Re: Internet Man Track claims

[paleo@ix.netcom.com (Glen J. Kuban )]

Shaun,

    The recent Paluxy "man track" promotions you cited come from Carl 
Baugh and Don Patton, who are among the few remaining human track 
advocates.  Both are famous for promoting dubious man track claims,  
advertise advanced degrees that they do not possess, and are considered 
distreputable even by many creationists.  The so-called 14 human tracks 
in sequence at Paluxy refer to the Taylor Trail on the Taylor Site, 
which they once claimed was human.  Later (after publication of 
contrary evidence by me and others) Baugh admitted the tracks were 
dinosaurian.  Then Baugh and Patton decided that the tracks were 
dinosaur tracks with human tracks _within_ them.  Even more recently 
they have suggested they are pterosaur tracks with humnan tracks within 
them.  Actually, the elongate tracks on the Taylor Site are largely 
infilled metatarsal dinosaur tracks, as is supported by several lines 
of evidence.  As I noted in previous messages, other Paluxy "man 
tracks" were erosinoal features, carvings, and ambiguous marks of 
uncertain origin.
    I have publsihed more detailed replies to these new twists on the 
old "man track" claims, and can send you more information if you like.  
I too am disappointed that they are pushiong this stuff on the Internet 
now, but I would encourage you not to get too worked up about it.  
There are charletans all over the place, and it's just a sad fact of 
life.  Even many creationist would rather Baugh and Patton cease their 
activities, but so far they have largely ignored reproofs from both 
mainstream and creationist critics.  By the way, I will soon be placing 
a historical summary of the Paluxy controversy in the talk.origins 
archives, to supplement the topical summary already there.  I'll let 
you all know when it is installed.  
    Thanks for the message.

Glen J. Kuban
paleo@ix.netcom.com