Jump to content


Photo

Out Of Place Fossils Falsify Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
561 replies to this topic

#1 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 April 2016 - 06:14 PM

We got somewhat sidetracked to this topic on pg. 22 of "Ice Ages."  If you would like to discuss this, please read that page and view the amazing photos I provided there.  Then maybe we can hear from those who want to comment on those I mentioned or add others.  Here's one I just wrote about on that page.

 

little_foot_small_280_203_s.jpg



#2 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 April 2016 - 03:32 PM

Does the footprint on my profile look like an unknown amphibian which is the only kind of land creature that lived at 230MYA...or does it look JUST LIKE A HUMAN'S FOOT???  Only a STUPID evolutionist who is DEVOTED to his religion of atheism would argue that it must have been an amphibian!  Especially when there is a series of 6 in right-left sequence!

 

Attached File  1990b2.jpg   46.13KB   2 downloads

 

 

Another photo of this track is seen on Ice Ages p. 22.


  • Calypsis4 and Blitzking like this

#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 April 2016 - 04:41 PM

Does the footprint on my profile look like an unknown amphibian which is the only kind of land creature that lived at 230MYA...or does it look JUST LIKE A HUMAN'S FOOT???  Only a STUPID evolutionist who is DEVOTED to his religion of atheism would argue that it must have been an amphibian!  Especially when there is a series of 6 in right-left sequence!

 

attachicon.gif1990b2.jpg

 

 

Another photo of this track is seen on Ice Ages p. 22.

 

Haven't time to look into this one right now but I smell a massive strawman



#4 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 April 2016 - 06:58 PM

It certainly doesn't look carved, and it certainly is not ambiguous, and the substrate certainly is Pennsylvanian sandstone, and it is impossible to intrusively bury a footprint.  So that doesn't leave much way to refute it, does it?  Oh wait...that still leaves "PHOTOSHOP"!  Yeah...Photoshop!  That's the ticket!

 

And that means you can dismiss this evidence like you dismiss all the rest and get back to attacking creation and claiming that the YE view is the one that is unfalsifiable!



#5 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 April 2016 - 07:33 AM

Got any background to that 'unknown amphibian' track ?

#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 08 April 2016 - 08:39 AM

Yes. Is it so you can look up the standard talkorigins.com commentary or what Glen Kuban has to say about it? His page which commented on them did not even get the correct photographs. He took a photograph off of an article from around 1940 which used some crazy Indian pictographs which were not imprinted footprints at all. I corrected Kuban about this several times and last time I checked he had not removed the improper photographs.

There was a PhD professor of geology in central Kentucky in the 1930s who discovered and studied and photographed them and sent his photographs to the Smithsonian and that was what they decided it was... authentic tracks which were not carved and were made by a bipedal amphibian with human-like feet. They both were convinced it was not a carving. Then I located the other set of tracks that matched those and that is the photograph on my profile. I was not the first to find the tracks but I did lead a team which included Dr. Don Patton to examine and photograph them about 5 years ago. I also located the site of the other set of tracks however they had been destroyed in the 1970s by vandals who were trying to steal them. I also obtained a wax cast of one of the tracks from the 1930s which was made before they were destroyed by the professor not long before he died.

#7 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:31 AM

I have pointed out to Glen K numerous times that his page has bogus photos of the Kentucky tracks, but he has refused to remove them for many years. He knows they are bogus because I have showed him numerous photos of the actual prints but I guess he doesn't care. Instead he prefers to make statements like the following which are untrue.

"I concur with the majority of scientists that the markings in question are carvings, or at least enhanced markings, based largely on their very unnatural shapes."

He wants us to believe that he made a careful consideration and study of the tracks but he never even saw a correct photograph of them when he wrote this! He relied on an article from 1940 which also wanted to distort the actual evidence. Here is the picture that he uses to show what the footprints look like.




Does that look anything at all like the photograph I have provided? I showed Glen about 10 other photographs and not one of them looks at all like what he showed on his page. I believe that indicates dishonesty on his part. And it is not just a very old page. He has a copyright at the top which is through 2015.

