Anonymous said...

Hey guys, I am going fishing. Beer is in the 'fridge. I'll be back late Friday or maybe Saturday.

PS: This "compression lines" nonsense is disproven by the exposed, flat sediment lensing seen in the photos. Funny in a sad sort of way.

Gary

Frogger said...

I'm trying real hard to have geologists, paleontologists in North Texas look at it close up, test it, etc.

I just find it funny you guys are passing judgments based on a photo with no other data. At least I've seen the CAT scans, had the density measurements explained, the slices, etc. You haven't even done that, yet you have made a determination.

By the way, the lighting and angle the photo was taken distort some the actual features of the rock (which I have seen).

Just passing along one bit of fact. No etching. The toes were not added. The CAT scan in the medical lab was fine. You guys have fun with your Internet debunking.

Anonymous said...

Time for one last comment:

I will offer a simple wager; you pay my expenses, and I’ll be more than glad to fly out and debunk your rock. If I don’t convince a panel of geologists that this is a fake, I’ll double the expenses in a donation to Baugh’s museum.

Gary

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frogger:

You seem sincere, so I am going to be less sarcastic. You or someone posted this on the net rather than go for true research and pulication - always a red flag. Second, when you post something, you are asking for comment - we give it. Third, we are perhaps a bit too scathing because this is an abvious and undenialble fake - even at a distance, and even in two dimensions. Fourth, if you are really trying to get credible scientists involved and they have actually looked at the thing and stil not willing to jump in - doesn't that tell you something. This would not be just a a career making project - it would be a guarantee of posterity for anyone who could prove it was true. If credible scientists aren't biting, I would take that as an early warning sign.
Finally, let me get something straight. The density of the rock BETWEEN the toes of the alleged human print is increased, implying compression? Those toes are already approx 0.5cm apart all the way down, and the soil between them was supposed to have been comppressed? Please think aout what you are trying to ask us to swallow before deriding US for being nothing more than internet debunkers. This kind of thing is insulting to trained scientists who work with fossils and sediments.
Forgive a perhaps heightened sense of the sceptical at the outset, but once we al got to the point of actually looking closely at just the photos, this is a patent fake.

Frogger said...

Sorry Gary, but I wouldn't find you to be a credible, impartial judge. You are absolutely bent, predisposed to debunking anything like this. You don't have an open mind. You are stuck in your belief system and anything that might contradict that is a fake or fraud because you simply know better. But I guess you can contact Baugh and see if he will let you anywhere near the rock. I doubt it. lol

Frogger said...

There is really no other reason or explanation for compression and highly increased density between the toes, other than the foot stepped into the soft material - both tracks did. What you want to believe about that it is up to you. Does that fact alone make this genuine? Of course not. And again, it appears not to matter what the facts are regarding the scans as you guys seem intent on not believing that the tracks were made by stepping onto the soft rock.

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frogger:

Good bye. Your 5:01 post to Gary pushed you over th eline and I retract the benefit of doubt I was willng to grant you. Scientists welcome their greatest critics to have their speciments and to take their best shots to disprove them. What you have done is come out and stated you have something equivalent to conclusive proof that Oswald did not act alone in kiing JFK, but your not going to reveal it - you get the picture?

Sorry, but you have lost the tiny bit of crediblity I was willng to allow and I am done playing with you. So, adios.

Tom

hexidecima said...

It is a shame that supposed "good Christians" find that they have to lie and that they do it so poorly. Just who has ever seen a human footprint that looks like that. Even cartoons do better.

Christians, remember God says not to lie for him(Romans 3).

Frogger said...

Tom,

Sorry if I hurt Gary's feelings or yours in the process.

As said, hopefully some reputable people with the proper credentials and abilities will step up, look at this rock and make proper scientific determinations based on actual testing, as opposed to Internet experts debunking it based solely on an online photo and who is in possession of it.

What has taken place and been said on here is not reliable or credible. Real scientists would wait for data on something like this before already deciding it's a fake. Your opinions are prejudiced.

What are your qualifications? You are nothing but an Internet blogger, same as me. Though I at least have seen the rock and some actual data. So I am at this point more qualified than anyone here to comment on this particular specimen, moreso than the speculation and guessing, such as Hurd's commentary that the human toes were apparently added by etching the rock. Facts are that is not true.

Sorry you don't like the truth in your little sewing circle here.

Bye ladies. I'll be back with more facts later. What they will prove, I don't know.

Wolfhound said...

I'm pretty sure that by "reputable people with the proper credentials and abilities" Frogger means creationists who are biased toward a belief in the Flintstones as reality and unwavering belief in a Young Earth where all of the critters danced and played and ate coconuts before that bitch Eve was convinced by the talking snake to get Adam to eat the apple.

Oh, and, um, if you want Gary's credentials, they're on the blog. Tell us, Froggie do, what your degree(s) are in, where you obtained them, and what kind of field work you have done that you dismiss Dr Hurd so cavalierly. Yours must be inpressive, indeed!

Zaius said...

Can frogger or anyone explain what we are looking at in the "CT Scan" image ?
http://www.creationevidence.org/images/Cretaceous_Footprint_4.jpg
The dino print in question has three toes the same size and straight. Whatever is in the scan has digits of differing sizes that are curled. The image itself is confusing. It's not a slice of an object or a reassembled 3D image. The image is low resolution and almost looks more like a sonogram.

Ed Darrell said...

