[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Baugh



You wrote: 

>Glen, look at http://www.bcvideo.com/bcvideo.  There is a picture of a
>footprint there, called the Burdick footprint, which will be in an NBC
>sleazumentary on Sunday night.  Baugh is apparently one of their experts.
>>It looks too triangular and flat to be human.  Is this one a dino print,
>carving, or something else?
>>This will doubtless become a hot topic on t.o in the next few days.
>
>-- 
>Jim Foley                         Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, CO
>Jim.Foley@symbios.com                        (970) 223-5100 x9765

Jim:

Jim, to increase public awareness I am forwarding a copy of my response to 
the Rocks and Fossils list, Fossil Nuts list and Dinosaur's group, since 
people there may watch the show and be curious also.

    As you know from my previous posts, most alleged human tracks in Glen 
Rose, Texas (the hotbed of the past creationist "man track" claims), are 
forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks.  Others were erosional marks 
and ambiguous markings of uncertain origin, whereas a smaller number were 
carvings.  The Burdick track is one of the carvings.  It is called the 
Burdick print because it was first publicly promoted by Clifford Burdick in 
the late 1940's, and latter becaue more widely known when puctures of it were 
shown in the popolar creationist book _The Genesis Flood_ by Henry Morris and 
John Whitcomb_, 1961).  
    The carver of the Burdick Print was probably George Adams, a Glen Rose 
resident known to have carved several tracks on loose blocks of rock during 
the 1930's.  In 1970 his nephew Wayland "Slim" Adams even gave a talk to a 
group of creationists explaining his uncle's carving techinque (which was 
included in John Morris' now defunct 1980 book _Tracking Those Incredible 
Dinosaurs_). Even John Morris (son of Henry Morris) and most other 
creationist authors regard the Burdick print as a likely carving.  Besides 
being over 15 inches long (from heel to toe), it shows severe anatomic errors 
(misplaced ball and arch, excessively wide ball, excessively long "little 
toes" with multiple pad marks even on the little piggies--which do not appear 
on real prints, etc).  Moreover, it was cross sectioned in the early 1970's 
by a creationist team from Loma Linda University, with the subsurface 
features confirming its carved origin.  Despite knowing all this, Baugh and 
his partner Don Patton (who are two of the most disreputable creationists) 
have actively promoted this "track" as a genuine giant human footprint.  
    Several years ago, as part of my ongoing work on the Paluxy claims, Gregg 
Wilkerson and I wrote an article specifically addressing the Burdick print 
and the Baugh/Patton claims about it.  However, because their claims about it 
slowed somewhat soon afterward (as he was busy making equally empty claims 
about other things), we never published the article.   Perhaps that was a 
mistake in terms of public awareness, but as far as Baugh and Patton go, it 
probably did not matter.  Neither has ever never much inclination to correct 
their errors, mostly because they evidently are ot accidents in the first 
place.  Indeed, both have actively promoted false claims about many other 
Paluxy mantracks (as addressed in my other articles), and have even 
misrepresented their credentials--claiming Ph.D's in various scientific 
fields, even though neither one any valid degrees (I wrote an article some 
time ago addressing this also), and can send a copy if you are interested).  
    Thanks for letting me know about Baugh's appearance--someone told me that 
Baugh was going to appear on TV Sunday, but I did not know the particulars ) 
and was not aware of the Burdick track being part of it.  As Paul Harvey 
says, now you know "the rest of the story."  I should probably contact the 
show producers, but I suppose it is too late to do anything about the 
upcoming show.  
    By the way, in case I did not mention it before, a topical summary is in 
the talk.origins archives at address

http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/paluxy.html

A more general menu of creation/evolution related articles is available at 
the same address minus the paluxy.html suffix.  Soon I will be adding a 
longer historical review of the "man track" controversy. 
    I hope this answers your question.  I may have said more than you or 
others wanted to know, but it disturbes me to see Baugh continuing his 
misrepresentations, especially on national TV.  Even though most creationists 
have largely abandoned the Paluxy "man track" claims, it is disappointing to 
me that creationist groups have declined to correct the bogus claims still 
being made by Baugh and a few other persistent "man track" promotors. I 
cannot see where it does anything to advance creationism.  In fact, I think 
it dishonors the Creator to spread falsehoods in his name. 

Thank you, 

Glen Kuban
paleo@ix.netcom.com