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-...
[2] https://fineartamerica.com/featured/footprints-in-sand-on-be...
Just compare the footprints to real verified footprints [2]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/10/07/1204031535/fossil-footprints-...
[2] https://fineartamerica.com/featured/footprints-in-sand-on-be...
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.
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?
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..
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.
Why bother going to the effort of applying the footnote notation for something so unashamedly un-academic?