But I guess you can contact Baugh and see if he will let you anywhere near the rock. I doubt it. lol

That's another sign of a hoax, of course. Remember how the perps of the Piltdown hoax tried to keep scientists away from the specimens?

Baugh can write it up, but from everything I've seen, it looks like a complete fraud. Is there any one of the Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science that this thing doesn't exhibit?

I'll be back with more facts later. What they will prove, I don't know.

You're truthful there.

Frogger, c'mon over to Millard Fillmore's bathtub and explain, if you can, why this hominid footprint does not resemble any other hominid footprint ever found, including the one pictured there.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/fred-flintstone-waded-here-hoaxsters-ready-to-teach-creationism-to-texas-kids/

rawebb said...

(Warning: Old phart on the intertubez; I'll probably screw this up somehow.)

I have no clue what the "CT scan" image was produced by, and the image on the original site is distorted somewhat, but it does overlay the image of the "footprints" if it's rotated a bit.

I put up a sequence with the "CT scan" in successive opacity levels from 0 to 100 at imageshack. The leading digits in the image tag represent the opacity setting. E.g., 78up3.jpg is at 78%. (Imageshack added the "up3" suffix, presumably to differentiate from the gazillion of other 78.jpgs out there...)

http://img365.imageshack.us/my.php?image=100zz2.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00zv2.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=86yx8.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=78up3.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=39fz9.jpg

Tom G(ologist) said...

As I said, I am done playing with this wingnut - no time for it really. I have had my say above in the technical analyses I gave. I suggest we leave this little boy/girl behind and await the results of the 'scientific tests' he/she is trying so hard to get people to make. ONce they start asking for our credentials, while presenting none of their own.. wait, did I say asking - that sounded more like a demand than a poilte request.

Signing off now.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Is anyone else completely _floored_ by how fake the shape of the human print looks? Look at the space between the big toe and the second toe. Look at its depth relative to the ball of the foot. The weight distribution seems implausible.

Look at the displacement of the mud in the human track (or the obvious lack thereof). If the dinosaur's middle toe created a deep ridge there, why aren't the sides smashed and pushed into the middle, shrinking the width of and destroying most of that track? If there was a void of mud there created by the dinosaur track, then that would in fact be the weakest part of the area supporting the human and the human's weight would sink into it. A footstep on that tip of the dinosaur track would essentially destroy the tip, unless the human had the most arched feet in history and very carefully tiptoed over the edge of the track with the _intention_ of preserving the tip, and even in that case, the tip of the middle dinosaur toe track would _still_ be narrower from the soft material being compressed into it.

The human track looks _completely_ carved to me. That would be my only explanation as to how such a human track could be so perfectly superimposed without disturbing the underlying track.

Anonymous said...

"I'm pretty sure that by "reputable people with the proper credentials and abilities" Frogger means creationists who are biased toward a belief in the Flintstones as reality[. . .]"
You mean The Flintstones wasn't a historical documentary? My world view is shattered!

Frogger said...

All I can tell you is the CAT scan images are excellent. From the bottom up through the rock shows the human print was made first, the dino print (if that is what it is) second. So two of Hurd's leaps to conclusions are ruled out.

The CT scans prove none of the features were carved. The stone was stepped into when it was soft. It leaves just one question to be answered -- when was the rock soft? A long, long time ago or much more recently?

Still needing an objective geologist/chemist and a lab capable of making that determination.

Tom G(ologist) said...

Cant resist. Frogger - in re: "What are your qualifications? You are nothing but an Internet blogger, same as me."

OK - I'll condescend.
Geologist - Rutgers University, Graduate School (New Brunwick '87) Currently: The College of New Jersey (Geology professor) and LaSalle Unviversity (Structural Geology). Member of Pennsylvania State Licensing Board for Professional Geologists; Subject Matter Expert for the Council of Examiners in the National Association of State Boards of Geology.

When I discussed the morphological inconsistencies of your (very)little fraud, and the nature of the morphology of actual fossils it was not the intejections of "Just a blogger" ......... like YOU!

Frogger said...

Well, I'll have to take your word on your credentials. No reason to doubt you.

As an educated geologist, it amazes me you would instantly call this rock a fraud based on the photo. That is highly suspect of you in my opinion, especially now that you know the fact the rock was compressed by the prints when it was soft.

You have no way of knowing from where you are the age of the rock. But you have deemed it to be fake based on your geological expertise.

It is obvious many of you are afraid of the possibility that this thing is legit.

So Tom the geologist in the northeast, if you have any legitimate geologist friends or contacts, especially in Texas, who can perform the proper tests and analysis in the proper lab to verify the age of this rock, where it came from and the microfossils it purportedly contains, etc., please encourage them to do so.

Meanwhile, your comments and others on here look like nothing but paranoia. The rock might be fake, but it has passed one test. It has a bigger one now to pass. Let's see.

Wolfhound said...

Frogger, who or what, exactly, are you that you claim special knowledge of and access to this amazing artifact which proves the TROOF of YECkery? Are you the press agent for the "museum" that owns this miraculous relic? Just wondering what your angle is and why you feel that your lack of stated credentials beyond allegedly seeing the rock in real life trumps actual geologists and the like.

Frogger said...

Uh, Tom g(ologist) --

There is no Tom on the La Salle geology science department faculty's Web site. So maybe you are Henry, Alice, Stephen, Bertram or Scott.

