Large ornithopod footprints found in Mexico

Adam Khor

The article is in Spanish as usual, but the really irritating part is that they somehow mispelled "hadrosaur" as "agrosaur". :pac: Yet another case of reporters who hear something wrong and don´t even try to do some research.
The footprints are 60 cms long and were found in the northern state of Sonora; they were left around 70 million years ago.

No word about what kind of hadrosaur may have left the tracks; Kritosaurus, Hypacrosaurus and "Lambeosaurus" laticaudus are all known from Mexico and lived at about the right time.

http://www.elmanana.com.mx/notas.asp?id=278829

Galvasean

Based on that picture, you'd imagine such obvious prints would have been stumbled across before... or did they have to clear off a bunch of rubble first?

Rubecula

On a second look on that picture. It looks sort of false. Maybe it is merely my own impression, but they look like someone made them.

Sorry to be so cynical and I ask forgiveness if I am wrong, but the word "hoax" comes to mind.

Adam Khor

Galvasean wrote: »

Based on that picture, you'd imagine such obvious prints would have been stumbled across before... or did they have to clear off a bunch of rubble first?

I don´t know... probably since you can see the rubble around in the pic.

Rubecula wrote: »

On a second look on that picture. It looks sort of false. Maybe it is merely my own impression, but they look like someone made them.

Sorry to be so cynical and I ask forgiveness if I am wrong, but the word "hoax" comes to mind.

That's a rather lame hoax then, as there's nothing very special about dinosaur footprints in northern Mexico; they've been found by the thousands.

Rubecula

Adam Khor wrote: »

That's a rather lame hoax then, as there's nothing very special about dinosaur footprints in northern Mexico; they've been found by the thousands.

Yes, that is true, I am not saying it IS a hoax, merely they look sort of manufactured in the photo. Almost as though someone put them into a new foundation for a wall or something. No offense was intended on the OP Adam. Just voicing my own personal opinion after looking at the picture. I accept that they are probably real, just that to me they don't LOOK real.

Sorry.

Adam Khor

Rubecula wrote: »

Yes, that is true, I am not saying it IS a hoax, merely they look sort of manufactured in the photo. Almost as though someone put them into a new foundation for a wall or something. No offense was intended on the OP Adam. Just voicing my own personal opinion after looking at the picture. I accept that they are probably real, just that to me they don't LOOK real.

Sorry.

No probs, I'm not offended at all :> In fact, I have seen fossils that are real yet look kinda fake, like something one could create in his garage or something XD

Galvasean

Adam Khor wrote: »

No probs, I'm not offended at all :> In fact, I have seen fossils that are real yet look kinda fake, like something one could create in his garage or something XD

Then there are ones that kind of were made in someone's garage...

Rubecula

Galvasean wrote: »

Then there are ones that kind of were made in someone's garage...

Hmmm.... Piltdownasaurus?

Adam Khor

National Geographic's biggest embarrasment thus far, it seems

Galvasean

That's what happens when you prioritize deadlines ahead of performing actual science.

Adam Khor

They still do that. In one of their latest issues they made it look as if they had found Cleopatra's tomb (I think it was that) yet the article only said that a certain archaeologist believed the tomb was located in a certain place. No actual expedition, no actual proof, just a belief. WTF?