#8 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 April 2016 - 03:15 PM

Does the footprint on my profile look like an unknown amphibian which is the only kind of land creature that lived at 230MYA...or does it look JUST LIKE A HUMAN'S FOOT???  Only a STUPID evolutionist who is DEVOTED to his religion of atheism would argue that it must have been an amphibian!  Especially when there is a series of 6 in right-left sequence!

 

attachicon.gif1990b2.jpg

 

 

Another photo of this track is seen on Ice Ages p. 22.

 

I agree it looks more like a human print than an amphibian one.  However, I don't know where it says that evolutionists argue that this track represents the latter, can you enlighten me please ?

 

You say it doesn't look carved, how do you tell this ?

 

It does look similar to the undisputed Native American carvings pictured on Kuban's website don't you think ? Can you rule out that they weren't carved by them, or they found some bona fide tracks but enhanced them to look more human ?

 

As for the pictures you say are incorrect at the top of his page, without the added chalk markings that have been drawn to bring the prints into contrast, I think the two left hand photos look very similar to yours.

 

So sorry, I will have to draw your ire and say that I don't find them at all convincing as evidence of human presence in the Carboniferous.

 

Regarding human fossils generally (which includes footprints) it's interesting that the major creationist organisations, which once trumpeted such finds, are no longer convinced by them but that such 'evidence' is still used by lay creationists on the internet (that's you that is ;) )

 

For example, Andrew Snelling, on AIG states "We can only concur that there is no definite unequivocal evidence of human remains in those rock strata that can definitely be identified as Flood sediments. This realization is at first rather perplexing "  - He then goes on to give the standard excuses for this like humans were cleverer and able to escape to high ground. Of course wherever people live around the world there's always a suitable high hill nearby isn't there :)

 

An author of an article on AIG about Cretaceous tracks state "Although undoubtedly tempting, the finding of indisputable human footprints synchronous with dinosaur tracks remains an elusive quest "



#9 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 08 April 2016 - 09:05 PM

W:>>However, I don't know where it says that evolutionists argue that this track represents the latter, can you enlighten me please ?>>

Well KUBAN should have enlightened you, but the stupid idea would have made the evolutionists look silly so he probably was too embarassed to mention it.  That idea, approved by Burroughs and Gilmore (both ev's) was contained in the same article GK cites by Ingalls (Albert, not Robert, as GK said) in Jan. 1940 Scientific American. 

 

Contrary to your opinion, the images from the Ingalls article IN NO WAY resemble the photos made by Burroughs himself which were shown to Dr. Charles Gilmore of Smithsonian.  And now Kuban KNOWS that and has known it for about 5 years now, since I have discussed with him the very vivid and complete photos of them I obtained from the museum and library at Berea College where Dr. Burroughs was a Professor of Geology.  In fact I photographed the ORIGINAL copy of the Ingalls article which Burroughs himself kept in his collection.  The same article Kuban used for the photos.  The article says "...science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet.  But he could have made them with his hands and that is the explanation offered by the ethnologist David I. Bushnell of the Smithsonian Institute.  He states that every one of them which he has seen was unquestionably a carving made by the Indians."  At the bottom of the page, Dr. Burroughs, who spent probably hundreds if not thousands of man-hours himself studying them, wrote "This man Bushnell NEVER examined the Ky. fossil tracks and did NOT visit these tracks. Signed:  W. G Burroughs."  Regardless of what Bushnell wrote, the correspondence between Gilmore and Burroughs (which I have) clearly indicates that neither of them saw the tracks as being carved.  Indeed, one document I have is a statement signed by 5 witnesses saying they attest that one track which was not present at first became visible after the top part of Pottsville (Carboniferous) sandstone had worn away, to expose some toes. They also attest to two tracks which are partially covered by Pottsville sandstone.  I have a vivid photo of one of these which has the heel mark revealed and the front half of the foot is still covered by stone.  How would THAT be explained away???

 

>>You say it doesn't look carved, how do you tell this ?  It does look similar to the undisputed Native American carvings pictured on Kuban's website don't you think ? Can you rule out that they weren't carved by them>>

 

Similar?  Not to an expert.  I spoke personally with the top expert in Ky Indian Rock Art and he told me the track in my profile is entirely UNlike ANY of the Indian carvings he knew of...and I believe he knew of EVERY ONE IN KY. 

