Dinosaur Footprint?

[ynot]

3 minutes ago, EMP said:

That was referring to toe imprints.

The toe is part of the foot and will show the same features as pointed out in My last post.

 

In the additional pieces...

Top one has square depressions-- not consistent with a print.

Bottom one- does not show a continuity of surface.

 

Identifiable prints are usually on a flat layered type of rock, not on pebbles.

[EMP]

17 minutes ago, ynot said:

The toe is part of the foot and will show the same features as pointed out in My last post.

 

In the additional pieces...

Top one has square depressions-- not consistent with a print.

Bottom one- does not show a continuity of surface.

 

Identifiable prints are usually on a flat layered type of rock, not on pebbles.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. 

 

The "prints" in the top one appear "round" to me. I don't want to be a pain, I just want to dispel any doubts. I'm sorry if I'm offending you in some manner. Not everyone is an expert at this. How are you telling if they're square or not? 

 

 

[EMP]

[ynot]

12 minutes ago, EMP said:

The "prints" in the top one appear "round" to me. I don't want to be a pain, I just want to dispel any doubts. I'm sorry if I'm offending you in some manner. Not everyone is an expert at this. How are you telling if they're square or not? 

No offence, no worries!

In the close up pictures You are only looking at what fits Your idea of a print, You need to also look at the rock as a whole.

 

 

Do all of the marks on the surface fit with the print ID? -- No.

Can the non print depressions be explained within the context of the "print" parts? --No.

 

I saw a "special" on one of the "science" oriented channels that highlighted a place in the andes where there were "carvings" in a granitic rock.

They showed these great outlines from different ancient civilizations "gods" etched into the solid granite.

They even had a four faced bust that showed all of the ethnic groups of humankind.

They said it was proof of a very early civilization that was broken up and spread across the world. (atlantis.)

 

The problem with their theories was the same, they were only looking at the marks that fit their ideas and ignoring the rest.

 

Particularly when dealing with trace fossils, You have to look at the rock as a whole object, not just a single feature.

Do a google photo search for "fossil footprints" and take a close look at them to get a better idea of what to look for.

 

Regards,

Tony

Hope this helps.

[EMP]

32 minutes ago, ynot said:

 No offence, no worries!

In the close up pictures You are only looking at what fits Your idea of a print, You need to also look at the rock as a whole.

 

 

Do all of the marks on the surface fit with the print ID? -- No.

Can the non print depressions be explained within the context of the "print" parts? --No.

 

I saw a "special" on one of the "science" oriented channels that highlighted a place in the andes where there were "carvings" in a granitic rock.

They showed these great outlines from different ancient civilizations "gods" etched into the solid granite.

They even had a four faced bust that showed all of the ethnic groups of humankind.

They said it was proof of a very early civilization that was broken up and spread across the world. (atlantis.)

 

The problem with their theories was the same, they were only looking at the marks that fit their ideas and ignoring the rest.

 

Particularly when dealing with trace fossils, You have to look at the rock as a whole object, not just a single feature.

Do a google photo search for "fossil footprints" and take a close look at them to get a better idea of what to look for.

 

Regards,

Tony

Hope this helps.

 

Yes, thank you, this does. 

 

Now only for me to actually find something instead of the same, lousy twig imprints. 

[ynot]

3 minutes ago, EMP said:

Now only for me to actually find something instead of the same, lousy twig imprints. 

Good luck!!!

[EMP]

Just now, ynot said:

Good luck!!!

 

I mean I literally haven't found anything but twig imprints and broken sea shells in almost a decade of collecting. 

 

But it's gotta change eventually 

[ynot]

Maybe You are looking in the wrong formation for prints?

Are print traces known from the formation You are searching?

[EMP]

19 minutes ago, ynot said:

Maybe You are looking in the wrong formation for prints?

Are print traces known from the formation You are searching?

 

Yes. Ray Stanford found over 300 of them nearby. 

[Auspex]

Everything you have shown us is geologic in origin; fracture and differential weathering. They lack the cohesive form and repetition of biologic origin, indeed, they are random.

[doushantuo]

Henderson(CJES/2006) has experimentally (computationally)simulated weathering of dinosaur tracks,but I can't post his examples(protected document).

claw marks,interdigital ridges,and internal ridges are removed early in the erosion process.

However,interdigital angles and length/width ratios didn 't change.

Manus prints preserved slightly worse than pes prints.

However<>.!: what you have found is morphologically indistinguishable from the results of geomorphological processes .It's not scientifically fitting to state

that these might be appendicular prints(/or even undertracks)

[Miocene_Mason]

12 hours ago, EMP said:

This one looks more probable maybe a bit worn. Reminds me of a baby nodosaur track (btw to everyone many tracks have been found, one of the greatest in the world for fossil tracks.)

[EMP]

29 minutes ago, WhodamanHD said:

This one looks more probable maybe a bit worn. Reminds me of a baby nodosaur track (btw to everyone many tracks have been found, one of the greatest in the world for fossil tracks.)

 

That's interesting. What makes you say nodosaur? Which "print"? 

 

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/cast.cfm?cas..

I know there are tracks there, it just seems like I haven't come away with any of them. 

[Auspex]

35 minutes ago, EMP said:

 

That's interesting. What makes you say nodosaur? Which "print"?

All the features on this stone are weathering.