The College of New Jersey has a science department, but nothing for geology or related science. Biology, chemistry, computer science, math and stats and physics. Of all those full-time, adjunct and departmental staff listed in those departments, there was a Thomas Hagerdorn in math and stats.

I was expecting to see a Tom G. or Thomas G. Hmmm...

Frogger said...

Wolfhound,

All I can tell you is I have seen and touched the rock, I've seen very high res, close up photos (showing some of the micro-fossils) and viewed the CAT scan images (800 individual images comprising four different scans that can be viewed in continuous loops), and I know an independent radiologist confirmed that the CAT scans are real, they were quality scans and the measurements taken prove the rock's material was compressed when it was soft, that no portions of the prints were etched into the stone.

That's it.

But it is a whole lot more than anyone else on this board can say. Just trying to deal in known facts as far as this rock is concerned. I'm not afraid to find out the truth of this this thing.

The only question now really is -- when was the rock soft?

Frogger said...

Sorry ... let me say there are a couple of things that are curious, questionable, about the prints that come up when viewing the scans.

It would take an expert to discuss those intelligently, and you would have to know some factors about the stone, how soft/hard was it when it was stepped into, for instance, to know the answers.

Not sure someone could answer those questions to everyone's satisfaction, so in my opinion the best thing is to just prove the age of the rock. That should be easy to do and remove any questions, if done legitimately and objectively.

Anonymous said...

First, I'd like to thank rawebb for their alignment of the CAT image and a photo of the "track." It is pretty obvious that the creationists will be able to accept anything, so long as it supports their presuppositions. In the sciences one must take into account all the available data. This means that the last 200 years of paleontology which categorically demonstrated that humans and dinosaurs never existed together must be also part of any explanation of new evidence.

This is apart from the obvious flaws of this latest hoax presented by Carl Baugh.

Frogger claims Baugh seeks to have a competent examination of this rock. Here is the form to use to obtain a professional CT analysis from the University of Texas, Austin. Just print it and mail it in to ctlab@maestro.geo.utexas.edu:



Application for Scanning and Image Processing Services
University of Texas High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) Facility

Please read this document carefully. It is an agreement with respect to ownership and dissemination of the data and images that are produced at this facility as well as terms of payment for services. A copy of this agreement with an original signature must be received by the CT lab before any scanning or image processing services can be provided.

In the explanations below, "CT lab" refers to the University of Texas High Resolution CT Facility and/or its personnel. "CT lab personnel" refers to Dr. William Carlson, Dr. Tim Rowe, Dr. Richard Ketcham, and Dr. Matthew Colbert, any of whom can act on behalf of the CT lab.

Test scans:

Test scans are provided to the applicant free of charge for proof-of-principle and grant-application purposes. It is agreed that test scans will not be used in any scientific research, or published, displayed or disseminated in any way without specific, written permission from CT lab personnel. Test scans are also the property of the CT lab, and may be used by the CT lab for any purpose. Most such uses would be for promotional purposes, display on the worldwide web, or publication in general-interest articles. Any dissemination of images by the CT lab will be accompanied by acknowledgment of the applicant. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide adequate documentation of the object(s) being scanned, such as formal name, sampling locality and age if a geological specimen, co-investigators on the research project, reference to grants and/or funding agencies, and any other information that the applicant would like to see accompany the CT images of the object(s) if they are disseminated. If the applicant does not wish for the data to be disseminated in any way, he/she must explicitly request and be granted a written exemption from the CT lab facility manager.

Scanning and image processing charged at the academic rate:

Scanning and image-processing charges are lower for projects for investigators employed or enrolled at not-for-profit academic and United States governmental institutions and organizations. All data produced by scanning and image processing charged at these rates are the joint property of the applicant and the CT lab. All dissemination of data and images from the CT lab, including later findings based on the scanning results, must be accompanied by acknowledgment of the CT lab. With appropriate acknowledgment of the applicant, the CT lab may use the data for any purpose, unless a written exemption is requested and granted, as described in the above paragraph. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide adequate documentation of the object(s) being scanned, as described in the above paragraph.

Scanning and image processing charged at the non-academic rate:

Results of scanning and image-processing services charged at the full non-academic rate are the property of the applicant. However, all dissemination by the applicant of data and images from the CT lab, including later findings based on the scanning results, must be accompanied by acknowledgment of the CT lab. Unless a request is granted to do otherwise, the CT lab may archive the data and images, but the CT lab will not disseminate the data or images in any way without written permission from the applicant.

Scanning specimens on institutional loan:

If the object(s) to be scanned is (are) accessioned in an institution (museum, university, etc.), it is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain explicit permission from an appropriate representative of that institution to have the object(s) scanned, and to provide documentation of such permission to the CT lab.

Example acknowledgment of CT images or data:

These data and images were produced at the High-Resolution X-ray Computed Tomography Facility of the University of Texas at Austin.

Payment for services:

Applicants are expected to pay in a timely fashion for all services performed by the CT lab, except those that are designated in advance to be "test scans" as described above. The CT lab makes no explicit warranty about the usefulness of data or imagery for any specific purpose.

I understand and agree to the above terms.



Printed name: _______________________________________



Signature: _______________________________________ Date: _____________

Anonymous said...

