I'm glad you think it was a good presentation, but what about the evidence Taikoo?Ã‚Â What would account for the denser rock around the human footprint?Ã‚Â How could a carver cause the rock around the print to become more dense?
Thanks for calling me Taikoo, AFJ! its a nickname my friends gave me.
Regarding evidence. The jury of course needs to hear good arguments from both sides, and to avoid making a premature decision etc... you know how it goes.
After having everything about my story humiliatingly shredded, then how good clean kids, no priors etc could not be guilty, couldnt DO such a thing, I thought the jury would come back with "not guilty". But you know, they really did weigh everything and they came back with the right decision.
Im not remotely qualified to assess the evidence shown in that video, esp the scanning part.
There were some odd details in the story, but you know, a lot of stories have odd details.* Referring to the above, mine did too.
So, anyway, I did look at the video, thought about it overnight, and this morning did a bit of a web search.
let the jury also consider each of the points made here.
i would say that at best, the results are inconclusive and that in the absence of an examination by disinterested parties a person could say that nothing has been proven by this object.
Is that fair minded enough?
*one detail that struck me is that the fellow with the museum has been involved with "discovering human footprints", and making unverifiable claims for some years.
it reminded me of what i read about Joseph Smith, and how he had for years been searching for buried treasures, and using seer stones.... before he "found" the gold books, and used seer stones to "translate" them. A lot of intelligent sincere people believe this story.
Show me the books. Show me footprints that have been properly analyzed by people who know how to do it and arent trying to promote their museum or ideology.