At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks. First, a suitable-sized stone slab would be found (preferably one that already had some depressions, to save carving time), and a shady spot under a tree would be selected as a workshop. Next, the footprint would be carved using hammer and chisel. A center punch was used to simulate raindrops, followed by an application of muriatic acid to dull the chisel and punch marks. For an aged appearance (p. 73) the slab would be covered with manure for a few days. Last, the edges of the slab were chipped to give the impression of a track chiseled from the riverbed (Morris, 1980, p. 111-12).
Reference?
“(Morris, 1980, p. 111-12)” is very vague? You sure it’s tied to the whole paragraph? And then Henry Morris goes on to thoroughly argue for the authenticity of the prints? Doesn’t add up. And then the claim of ICR debunking the dino/human tracks? Sounds like twisting of the truth by the authors. Of course the dino tracks were accepted as authentic.
Two of the "long toed slabs" were first publicized after being seen by Roland T. Bird in a trading post near Gallup, New Mexico in 1938. Bird immediately recognized the tracks as carvings, but wondered what prompted someone to make them. His curiosity was further piqued upon seeing four dinosaur track carvings in a nearby shop. After learning the tracks reportedly came from Glen Rose, Bird redirected his travel route to that location, leading to his now famous dinosaur track excavations there (Bird 1939, 1954)
Who the heck is Bird, a trading post employee? What are his qualifications for determining the authenticity of the slabs. What does he say about the in situ tracks?
Again, who is Bird?
Bird immediately recognized the tracks as carvings, but wondered what prompted someone to make them.
Reference? Blah, blah, blah...
Cross Sections
During the 1970's the track was sectioned longitudinally near the left edge, and diagonally through the ball. In 1990 the track was sectioned twice across the toes, and once through the heel. These five sections would expose 10 surfaces (figure 1).
Both surfaces of the ball section and one of the longitudinal surfaces (on the track side) were inspected and photographed by one of us (Kuban) at the ICC in 1986. Photographs of some of several recently exposed surfaces were examined by both authors at the 1990 ICC in Pittsburgh. Sketches of the two photographs available at the 1990 ICC are provided in Figures 2, 3 and 4. One of us (Wilkerson) requested from MIOS permission to examine photographs of the remaining surfaces, and was denied. The inspected sections show elongated semi-circular stromatolite (algal) structures. Some of the algal structures happen to partially overlap some the toe depressions, prompting Patton to claim that the structures are pressure lines. However, the structures are distributed through much of the subsurface without regard to the location of the toe marks or other print depressions. Further, wherever the structures meet the print depression, they are truncated by the depression and/or not in proper coincidence with it. The nature of these structures is further described below.
Huh? The mud hadn’t even set. Of course algae stuctures would be smashed into the indentations.
The author’s are assuming this stuff was rock to begin with.
The truncation of these structures indicates that complete structures once existed, but have been partly removed. The stromatolite morphology, with upward rather than downward curvature, indicates that the sedimentological "up" direction of the rock slab is opposite the "up" direction of the print; in other words, the print was carved on the bottom of the slab.
A couple of inches of strat, and someone can tell which way was up, and which way was down. I promise you, I know better. Striations don’t occur until the mud sets.
Coloration
Some of the stromatolitic structures have red-yellow discoloration. Algal organisms act as a mechanical trap for iron (magnetite) and other metals. They also act as an agent for chemical precipitation of metals because they provide the necessary reducing environment. Minute amounts of iron, upon oxidization and/or hydration form hematite and limonite, red and yellow-colored minerals respectively. These colorations are formed by the action of oxygenated ground waters subsequent to deposition and have nothing to do with formation or preservation of the track.
Very interesting. This site, in Glen Rose, is about 110 miles north of the site I’m researching. It’s also on the same river tributary system: The Brazos. Same with Gault, Black Water Draw, and Wilson-Leonard. I promise you, there was some wierd S**t going on down here in very Paleo times. Mike Collins has be releasing the info in digestable quantities.
Requirements of authenticity and a Prediction
Not all prints will show subsurface striations (depending on the nature of the host sediment). However, any bedding lines in the substrate should be consistently deformed by the track indentations, and should be similar for all the individual toe depressions. This clearly is not the case with the Burdick track. Besides showing poor consistency with the track depressions in general, there are dramatic differences in the features (or nonfeatures) under each of the toes.
Remember, the striations aren’t locked in until the sediment dries. These guy’s are a joke.
Conclusion
The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors as well as abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving. The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock. The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine.
The Burdick track contains severe anatomic errors
No substantiation...grade: F
“...abruptly truncated subsurface algal structures, indicating that it is a carving...”
Unsubstantiated...in other words, B.S. Grade: F
...The carver probably took a piece of limestone from a local outcrop, turned it upside down, and carved into the "bottom" of the rock.
Speculation, not science. Grade: F
The knowledge that similar tracks were carved in Glen Rose, and lack of in situ documentation for the track, further undermine claims that the track is genuine.
Unsubstantiated, and unwarranted specualtion. Again, Grade: F.
Overall grade: F
My overall grade for the club: F