Re: Dinosaur footprint trackway NOT found

[Dann Pigdon <dannj@alphalink.com.au>]

Quoting MKIRKALDY@aol.com:

> Considering that the geologists claim that they had been studying  the site 
> for two years, could find 4 types of prints, and could formulate  behavior 
> scenarios, it seems ironic that a team of real print experts could  dismiss
> the dinosaur prints as potholes with one visit.

Whether or not they are dinosaur tracks is irrelevant - the import thing is 
whether they can be 
*proven* to be dinosaur tracks, or at the very least whether a concensus of 
agreement can be 
reached amongst ichnologists. If not, then there's not much point in studying 
them and making 
behavioural conclusions about the animals that (may have) made them, since 
their dinosaurian 
origin will always have an element of doubt.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if you look hard enough at random 
patterns for long enough, 
you'll eventually start to see what you expect to see regardless of whether 
those things are 
actually there. It's as true of studying animal entrails for portents as it is 
for studying photoshop-
enhanced images of pterosaur fossils (not that I'm mentioning anyone in 
particular...)

-- 
___________________________________________________________________

Dann Pigdon
GIS / Archaeologist              http://geo_cities.com/dannsdinosaurs
Melbourne, Australia             http://heretichides.soffiles.com
___________________________________________________________________