11 ms·

IMO, these look totally fake. [1] Just compare the footprints to real verified footprints [2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/07/1204031535/fossil-footprints-

IMO, these look totally fake. [1] Just compare the footprints to real verified footprints [2] [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/07/1204031535/fossil-footprints-in-new-mexico-suggest-humans-have-been-here-longer-than-we-tho https://www.npr.org/2023/10/07/1204031535/fossil-footprints-... [2] https://fineartamerica.com/featured/footprints-in-sand-on-beach-fat-tony.html https://fineartamerica.com/featured/footprints-in-sand-on-be...

thechao 3y ago
How did you determine that? Could you link to a preprint or a publication where you make your argument?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Your response comes across even more shallow than the original post - As if putting those two sentences and pictures in a pre-print would validate the position.
sonofhans 3y ago
Assuming that you’re serious, let me reply with two things. First, fossilized impressions in sand and mud are always distorted. Look at more and you’ll see. These impressions are actually remarkably well-preserved. Second, you can’t be sure that the second footprints are any more real. I could easily carve fake feet out of wood and make those impressions. So could the artist. Epistemology is everywhere, eh?
greggsy 3y ago
Thankfully, you’ve prefaced your comment with an indication that your observation — based on a visual comparison of two photographs on the internet — is just your opinion. Why bother going to the effort of applying the footnote notation for something so unashamedly un-academic?
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  Just thinking, HN is not an academic forum. It is ok to propose not so well-thought-out questions and propositions here. Nobody is really trying to scientifically prove anything here. Stupid questions and propositions are good here, because then someone can explain why they are stupid. They would not be ok in academic setting of course.
npunt 3y ago
A good rule of thumb for forming beliefs (and commenting on fora about studies) is if you don’t have more than a passing awareness of an entire academic field, and your observation relies on no unique knowledge, talent, or perspective that you bring to the table, then you can safely assume other people see it too and that there is more to it than what took you a few seconds to evaluate. Just something to consider?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  That's true and his observation IS silly. In general, though, common sense is widespread, and a belief that conventional science is wrong isn't necessarily crackpot. Scientists do manage to deceive themselves fairly regularly. But yeah, you have a higher burden of proof.
- fred_is_fred 3y ago
  Unfortunately we live in a world where "doing your own research" by someone who has no business doing any research is celebrated.
verisimi 3y ago
I think that there are good reasons to distrust this sort of 'evidence'. Firstly, I don't think dating (dendrochronoloy or luminescence (whatever that is)) is valid. It is unverifiable guess work. Secondly, how does one date something intangible like a footprint? Oh the grass and pollen.... please. I don't think you can date a secondary trace of something like this. Its like a detective using dust to see the oil on a criminal's finger print. Nice idea, but highly unlikely to be practical. > "People can argue against any single dating technique," he said. "But it's the totality of the study, the congruence of the ages from all three different dating techniques, that really make our results exceptionally robust." "exceptionally robust"... if you say so. > Jolie, who is of Oglala Lakota and Hodulgee Muscogee heritage, says technology is transforming his field. But there's something else, too: more Indigenous people are involved in research into these early Americans. Ok - so there is a modern angle too. Amazing how history cross-references as it does and with such good timing. Well, not that amazing ... if you think that the history we are presented is simply the history for today (not yesteryear or tomorrow's history). We get the message for our timeline as we need it. The underlying message that this history supports is: its time 'we' gave the history and land back to the people 'we' stole it from, brothers and sisters. Except, that no one alive now committed the crimes that they are being accused of - so we are going to commit new crimes on account of stories that manufacture consent to the crimes..
- bumby 3y ago
  >I don't think you can date a secondary trace of something like this. FTA: “One key problem in archaeology is that we are often not getting a date (radiometric date, for example) on the objects we are directly interested in.” According to the article, secondary sources are the norm in archaeology.

thechao 3y ago

How did you determine that? Could you link to a preprint or a publication where you make your argument?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Your response comes across even more shallow than the original post - As if putting those two sentences and pictures in a pre-print would validate the position.

sonofhans 3y ago

Assuming that you’re serious, let me reply with two things. First, fossilized impressions in sand and mud are always distorted. Look at more and you’ll see. These impressions are actually remarkably well-preserved. Second, you can’t be sure that the second footprints are any more real. I could easily carve fake feet out of wood and make those impressions. So could the artist. Epistemology is everywhere, eh?

greggsy 3y ago

Thankfully, you’ve prefaced your comment with an indication that your observation — based on a visual comparison of two photographs on the internet — is just your opinion. Why bother going to the effort of applying the footnote notation for something so unashamedly un-academic?

galaxyLogic 3y ago
Just thinking, HN is not an academic forum. It is ok to propose not so well-thought-out questions and propositions here. Nobody is really trying to scientifically prove anything here. Stupid questions and propositions are good here, because then someone can explain why they are stupid. They would not be ok in academic setting of course.

npunt 3y ago

A good rule of thumb for forming beliefs (and commenting on fora about studies) is if you don’t have more than a passing awareness of an entire academic field, and your observation relies on no unique knowledge, talent, or perspective that you bring to the table, then you can safely assume other people see it too and that there is more to it than what took you a few seconds to evaluate. Just something to consider?

AlbertCory 3y ago
That's true and his observation IS silly. In general, though, common sense is widespread, and a belief that conventional science is wrong isn't necessarily crackpot. Scientists do manage to deceive themselves fairly regularly. But yeah, you have a higher burden of proof.
fred_is_fred 3y ago
Unfortunately we live in a world where "doing your own research" by someone who has no business doing any research is celebrated.

verisimi 3y ago

I think that there are good reasons to distrust this sort of 'evidence'. Firstly, I don't think dating (dendrochronoloy or luminescence (whatever that is)) is valid. It is unverifiable guess work. Secondly, how does one date something intangible like a footprint? Oh the grass and pollen.... please. I don't think you can date a secondary trace of something like this. Its like a detective using dust to see the oil on a criminal's finger print. Nice idea, but highly unlikely to be practical. > "People can argue against any single dating technique," he said. "But it's the totality of the study, the congruence of the ages from all three different dating techniques, that really make our results exceptionally robust." "exceptionally robust"... if you say so. > Jolie, who is of Oglala Lakota and Hodulgee Muscogee heritage, says technology is transforming his field. But there's something else, too: more Indigenous people are involved in research into these early Americans. Ok - so there is a modern angle too. Amazing how history cross-references as it does and with such good timing. Well, not that amazing ... if you think that the history we are presented is simply the history for today (not yesteryear or tomorrow's history). We get the message for our timeline as we need it. The underlying message that this history supports is: its time 'we' gave the history and land back to the people 'we' stole it from, brothers and sisters. Except, that no one alive now committed the crimes that they are being accused of - so we are going to commit new crimes on account of stories that manufacture consent to the crimes..

bumby 3y ago
>I don't think you can date a secondary trace of something like this. FTA: “One key problem in archaeology is that we are often not getting a date (radiometric date, for example) on the objects we are directly interested in.” According to the article, secondary sources are the norm in archaeology.