I did a bit more reading on X-ray CT of geological specimens at the University of Texas, Austin site. The so-called compression density changes are an error caused by incorrectly calibrating the difference between air, and rock. This caused the image software to outline the open "track." This is particularly a problem with beam energies that are too low for the sample material. Medical CTs use a beam of less than 140 kev, geological material should be examined well above this, even as high as ~400 kev.

The phoney "compression density" is really the density difference between air and rock.

I would guess that UT, Austin is close enough to Baugh that they might wander over there for a confirmation.

Frogger said...

Wow. Anonymous, it's not good enough for you that someone with some first hand info has already said the CT scans done are of high quality and have been independently reviewed and verified by a disinterested radiologist who has confirmed the CT scans are authentic and determined the images prove the rock was compressed, the images were not made by etching or carving. That is not good enough for you, why?

There is no error in the scan. It is what it is. Wow. You guys are great.

The rock only needs to be dated, and I don't mean taking it out to dinner and a movie.

Was hoping someone over here could help make that happen, but apparently not. Just a bunch of ongoing "experts" in complete denial even after some factual info is presented.

Gary S. Hurd said...

Actually froggy boy, there is nothing at all about this rock that can stand up to even minor scrutiny. All of the critical observations are those that will only become more obvious with greater attention.

What is clear is that creationists will accept any figment, any hoax, any lie, just so it supports their mythos.

Gary S. Hurd said...

I was wondering who "Froggy" was addressing, and I saw that he was probably referring to me. My last two comments appeared as "anonymous."

So, I'll take the moment to point out that froggy obviously has no background in geology or paleontology, or even a working grasp of basics. Consequently, "froggy" has no standing even if he has slept with the rock under his pillow.

There are professionals who might be willing to examine this rock for free. I have provided their website URL, and email. Do I also need to Google up a map?

Naw, even froggy can Google.

Gary S. Hurd said...

One other thought; if Baugh paid for this thing, the guy who made it and sold it has committed a crime. At least Baugh should have theis confirmed by professional examiners so that he can try and get his money back.

ninewands said...

There's really no need to give this sculpted rock the benefit of the doubt and additional testing. It's obviously a fake, as I explain here.

Now, if Frogger wants to explain to me how the "dinosaur's" "middle toe" was imprinted after the "arch" of the "human" print was, while the "heel" of the "human print" imprinted after the "first toe" of the "dinosaur print" without resorting to time travel I might listen. Otherwise he can "talk to the hand ... "

Gary S. Hurd said...

Actually Ninewands,(Howdy) I disagree based on the photos on Baugh's website, and the wide angle photo on the MW news site. The lateral "dinosaur toe" (the one at the lower part of the photo) was not modified by the fake human print in the area that you indicated. That is a feature of the camera angle of one of the photos from the Mineral Wells newspaper story. The other photos show this not to be the case.

The fact is that neither "foot print" has properly modified the matrix or the other print in anyway that could have happened naturally. I think that the "human" print was carved first using some partially preserved dino print, or just an suggestive erosion feature, and the "dino" print was then added. The whole surface of the carving was then washed with a weak acid quenched (neutralized) with baking soda, or baking powder.

Gary S. Hurd said...

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/hom...210093256.html

There are two good and very interesting photos at the "Mineral Wells Index" linked above. There are also very poor quality photos at Carl Baugh's website. But, Baugh does add one image from the supposed CAT scan of the rock. These have been combined for some very interesting images at;

http://profile.imageshack.us/user/ra...365/100zz2.jpg

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frog:
I wanted to be done with you, but I guess I have to clear myself of this disease.
Very good - you can google. I will take the un-necessary trouble. I am adjunct a TCNJ at which all earth, atmospheric and space sciences are in teh physics dept. I teach a class that is offered once every two years at LaSalle. I am adjunct because I run a private consulting firm in which I provide forensic geologic services - very profitably so my services are not hack or quack.

Now that I have told you a bit about what qualifies me to look at a photograph and see things which are obviously faked (did you actually read my assessments above or is all this bullcrit?), I invite you to tell us all just one little credential. Come on - you must have had one class you can tell us about that somehow relates to science. OPerhaps you can tell us that you at least attended college and had a class which somehow qualifies you to challenge the entire scientific community - I don't care that you hve licked the 'rock' - it is irrelevant.

And by the way, one can not date a sedimentary rock from a hand specimen which is not in place. I guess you wouldn't iknow that because you are nothing more than a blogger and you have refused all previous invitations to present just one tiny little qualification.


If you really want the name of a Texas geologist, how about someone from SMU? Or perhaps Texas A&M? I will not bother my colleagues from ASBOG until you provide assurances from the owner of this sorry little fake that they will indeed deliver it and pay for the time and analyses (that;'s the way it works when one has something that will shatter the world - the burden of proof is on you). You seem to be an unauthorized wanna be and I will not deal with you in the involvement of others. So get the owner of this 'rock' on this blog if you really want to prove something.

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frog:
I wanted to be done with you, but I guess I have to clear myself of this disease.
Very good - you can google. I will take the un-necessary trouble. I am adjunct a TCNJ at which all earth, atmospheric and space sciences are in teh physics dept. I teach a class that is offered once every two years at LaSalle. I am adjunct because I run a private consulting firm in which I provide forensic geologic services - very profitably so my services are not hack or quack.