 

Attached File  carvedVSreal.jpg   88.42KB   1 downloads

 

 

(Note: someone carved initials into the bottom of the track many years ago...decades). The main features are the sloped sides and uppush...plus the humanlike stride and exactly identical sizes of the 6 tracks.  The likely labyrinthodont tracks within inches of them also argue strongly against any carving, since those would have been unknown by Indians.  The only thing to cause someone to think "carved" is the "wrong age" and the devotion one has to evolution.  There is NOTHING intrinsic to the tracks that suggests that...NOT AT ALL. 

 

>>or they found some bona fide tracks but enhanced them to look more human ?>>

The last refuge of a desperate man (Kuban).  But, I am not surprised at all that you would lap up whatever Kuban slopped onto your plate.  When confronted with clear evidence of compression features under other human tracks, that was his pathetic proffer.  Unfortunately for him, even the TOES also had compression features and laminations which curved over and down the sides of the toe impressions.  Those tracks were from Texas and could be cross-sectioned (like the cat track I showed), but the KY tracks cannot be. 

 

>>So sorry, I will have to draw your ire and say that I don't find them at all convincing as evidence of human presence in the Carboniferous.>>

Not ire, but perhaps disgust!  SUCH an INQUISITIVE mind you have, Wibble!  How long did that take you to toss out this good evidence that to a fair and unbiased mind would falsify your pet theory?....10 minutes?  FIVE?  Am I REALLY supposed to believe you would EVER be receptive to any evidence that falsifies evolution?  SERIOUSLY? 

 

>>Regarding human fossils generally (which includes footprints) it's interesting that the major creationist organisations, which once trumpeted such finds, are no longer convinced by them>>

I guess back in the 80's or so, it became too dangerous to them to include the Paluxy tracks or OOPF's in their argumentation, since I guess they got burned a few times.  Safer route is to dismiss them all without looking at them very closely.  Everyone has their own "baby" they want to promote over someone else's "baby."  Politics happens within the YEC's as well as among AE ev's.  Of course all this good evidence is poo-pooed by the SO SCIENTIFIC evolutionists who ONLY want to search for TRUTH. 

 

As for Dr. Snelling, I don't know when the quote was made or if he would still say it.  (LATER EDIT: I found it was from 1991).  However, he saw the KY tracks I photo'd and words he used to me were they were "potentially human footprints" "look realistic" and "certainly look human-like" and "certainly look convincing."  I want to be clear that he has not given his settled opinion whether they are or are not human footprints.  Sadly, the cost of being wrong about something can be very costly to delicate and valuable reputations, so there are few who are in the "higher up" positions in the YEC community who would stick their necks out about something like this, even IF it has the potential by itself to crush evolution.  I guess some of the down and dirty work has to be done by us mere "laymen" who have no reputations to worry about!


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#10 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 08 April 2016 - 10:24 PM

I need to make a correction.  As usual my mistake is due to my relying on my (fabulous!) memory instead of hunting up a reference.  I said that STW 573 (top of this page) was "fully articulated" with a "life like pose".  I think I got that impression 5 years or so ago when I first read they found the entire skeleton but it was encased in hard rock.  I am not sure what was written to make me think that, but I don't think THEY knew much about the pose then either.  Today I saw some photos of it that seem to clearly show the bones are scattered.  However, the fact that the mandible is still connected, IMO, argues strongly that it did not have much (if any) time after death before it was encased.  The idea that the bones were there lying on the floor of the cave and later (quickly) covered in flowstone is also belied by this photo of the arm:

 

 

Attached File  LittleFootARM.jpg   128.89KB   0 downloads

 

Flowstone should not have the large inclusions this rock matrix has.  The site map I saw today showed that some of the bones were found right in the midst of a layer of breccia, which is NOT formed by mineral-rich water forming calcite like a stalagmite.  This image shows large chunks of what appears to be basalt. 

 

Also, if the body lay in the cave for weeks one would THINK that at least some of the bones would show gnaw marks and I haven't read about that.  So if it was not predated upon, then how did the bones get so DISarticulated?  Hmmmm.  Almost as if they got put into a washing machine and got jumbled all up!  Also like all those jumbled up dino bones we see all the time.  HMMMMM!


