The Arizona Tracks

     In the 1960s, a private plane flown by Eryl Cummings made an emergency landing on a dirt road along the Moenkopi Wash, near the Little Colorado River of northern Arizona. While there, Cummings discovered in standstone some fossil tracks which appeared to be that of a barefoot human child. Near it were some dinosaur tracks. Cummings recognized the strata as belonging to the Kayenta, which evolutionists date about 190 million years in the past. He wanted to return to the location, but never had the time or funds for an expedition. Years passed.

    In 1984, Lorraine Austin found similar tracks not far from Cumming’s site and told Paul Rosnau about them. That same year, Rosnau visited the area (later designated as site-1). Here he located many human tracks, dinosaur tracks, and a hand-print of a child that had slipped and put his hand down to catch himself.

    Learning about Cumming’s discovery, Rosnau received directions to his site, which turned out to be about 3 kilometers (about 2 miles) from site–1. In 1986 he searched for the Cumming’s site, but was unable to locate the trackways, apparently because the dirt road had been widened and the tracks had been eradicated. But about 161 kilometers (100 miles) west of the road, he found dozens of man tracks. This location was named site-2.

     Thirty full pages of information on this discovery will be found in a two part article by Paul Rosnau, Jeremy Auldaney, George Howe, and William Wasigerber, in the September  and December 1989 issues of Creation Science Quarterly. A number of photographs are included.

     At least 300 tridactyl dinosaur tracks (ancient track marks) have been found there, a cloven-footed hoof print of a mammal, bivalves (clams of the Unlo complanatus, a fresh water bivalve which still lives in American lakes), large amphibians, lungfish, and 3 ungulate-like tracks (domestic sheep or wild big horn sheep).

     Over 60 human tracks were mapped and photographed. A number of the human tracks were in stride areas, some were standing still with left and right foot near each other, all the rest were walking or going somewhere. In some instances, shoe pr something similar seemed to be on the feet. Here are some interesting comments by the authors:

   “(Describing with one of the tracks) The other was an almost perfect barefoot track, typical of tracks made in soft mud. It has a deep heel, an arch almost level with the surface, a deep ball, and toe angle.” Op. cit., part 2, p. 81

   “Similar, a lone, indistinct, eroded dinosaur track would not be considered authentic, but in an area of distinct tracks it would be accepted as one of the many genuine tracks. The trails of man-tracks we have located together with the details of the human foot – toes, ball of foot, arch, heel and taper of toes – rule out chance formations of nature in a great many of our discoveries.” Op. cite., p.

    “[Here are] two characteristics of authentic human footprints: (1) on hard surfaces they will assume an hourglass shape; (2) on wet surfaces the heel and ball of the foot will make prominent impressions while the arch will not be prominent. I submit that site-2 at Tuba City there are tracks that meet these qualifications.” – Ibid

     “Among the impressions there are 30 that are better than accepted human tracks displayed in the San Bernardo County Museum in Redlands, CA.” – Ibid

      “There is a predominance of fossil bones and tracks of flesh eating animals such as the phytosaurs, dinosaurs Dilophosurus, and Coelphysis. In normal ecological systems, there are always more plant eaters. Does this indicate that these carnivorous animals had come down to the area to eat the dead killed in a cataclysm?” – Op. cit., p. 93  

References:

The Evolution Handbook;  Evolution Facts Inc.

The Creation Science Quarterly; December, 1989