Now that I have told you a bit about what qualifies me to look at a photograph and see things which are obviously faked (did you actually read my assessments above or is all this bullcrit?), I invite you to tell us all just one little credential. Come on - you must have had one class you can tell us about that somehow relates to science. OPerhaps you can tell us that you at least attended college and had a class which somehow qualifies you to challenge the entire scientific community - I don't care that you hve licked the 'rock' - it is irrelevant.

And by the way, one can not date a sedimentary rock from a hand specimen which is not in place. I guess you wouldn't iknow that because you are nothing more than a blogger and you have refused all previous invitations to present just one tiny little qualification.


If you really want the name of a Texas geologist, how about someone from SMU? Or perhaps Texas A&M? I will not bother my colleagues from ASBOG until you provide assurances from the owner of this sorry little fake that they will indeed deliver it and pay for the time and analyses (that;'s the way it works when one has something that will shatter the world - the burden of proof is on you). You seem to be an unauthorized wanna be and I will not deal with you in the involvement of others. So get the owner of this 'rock' on this blog if you really want to prove something.

Tom G(ologist) said...

But if you really are interested, and are somehow having trouble finding geologist who should jump at such a chance, here are couple liks for you:

USGS, Central Region, Texas:
JESS D. WEAVER
8027 Exchange Dr.
Austin, TX 78754
dc_tx@usgs.gov
(512) 927-3500
Fax: (512) 927-3590

Office hours: 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m

of perhaps the Texas State Geologist:

Director and State Geologist
Bureau of Economic Geology
SCOTT TINKER
Bureau of Economic Geology
University Station, Box X
Austin, TX 78713-8924
begmail@beg.utexas.edu
(512) 471-1534
Fax: (512) 471-0140
http://www.beg.utexas.edu

Come on and shut us all up and get these guys to at least say you might have something here.

Frogger said...

You can still test the rock and prove where it came from by comparing it with samples of others in the same area. Why is that so hard? Even a blogger can figure that out. It is known where the rock reportedly came from, and further excavations were performed there recently.

Haven't tried A&M. SMU and UT, UTA, TCU, but people are still out apparently for the summer.

Good leads on the other two suggestions. Thanks.

Frogger said...

ninewads...

From what I have sen and was pointed out to me, the CAT scans from the bottom of the rock leave no doubt the human print was made first, the other print second. Not saying that's a real dino print, ju7st telling you the order of the impressions/compressions into the rock. It is evident and, IMO, irrefutable, which stepped first. Real compressions, prints made not by etching or carving, the human print came first. Doesn't prove it's legit. Don't be afraid of it. That is all. :-P

Sotiris said...

First of all, frogger, the middle digit of the dino print cuts the human print nearly in half. And it's quite deeper than the footprint. Where is the displacement of sediment on the sides? It's as if the dino's claws disintegrated the soil as they dug in.

Also, another thing I'm curious about. You said that one can determine compression by looking at the "greater density" between the toes and around the edges. Did your "Independent radiologist" friend tell you that?

deadman932 said...

There's an expert in the geological/paleontological applications of CAT scans at the University of Texas, Austin:

Dr. Richard Ketcham, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Geological Sciences C1100 http://www.geo.utexas.edu/scientist/ketcham.htm

Author of "Computed Tomography for Paleontology and Geology." His list of publications in the area are impressive: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/scientist/ketcham_pubs.htm

I've used x-rays for ceramic analysis and the potential for creating or reinforcing stylistic seriations or typologies, ,but not CAT scans. Still, I have some questions.

1. Name of the radiologist and his qualifications.

2. What machine was used, at what power / resolution. This information should have been provided and would have been simple to post like images of the alleged prints.

3. Why are the digitized lateral sections are not available online -- they are the property of Baugh and he should have been given a disc of images that could and should have been uploaded to a free service like Photobucket, This is basic and simple

4. Why isn't an authenticated scanned copy of the radiologist's report available? Again, this is basic and simple.

Tom G(ologist) said...

OK Frogger - you have obviously bred an awful lot of animosity here and it is not because of the thing you are trying to get us to believe in. It is you. You showed up on the net asking people to look at a photo and believe that some analysis conducted by a person unqualified to evaluate fossils, and independently inspected by another person unqualified to evaluate fossils is PROOF of wht you hope. When we did not and pointed out that the thing is a fake, you acuse us of having a pre-determined "belief system" and closed minds. Let me tell you a couple things: 1) Every bit of science gets the third degree fro other scientists - you were not singled out. The degree of attack is commensurate with the degree and validity of the data. 2). Holding that example in our hands would make no differnece to our conclusions. An art expert does not need to handle or analyze, or chemically test a fake to know it is a fake at a glance. A wine expert does not need to imbibe to know the grape, vintage and vintner. Geologists/palaeontologist/archaeologists do not need to hold and feel a purported fossil imprint to know whether it is a fake or potentially real.
You come to the net to get corraboration of what you think - you do not get it and you go on the attack against the people you came to, telling us we have a little sewing circle or whatever nonsense it was. What are you going to d if the USGS tells you the same thing - tell them that they are wrong too? I used to work for a state geologic survey - why wouldn't that make my conclusion that this thing is a fake valid if you are willing to go to the GS now for an opinion? Just because I haen't held the thing? I don't need to - it is as bad a fake as Mr. Bean's replica of Wistler's Mother (ref. Bean, the movie).

Honestly, frogger, the thing is an embarrassment and you are becoming one too - you are now acusing us of being afraid to accept what you seem to know to be true. It is not fear - it is not scepticism - it is the ability of experts in a field to recognize something in that field which is not correct-and this one has multiple, visible, embarassing flaws.