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 April 2016 - 09:08 AM

Great posts Indy, just get ready for the evo silence on this thread.

It always happens when a creationist has a good point which they can't refute. I guess what they Sa is true, "ignorance is bliss" ;)
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#12 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 12 April 2016 - 05:00 PM

Thanks Gilbo... I've been trying to wait patiently to hear from them on this thread. As you might have noticed in the ice ages topic I began this because the ev's were complaining that the theist view was unfalsifiable because God might have performed something supernatural. So I also pointed out that evolutionists were just as determined in their theory by saying that it it was inevitable that there could be a naturalist explanation for everything... even if there is no explanation they can come up with TODAY. The sad thing is that some theistic evolutionists also have the same attitude about what the evidence is. I do understand that somehow there must be an accommodation for the idea that we should not call upon miracles every time there is some problem with the scientific evidence. BTW, when I have tried to point out the silence, that's about when I get reminded of some rule here that says there is no obligation for anyone to have to reply.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#13 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 15 April 2016 - 06:01 PM

I have decided to add some more photos that show the right/left sequence of the KY tracks I have studied.  We had difficulty in making some of the features visible due to a very sunny day and blowing leaf canopy causing shadows that moved all the time.  Here is a photo of the #1 and #2 tracks...which are the two most visible. 

 

Attached File  Photos - 31b.jpg   32.26KB   6 downloads

 

Here is an overhead of #1...difficult to see the features but they are definitely there. 

 

Attached File  Track1r.jpg   193.23KB   7 downloads

 

 

They have been identified as definitely of human shape by many who are not YE.  They had to say they were carved, however they did not say the features were not present. 



#14 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:19 AM

I have been in a pretty extensive discussion about the Kentucky tracks in review section for Dr. Walter Brown's book at amazon.com. It has gotten a bit contentious but there is some good information there. Here is the link:


http://www.amazon.co...8SWHU&cdPage=12

#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 April 2016 - 04:52 PM

>>So sorry, I will have to draw your ire and say that I don't find them at all convincing as evidence of human presence in the Carboniferous.>>

Not ire, but perhaps disgust!


Quite partial to a bit of hyperbole aren't you. 'Disgust' that I didn't immediately roll over and agree with you that these prints couldn't possibly be carved (or augmented bona fide tracks) in an area of known native Indian carvings !
 

>>Regarding human fossils generally (which includes footprints) it's interesting that the major creationist organisations, which once trumpeted such finds, are no longer convinced by them>>

I guess back in the 80's or so, it became too dangerous to them to include the Paluxy tracks or OOPF's in their argumentation, since I guess they got burned a few times.  Safer route is to dismiss them all without looking at them very closely.  Sadly, the cost of being wrong about something can be very costly to delicate and valuable reputations, so there are few who are in the "higher up" positions in the YEC community who would stick their necks out about something like this, even IF it has the potential by itself to crush evolution.


Yeah right. Your words are just excuses to save face. If these tracks had any authenticity the YEC propaganda machine would be all over it, and you know it. They're desperate for some find that would 'crush evolution'. Do you really think they would disregard such astounding evidence ?



#16 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 April 2016 - 05:02 PM

Quite partial to a bit of hyperbole aren't you. 'Disgust' that I didn't immediately roll over and agree with you that these prints couldn't possibly be carved (or augmented bona fide tracks) in an area of known native Indian carvings !
 


Yeah right. Your words are just excuses to save face. If these tracks had any authenticity the YEC propaganda machine would be all over it, and you know it. They're desperate for some find that would 'crush evolution'. Do you really think they would disregard such astounding evidence ?

 

Seriously? The "YEC propaganda machine"? Exactly the kind of hand-waving I expected from you. I guess when you can't actually address evidence, you just think mudslinging is a legitimate alternative.



#17 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 April 2016 - 05:22 PM

Seriously? The "YEC propaganda machine"? Exactly the kind of hand-waving I expected from you. I guess when you can't actually address evidence, you just think mudslinging is a legitimate alternative.

