Fossilized Arizona Human Footprint (?)

[Kane]

The lateral plantar would be continuous as it would be at about the same depression as the heel and the metatarsal pad; in the case of the specimen above, there is an obvious discontinuity between where the presumptive metarsal and tarsal pads would be. 

[Fossildude19]

6 hours ago, Desertboy said:

Why do you say that? This has only been analyzed on the basis of photographic evidence. 

 

Photographic evidence is really all we have to go on.  

Based on that, the shape of the alleged print is wrong, the type of rock hosting the features is wrong.

 

[Desertboy]

You're probably right, but if this were my find I would definitely want to search the area for possible other examples like it 

[Randyw]

How can we say that based on photographic evidence? Becuase the photo shows all the things that show that it isn’t a footprint Plus the fact that the “toes” would be longer then most peoples fingers…..

Edited November 25, 2022 by Randyw

[Heteromorph]

This thread should probably be locked.

[DPS Ammonite]

41 minutes ago, Heteromorph said:

This thread should probably be locked.

Why? I think that this thread is a good example of a civilly conducted discussion with well behaved participants.

[Rockwood]

On 11/24/2022 at 11:24 PM, Randyw said:

How can we say that

Um, we didn't really say that. It's just an opinion. 

[fifbrindacier]

If that were a human foot print, this big toe would be in a very weird position.

In my work i've seen people woth polydactily, they have larger feet but their toes have usually a notmal shape, size and position.

[Omono]

Hi, I happen to be reading this post in 2023 and I'm very interested by this picture. 

What other users said is the weird position of the fingers... But if we think about it, what we look at is hard rock, not sand or mud. So why the footprint should mirror a real foot? 
The soil of the earth moves, expands, cracks, that why the foot is misplaced, it definitely didn't formed on solid rock that footprint. 

 

If we deconstruct the plates of rock like a puzzle and we put it back together. That's a foot. (images below attached)

Let's open this thread again because it is interesting! 

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Fig. 1

 

Fig. 2

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Omono

[Rockwood]

The similarity of these two shapes would need to be explained.

[Kane]

Also, a heel is not that long in proportion to a foot.

[Fossildude19]

40 minutes ago, Omono said:

Hi, I happen to be reading this post in 2023 and I'm very interested by this picture. 

What other users said is the weird position of the fingers... But if we think about it, what we look at is hard rock, not sand or mud. So why the footprint should mirror a real foot? 
The soil of the earth moves, expands, cracks, that why the foot is misplaced, it definitely didn't formed on solid rock that footprint. 

 

If we deconstruct the plates of rock like a puzzle and we put it back together. That's a foot. (images below attached)

Let's open this thread again because it is interesting! 

 

Cheers.

 

 

No real need to revisit this. The rock is not consistent with being the kind that would preserve a footprint.

There is nothing here that cannot be explained by erosion, and possibly human tampering.

[JohnJ]

2 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

The similarity of these two shapes would need to be explained.

Indeed.  As well as explaining why every other dip, divot, and crevice in the immediate proximity must be ignored except the ones that suggest a print.  

[Omono]

10 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

The similarity of these two shapes would need to be explained.

 

If I pay more attention, the more defined and deep shadows of the fingers are 5? 
Also if this was mud (I'm not an expert but a lateral thinker), the shape of the footprint would be deformed from its origin. Image example below where the footprint looks longer that it should be, because the foot probably slides when it touches the wet mud.

Anyway I'm just here because it's interesting and fun. If it's not a footprint and the experts say so, it's not.

 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Omono

[Kane]

There is much more evidence pointing to falsifying the notion that this is a foot than affirming that it is. Occam's Razor would likely be the best way of approaching this rock.

[Omono]

I just have to convince myself that's not a footprint... and it does look like a footprint.

Look at both heels shadows, they are quite similar. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by Omono

[Omono]

20 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

Indeed.  As well as explaining why every other dip, divot, and crevice in the immediate proximity must be ignored except the ones that suggest a print.  

It's not being ignored, but the foot shape has a darker tone, as if water stagnated there for a long time and this also mean that it's deeper than the other cracks and dips.

[JBkansas]

16 minutes ago, Omono said:

I just have to convince myself that's not a footprint... and it does look like a footprint.

Look at both heels shadows, they are quite similar. 

Comparing the two prints, the "ball" of the foot is too far away from the "toe" impressions (not to mention the extra "toes" to the left). This is classic pareidolia.

 

Pareidolia is all around us (and even in space):

Edited February 13, 2023 by JBkansas

[JohnJ]

3 minutes ago, Omono said:

I just have to convince myself that's not a footprint

Unsupported belief is a individual prerogative.  Contextual evidence doesn't support that belief.  Ignoring all the other divots and depressions is not an objective observation.  Darker tones can be seen across the rock surface.  

[doushantuo]

E.g.:

A multidisciplinary approach to a unique palaeolithic human ichnological record from Italy (Ba` sura Cave) Marco Romano, Paolo Citton , Isabella Salvador , Daniele Arobba , Ivano Rellini , Marco Firpo , Fabio Negrino , Marta Zunino , Elisabetta Starnini , Marco Avanzini

Romano et al. eLife 2019;8:e45204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45204

 

Note: eLife doesn't have peer review,which doesn;t detract from its status

45204.pdf

 

edit: about 23 MB

Edited February 14, 2023 by doushantuo

[doushantuo]

Hominin tracks in southern Africa: A review and an approach to identification

Charles W. Helm, Martin G. Lockley, Kevin Cole,

Timothy D. Noakes & Richard T. McCrea

Palaeontologia africana 53: 81–96 — ISSN 2410-4418 [Palaeontol. afr.]

The approach is "feets on",and this horrible pun is no mean feet

 

edit: about 17 MB,

Helmetal2019Approachtohominintracks.pdf

Edited February 14, 2023 by doushantuo

[Heteromorph]

Since people keep DMing me about this I want to make it very clear that I agree that they aren't footprints, they're geological in origin. I had forgot this thread existed, since I immediately accepted their geologic origin in 2019 and moved on.