And deadman932 is 10% cirrect. If you want to play science, learn the rules. Come in with data - tell us how is was generated, who did it, what equipment, what conditions, what observations, controls, .........

Finally, I will make two predictions: 1). Almost every person with credentials who gets a look at this thing will decline to participate in any study - the only people who would are those who can charge a fee to run tests;
2). Whatever geologist/palaeontologist/archaeologist asked to look at the thing who declines based ont he first blush conclusion that it is a fake will be acused of having a pre-determined belief system and closed minded and afraid.

And as I told you before, this would be a posterity-making discovery, so I would also recommend you make immediate contact to three groups: 1) The Smithsonian - it IS the national research leader in natural history; 2) National Geographic - some better photographs might go a long way to convince doubters or prove you wrong; 3) the Nobel committee - they are in business for one reason - rewarding (handsomly) persons who come up with new findings - especially finding which change the course of history. Please let us know when you have made these contacts and the results of the interview/inspection.

I have tried to be polite, but I will make one other prediction - you will not contact anyof those groups because anyone who KNEW they had something REAL would not have come to the internet with itbefore contacting some real scientists - and don't throw the radiologists at us again. Their conclusion count about as much as yours - THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED.

Frogger said...

deadman,
120 kv. The independent radiologist (head of a radiology unit at another hospital, who viewed it with several other radiologists on staff) said that was not a real high beam, but produced excellent results. I have a copy of the disc. Yhanks for the contact info for the UT guy. Really feel like I just need a geologist/chemist to get involved.

Tom,
Not saying anything other than passing along some info and some facts, which are simply being ignored by you and others with no facts, just a photo. The photo is a "fact" in play, but in my opinion you can make no definitive judgments based solely on it, especially with what the scans reveal, and with people on here still claiming the prints are carved.

The rock is probably a fake. But it does appear with certainty the prints were not etched or carved. You can take that or dismiss it entirely.

I will contact your two leads first thing Monday. Thanks again. Not sure why my previous searches did not bring up a state geologist. Puzzles me, but glad to know about him. Thanks.

Gary S. Hurd said...

There is no point in bothering either of the people mentioned by Tom G. There is a laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin that is one of the tops in the world. It is about 155 miles south of Baugh's little house of dino fraud.

This might not be to the exact parking lot, but it will be close.

155 mi – about 3 hours 8 mins

Creation Evidence Museum
3102 FM 205
Glen Rose, TX 76043

1. Head south on FM-205 toward County Rd 1001 4.0 mi
2. Continue on Barnard St/FM-56 0.1 mi
3. Turn right at TX-144/E TX-144 Continue to follow TX-144 23.7 mi
4. Turn right at W Morgan St/TX-22 0.7 mi
5. Turn left at St Hwy 6/TX-6 Continue to follow TX-6 22.6 mi
6. Turn right at TX-317 44.1 mi
7. Turn left at E Central Ave 0.5 mi
8. Continue on FM-253-LOOP W 200 ft
9. Turn right at I-35 S 98 ft
10. Take the I-35 S/US-190 S ramp on the left 0.3 mi
11. Merge onto I-35 S/US-190 W Continue to follow I-35 S 57.7 mi
12. Take exit 235A toward M.L.K. Blvd/15th St 151 ft
13. Merge onto I-35 N 0.1 mi
14. Turn right at Manor Rd 171 ft
15. Continue on Clyde Littlefield Dr 0.2 mi
16. Turn left at Robert Dedman Dr 0.2 mi
17. Turn right at E 20th St 0.1 mi
18. Turn right at San Jacinto Blvd 0.1 mi
19. Turn left at E 21st St 200 ft

University of Texas at Austin
300 West 21st Street, Austin, TX 78712

Just 3 freaking hours.

Don't be such morons.

Gary S. Hurd said...

I have had friends at the Smithsonian, and they would NOT like to hear from anymore crackpots. They already get plenty.

This was actually how I was dragged into the evo/creato war. I was the director of education and curator for anthrpology of a tiny natural history museum. Carl Baugh's double wide was about what we had, only ours was smaller. Even so, we had some world class material that other much larger museums really would have loved to get.

Anyway, every week or two a docent would come tell me "We got another one." They meant a creationist loon was wandering aroung telling people that the fossils were faked and we are all going to Hell. Ten years later I no longer work at the museum and I am still dealing with the loons.

deadman932 said...

1. Richard Ketcham is a PhD in geosciences. You don't have to look further than him for a geology guy.

2. Most sandstones can't be radimetrically dated directly. Sometimes minerals in the sandstone matrix (Illite, Bentonite, etc.)can be, but good luck

3. An electron microscope study eliminating obvious tool marks would be nice.

I'm sure the radiologists did their professional best in looking at the rock itself, but it's a lot more difficult than it appears, if my reading my reading on the topic is any indicator.

There's very little data on using CAT scans to determine density variations in homogenous consolidated rock. Normally, what people look at is porosity variations, cracks or "inclusions" -- maybe fossils that vary in density from the "host" rock.

At 120-Kv levels, there's real problems in attenuation / beam hardening as well as other artifact-inducing factors. People have to know what they're doing with various materials, and calibrations have to be right. I personally don't think most radiologists would know the data on this, since they don't handle fossils all that much and don't neccessarily know the geological factors that can affect x-ray analysis, and the data is RARE. I only found one book on this... and Richard Ketcham wrote it.