 

I guess as a mod you must follow our discussions. In that case you must realise that Indy does a whole lot more hand waving than I ever do. Most of his responses arise from  a cascade of thoughts as he speaks into his phone thingy. Not backed up by evidence. As far as mudslinging have you seen what he said about his adversary in the out of place fossils thread - accusing him of smashing up footprints with an iron bar. No evidence of course, just anecdotes.



#18 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 23 April 2016 - 06:27 PM

I guess as a mod you must follow our discussions. In that case you must realise that Indy does a whole lot more hand waving than I ever do. Most of his responses arise from  a cascade of thoughts as he speaks into his phone thingy. Not backed up by evidence. As far as mudslinging have you seen what he said about his adversary in the out of place fossils thread - accusing him of smashing up footprints with an iron bar. No evidence of course, just anecdotes.

 

Wibble, what I have seen is that your posts have become progressively more snide, condescending, and contemptuous towards anything YEC, to the point where you start slinging mud at CMI or whomever, just as an excuse to dismiss an argument being presented.

 

As far as the claim that Glen Kuban vandalized one of the tracks at Paluxy, I'm well familiar with the claim. Don Patton came and gave a talk at Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship here in Colorado some ten or fifteen years ago, and that comes straight from him. Here is the second part of the video from that talk. If you're impatient, jump to about 3:30.

 

 

Notice any difference between the before and after pictures...like the second one is conveniently missing the toe prints and there's a big hole now where they were?

 

taylor-3b.jpg

 

taylor-3b-bashed.jpg

 

Do you think Patton vandalized the track himself?


Edited by Bonedigger, 23 April 2016 - 09:43 PM.
Corrected Mispelling


#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 April 2016 - 08:19 PM

As far as the claim that Glenn Kuban vandalized one of the tracks at Paluxy, I'm well familiar with the claim. Don Patton came and gave a talk at Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship here in Colorado some ten or fifteen years ago, and that comes straight from him. Here is the second part of the video from that talk. If you're impatient, jump to about 3:30.

OK.... went to the video.   Briefly:

 

Patton says Kuban was enraged when he heard of the tracks; got on a plane the next morning and flew to Texas; was in the river that afternoon with a "big iron bar;" the owner of the property told Patton that Kuban was out there; two days later, they examined the track and it had been "beat to a pulp."

 

There are a lot of questions with the story.....  

1)  How did Kuban know the exact spot in the river where the tracks were located if he allegedly heard of them only the day before? 

2)  Unless Kuban had been there before, how did the property owner know it was Kuban? 

3)  Why didn't the property owner confront the man in the river?  I know I would have. 

 

A few years ago, I had some dealings with Kuban as an offshoot of a discussion I was having with Indy.  The matter of this accusation came up.  Kuban says he was in a different part of the country and has the tickets to prove it.  My "sense" of the man based on reading some of his "paleo" website and personal (email) contact with him is that he would consider artifacts such as these to be beyond priceless and would never deface them.

 

I hope you'll understand I'd like to see something a bit stronger than "Patton said the owner said" before I'm convinced.

 

Do you think Patton vandalized the track himself?

No.  But I don't think Kuban did either.

 

At this point, I'd have to give benefit of the doubt to the "defendant" who says he can document his location over the hearsay claim by Patton.



#20 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:33 PM

>>My "sense" of the man based on reading some of his "paleo" website and personal (email) contact with him is that he would consider artifacts such as these to be beyond priceless and would never deface them.>>

 

Clearly someone bashed the track...unless Patton is lying about the two photos.  On this page, there is a clearer image of the human track with toes.

http://www.bible.ca/...cated-rumor.htm

 

And this page is where Patton shows he took a polygraph about it and challenged Kuban to also, but he has refused. 

 

http://www.bible.ca/...-don-patton.htm

 

IMO, Kuban would not be so churlish as to destroy what he believed is actual evidence.  He may however have decided that what Patton says is evidence is merely random infill.  He (or his associate who was also reported to be there that day) could therefore have felt fine about removing material.  The erosive force of the river probably would have removed features by now anyway, but who knows?

 

I understand that Kuban has joined here, and could be reading this page.  In fact, I'm quite sure he is because in the last week he decided to correct his error of referring to ROBERT Ingalls, after I mentioned here that it was ALBERT.  If he replies, I will assuredly inform Patton and so GK had better be able to back up what he says. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users