Texas Bone And Footprint

[StevenJD]

Wanting to see what y'all think. The "bone" was found on the north side of San Antonio, the "footprint" was found in the Texas Hill Country near known dinosaur footprints. Are these fossils?

[Auspex]

The 'bone' may be a rudist <LINK>, a weird bivalve that masquerades as many things, and is locally common where you are.

Not sure about the other, but I'm not getting a strong footprint signal.

[StevenJD]

Thanks for the IDs Auspex, interesting!

[Ptychodus04]

The "footprint" looks to have chisel marks on it. That makes me think it's more art than artifact.

[Troodon]

How big is your footprint? Looks manufactured

[jgcox]

I have to agree the footprint appears to have been manufactured there are a couple of what appear to be chisel markes on it.

[Auspex]

I don't see any chisel marks on the "footprint" specimen...

It is certainly not a footprint, but I don't see where it was carved.

[Troodon]

I also dont see chisel marks but the shape of the block looks suspicious.

[jgcox]

Right side nearly at the heel there's a sharp groove I thought it looked out of place.

[Ptychodus04]

I may be wrong, it's happened before. Here's where I'm seeing tool markings. Granted, a low rez photo isn't the optimal medium for identifying such things.

[abyssunder]

As Kris said,a low rez photo did not reveal too much for a precise diagnostic. For me,looks to be some kind of bioturbation visible on the surface,or simply a geological creation, also could be a man made artifact to look like a footprint.

[StevenJD]

Hi guys, thanks for the responses/opinions.

This rock was found by my dad...so I know it is not something made to look like a footprint. I told him about this forum, so he wanted me to see if he really had a foot print and bone. I was having problems uploading pics of the stone with my camera, and this was the only one that got accepted. "Picture too large". When I get back to Texas, I'll take some better pics of it so y'all can have a better look. The "chisel marks" may be from sitting in a box with other rocks for the last 25 years?...I dunno.

[erose]

Hi guys, thanks for the responses/opinions.

This rock was found by my dad...so I know it is not something made to look like a footprint. I told him about this forum, so he wanted me to see if he really had a foot print and bone. I was having problems uploading pics of the stone with my camera, and this was the only one that got accepted. "Picture too large". When I get back to Texas, I'll take some better pics of it so y'all can have a better look. The "chisel marks" may be from sitting in a box with other rocks for the last 25 years?...I dunno.

Those of you not familiar with this part of Texas should be informed. We have freaking dino prints all over the place. Bones not so much, but prints galor. Well over a hundred known sites and more than likely that is just the few anyone bothered to write up. I do not see tool marks although the photo isn't so good*. What gave me pause was the way the overall piece outlined the print. Now that could be an artifact of the way the compressed marl around the print affected the weathering from matrix. But honestly it should be shown to someone at a museum or university for confirmation. The Witte in San Antonio or Texas Memorial in Austin would be good choices.

*Texas has had it's share of "carved footprints" being peddled. But those were pretending to be human… Despite the fact that they were all debunked and even the family of the guy up near Glen Rose has admitted they were all carved some creationists still trot them out for their lame arguments for a young earth.

[Ptychodus04]

Those of you not familiar with this part of Texas should be informed. We have freaking dino prints all over the place. Bones not so much, but prints galor. Well over a hundred known sites and more than likely that is just the few anyone bothered to write up. I do not see tool marks although the photo isn't so good*. What gave me pause was the way the overall piece outlined the print. Now that could be an artifact of the way the compressed marl around the print affected the weathering from matrix. But honestly it should be shown to someone at a museum or university for confirmation. The Witte in San Antonio or Texas Memorial in Austin would be good choices.

This specimen doesn't look like any of the dinosaur prints I have studied. Granted, that has only been in the Glen Rose Formation and a few molds that Dr. Fiorillo brought back from Alaska. The overall shape look iguanodontid but the toe dimensions are wrong.

Can't wait to see what comes of it.

[Auspex]

Not only does it not resemble any kind of track I have seen, but it is very unusual for a track to occur centered in a nicely water-rounded piece of stone. I think it is likely an example of differential weathering.