Since you seem to tend to agree the trace fossil may not be real, then it's up to Baugh and perhaps his friends to pay for the work that can be done at UTA ... they'll take your money and do a proper scan of the object, but Radiometric dating of it is a different matter entirely --still, there's labs that will look at it for you -- for a price -- to see what can be done. Google "radiometric dating labs"

Microscopic analysis should be done. A Chemical analysis of surfaces should be done, too. Lots of work and expenses ahead.

*IF* it were real, this little stone would overturn many, many sciences, so it's up to the people that own it to do the best job they can in testing its veracity themselves.

However, you should be aware that Baugh has a known track record of making grand claims based on CAT scans http://paleo.cc/paluxy/coffee.htm

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

To conclude: I wouldn't give Baugh any money for doing what he needs to do to actually have scientists agree to overturn multiple branches of science. This isn't because all scientists are rolling in money, or brainwashed. It's because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Baugh has to step up to the plate and **not** play games. But he's played games in the past.

This is part of the reason you mightn't have gotten the warmest welcome (beyond Baugh being known to have supported frauds in the past)...but I have a question for you, Frogger.

If you have a copy of the disc that has all of the CT slices...why aren't you making them available? As I said, there's lots of sites online such as photobucket or imageshack. If Baugh gave that to you, why didn't you have them posted? It would be a fine step forward, so if you need Baugh's agreement, wny not ask? Or is he unwilling to do so? And if so, why?

IF I were you, I'd be real cautious and VERY suspicious if this rock goes on display for an admission price *before* it gets examined critically.

Those slice images that you have on that disc can be up and online today.

That'd be a real start.

deadman932 said...

Ack, above I should have said that radiologists don't handle TRACE fossils (like footprints) very much at all.

I did a pretty good search for ANY articles dealing with dino prints or any other. I couldn't find any, and I'm good at using databases.

The lit on using CAT on homogenous consolidated rock that has trace fossils... to determine the validity of the fossil...is very slim indeed.

Gary S. Hurd said...

Very good posts Deadman. Thanks for your contribution.

Sotiris said...

Frogger, I honestly cannot understand why you keep asserting that the print has not been carved or etched "with certainty". There are many indications that it has, in fact, been carved. The nameless "independent radiologist" you mention is, well, nameless, and also not qualified to determine diferrences in rock density (indicating compression) in a cat scan. They don't teach that kind of differential diagnosis to MDs. :) And the features of the scan you gave as reasons are inadequate, in fact more easily attributed to artifacts caused by beam hardening and other factors. Read deadman's post carefully, where he explains the limitations of CT in examining rocks, and the special equipment and high energies needed.

So, it seems premature to rule out carving as a method of fabrication, based on the questionable evidence so far. It is puzzling that you do it so willingly, especially since you say you agree that the print is a fake.

Frogger said...

sotris,

I know this is a broken record, but the rock was compressed when it was soft. I suspect it's probably fake, because more than likely it was stepped into not thousands and thousands of years ago, but much more recently. That's the skeptic in me.

Sotiris said...

It's not just a 'broken record', but an entirely unsupported assertion, unless you substantiate it with actual evidence. "A radiologist told me" is NOT evidence, because:

We have no name or credential for the radiologist, or his exact words

An MD is simply not qualified to differentiate sedimentary rock compression through a CT scan

The reasons you have presented for determining the rock was compressed are either not seen in the image, or products of well-understood phenomena like beam hardening.

I personally find it much more plausible for the rock to be carved, that to be a soft compressed mould that was hardened later. In the second case, for one thing, they would be able to make it way more convincing visually.

Why are you so eager to rule carving out, when little to no evidence?

Mats said...

This post can be summed up with these words:

"That evidence must be fake because it goes against my pet theory"

You can quote me on that.

Tom G(ologist) said...

ONe last thing frogger - even IF the CT scans are correct and there is compression indicating no carving, we have yet to determine if this is a ROCK. About a year ago there was a theory going around that the blocks which make up the upper layers of the great pyramids were a concrete-like slurry made of the same rock matrix as the rest of the carved blacks. It took a lot of sedimentological work to conclude that they were actually rocks.

This is no as easy as it seems. But, again, regardless of all those other considerations, this fake fails on morphological points and I wouldn't waste money on any analyses.

Sotiris said...

This post can be summed up with these words:

"That evidence must be fake because it goes against my pet theory"


Consider yourself quoted. Still wrong, though. :)

I would be happy to evaluate the "evidence", if the evidence was available. Unfortunately, it is not.

Once again: "Some radiologist told me" Is NOT evidence of any sort.

And if the radiologist said that "lighter around the edges" was a sign of sediment compression, I seriously doubt his credentials.

Simple as that.

Frogger said...

FYI, the Mineral Wells Index has on its Web site a story about the CAT scans, includes a couple of the images and a picture of your favorite guy, Carl Baugh:

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/homepage/local_story_224120721.html

Also, the Index published in its Sunday edition a letter from a pro-evolutionist, but it not yet posted to the site. I assume they will do that.

Frogger said...

No, they do have the letter online ... is posted with a bad date on it. Here's the link:

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/opinion/local_story_224124326.html

Wolfhound said...

Before Frogger even goes there, here are the credentials (with no specifics mentioned) for the "Paleontologist" that Baugh has vouching for this thing, from this guy's ministry site.

"Following a 14 year professional career during which he held varying positions of responsibility as Paleontologist, Geophysicist, District Geophysicist, Geophysical Manager, and Regional Geophysicist with Texaco and Tenneco respectively, Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones was selected to attend Division Manager School shortly before resigning from his scientific vocation in 1974 to pursue Biblical studies.

Having attained a Ph.D. as well as a Th.D., Dr. Jones has garnered majors in the disciplines of Geology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Theology, and Education from six institutions of higher learning. A magna cum laude graduate and an ex-evolutionist, he also possesses a minor in Physics and is an ordained Minister (SBC)"

A link to a discussion about one of Dr Jones' anti-evolution lectures: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_creationism_seminar_in_duluth/

No religious bias here, no sir! VERY objective, I'm sure. ;)

Jeremy said...

Does anyone else find it hilarious and extremely suspect that Frogger INSISTS on the rock being dated as de facto proof of its validity?

If the sample is legitimately Mesozoic, they'll insist on it being a legitimate example of humans living in that era.

But, um, HELLO! Proving the ROCK is Mesozoic means nothing. The "human" footprint could still easily be carved (and does, in fact, look carved).

Creationists could do a lot for their credibility if they'd learn to exercise a little critical thinking.

Sotiris said...

Does anyone else find it hilarious and extremely suspect that Frogger INSISTS on the rock being dated as de facto proof of its validity?

I do, as I said before. It's also quite interesting how "skeptic" Frogger tries to get us all to admit that the ONLY way the print can be fake is if the rock is new.


And, of course, it's VERY interesting that Baugh is sparing enough money and time for a proper chenical analysis of the rock, but tried to quickly "resolve" the issue of a possible carved fake, by sending it to a HOSPITAL for a CT scan...

Frogger said...

Sotiris ...

So, if the rock is thousands of years old, is authentic, natural limestone with print compressions, micro-fossils, etc., it is still a fake? That is your brilliant, learned opinion?

Wow.

Yes, if the rock is new (within decades, 100 or several hundred years), it is definitely a fake.

Otherwise, if it is authentic and was soft thousands of years ago, I doubt man was running around faking tracks for us to find later.

Amazing.

Sotiris said...

My "brilliant, learned opinion", Frogger, is that we have in no way established that the print is not carved on the rock.

And I find your continuous attempts to convince us that we have... quite peculiar, especially since you have labelled yourself a "sceptic", and claimed that you think the print is a fake.


That is all.

Frogger said...

Link to article in today's Mineral Wells Index on questions into the two two discoverers ...

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/Delk/local_story_225091209.html?keyword=topstory

Sotiris ...

Just trying to deal in facts, not speculation. Doesn't mean some of the guessing/speculation won't prove to be right. But for now, no one has any firsthand info here, just leaps to conclusions.

Gary S. Hurd said...

David May is turning out to be a creationist advocate, not an impartial reporter. My responce to his Monday article is at the top of the blog.

http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/

Sotiris said...

"Leaping into conclusions"? I'm not the one claiming "with certainty" that the rock was not carved, just because an MD commented on a Hospital CT scan!

Do you admit that the impossibility of carving the print is far from established, yes or no?

Tom G(ologist) said...

Frogger - "Just trying to deal in facts, not speculation."
You have presented not one single FACT.

A fact is something which is so unambiguos that every can agree on it. Why don't you get lost with your toy rock. It has all been said herein and you stubbornly hold onto an imbicilic hope which is based on nothing.

Tell you what - go out with bare feet and walk across a couple different consistencies of muds 100times and see if ANY of your footprints duplicates that farce you hold up as real. And I mean "walk", not place your foot carefully into the soil.

Tell you what - have a fourth grade class do the 'experiment' for you and let them come to their conclusion as to the plausibility of this clumsy, inept, inaccurate bit of charlatanism being real. I've said it before, but your wish to cling to this thing despite the fact that ANYONE with any degree of perception can see it does not represent a real human footprint, is embarrassing.

And by the way, you have STILL refused to tell us your credentials. You should be ashamed to show yourself - I guess that's why you go by a name which masks who you are.

Anonymous said...

17 March 2010

I greatly enjoyed this read.
In the 2 years since this thread was posted, no science-shattering news. What a pity, what frivolity that would have been.

I am not a geologist, but a geographer who has dabbled in intro geology, yet I have enough background to conclude that the debunkers' arguments sounded reasonable and knowledgable, and fogger's "conlusions" were illogical and increasingly shrill.



What I am now wondering is what the f--- happens in a young persons's life to make them grow up to believe in sky-beings to such a degree that s/he becomes nonsensical?

pamkc said...

Please anyone...dr baugh claims he found a fossilized finger. He was given the rock shaped "finger" by me as a child. I am so upset that hehas made these claims and has profited from me showing him the rock and letting him test it. I am needing to know how or if there is any way to reclaim what he stole from me and my family. Any help would be so greatly appreciated! Thank you...

paleo said...

Pam,

You can file a claim in small claims court without even hiring a lawyer, although most will give you some initial advice for free. I am not a lawyer so I don't claim the following to be legal advice, but my understanding is that if you feel the item or "damages" from the money he made off it is worth more than the $ limit in small claims court, you can sue him in regular court. I suspect the charges can include "theft," if he agreed to return the object and then refused to do so.