COMMENTARY Upon Paluxy mantrack enthusiasts' attempts to discredit critiques of mantrack claims by Dr. Ronnie Hastings and associates -- by Ronnie Hastings, Ph.D. Waxahachie, Texas (Note: Waxahachie is pronounced WOKS a hatch ee.) Steven Hecht has come across undoubtedly one of many mantrack enthusiasts' exercises of grasping at credibility whilst drowning in a sea of scientific impotency of their own doing. RE: "Hastings is outdated on Paluxy." Work in science ordinarily becomes outdated when new and better findings supersede older ones, ASSUMING that the ordinary rules of science are being followed. such an assumption is not justified in the case of the mantrack enthusiasts, so much so that my and others' critiques are NOT outdated. If you are going to play the "game" of science, you've got to play by the rules. Mantrack enthusiasts do not play by the rules; they are playing some other game than science. Rule: Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, such as, in this case, a trail of fossilized prints like Mary Leakey's hominid prints at Laetoli. No mantrack enthusiast has ever found a continuous trail of at least two or three prints with human features and dimensions commensurate with human anatomy. Rule: Exhaust alternative, simpler explanations before embracing a less plausible explanation. Every phenomenon claimed to be a mantrack is easily explicable as something else. Mantrack enthusiasts seem to often embrace an "if it looks like a mantrack, it must be a mantrack" guideline. I've seen isolated erosional features in rock and, even asphalt that would have to be considered genuine by their criteria. Rule: Believe what investigators do and actually document, not what they say they did and documented. Since 1982 mantrack enthusiasts (e.g., Carl Baugh and Don Patton) claim but do not produce documented tracks and maps of tracks, even when my colleague Glen Kuban offered our documentation in return. Mantrack enthusiasts such as the one in contact with Steven Hecht seem willing to accept anything as scientifically credible as long as it is fostered by a glib tongue and a verse of Scripture. RE: "the tracks aren't all abandoned as evidence by all creationists, ICR doesn't speak for all." This is just more whistling in the dark. The fact is Baugh & Co. are liabilities to the creationist cause rather than assets. The Twin Cities creationist group is one of the few remaining that give Baugh any credibility. How often does Baugh have to peddle bogus science degrees (see Kuban's publication on this) and screw up investigations that put off many creationists like John Morris, etc. before the remaining mantrack enthusiasts suspect something is wrong? Some people, I suppose, want to remain terminally uninformed. Haven't they heard of the story of the boy who cried "Wolf?" The sad part is that even if Baugh, Patton, et al really did come up with something credible (it hasn't happened yet, so don't hold your breath!), their reputations would probably prevent the scientifically credible from paying any attention to them. Once you've screwed up in science, it's nigh impossible to regain credibility. Rule: Remember the fate of the cold fusion people! Baugh & Co. seemingly have no clue what this rule means and believe they are discriminated against by the "scientific establishment." (Remember Baugh et al are people proud of their plans to look for arks in Turkey and pterodactyls in New Guinea.) RE: "human footprints at State Park Ledge...disappeared later." "Baugh McFall reference is old" "additional evidence at the Taylor site..." There are no real prints of any kind on the Ledge, which is made of very erosion resistant rock. Photos of the same features taken 15 years apart show no signs of erosion. Any human prints here are indeed Footprints in the Mind, as my amateur video (1983) indicated. Today Ledge features are virtually the same, despite many floodings over the years. Since 1985 Kuban and I have investigated the Clark trail to find it a rehash of the Baugh McFall site (trail of dino tracks -- nothing human), so old critiques still apply. The alleged human tracks inside dino tracks at the Taylor site (Baugh and Patton's "latest") are analogous to the Emperor's New Clothes. Inspection (both wet and dry) and photographic analyses show no claimed features. Baugh and Patton have not come near the analysis Kuban and I did in the years 1984, 1985, 1988, and 1989. Subsequent on-site inspections only verify our conclusions. The more they talk about the Taylor site, the better Kuban and I like it, for they merely expose their ignorance of the site. RE: Helfinstine & cat & human tracks. Helfinstine is one of many mantrack enthusiasts whom Kuban and I (especially the former) have tried to help with results of our work. When a creationist team investigating the claims is formed it never consults the "other side" (Kuban, me, et al). They are unwilling to share their measurements with us. Many simply will not talk to me (John Morris broke appointments to talk to me.) I think they are afraid of what Kuban and I can show them. How can credibility be given to those who only accumulate the claims of mantrack enthusiasts with comparatively little Paluxy experience? RE: "'this tooth...' ...and NOT accepted by Baugh. It can't be a pycnodont tooth as Hastings claims and morphology is like human. The faq also misses two new teeth as it is outdated." This is even funnier than the "hammer" evidence (clearly a concretion about an old hammer with a wood handle Baugh is afraid to carbon date). My monograph on the "tooth saga" needs to be published in detail, for Baugh is clearly taking advantage of lack of published info to dupe the credulous further. (Those of you on line need to persuade the National Center for Science Education to publish my stuff I sent them years ago.) >From the find of the "human" tooth (1987) Baugh was told it was a pycnodont-like fish and incisiform. Fish have (modern sheepshead fish) and did have (pycnodonts) front teeth with human-like morphology. I had to find along the Paluxy several similar teeth and Kuban had to furnish the stinking head of a sheepshead to get some "mantooth" enthusiasts to rethink their euphoria. So adamant were Baugh and Patton that the tooth was human they had the specimen severed in two (early 1989) to desperately search for a site on the tooth that did not scan under the electron microscope as piscine. They did not share pictures of their scan (Gee, I wonder why?), but I was able to obtain a photo of their scan and compare it with my similar tooth's scan. Both were definitely fish patterns, not mammalian. Baugh and Patton publicly said their tooth was not human in February, 1989. That they still try to dupe people into thinking it might be human (to get financial support?), is, in the words of Ross Perot, "just sad." Want to guess what these "two new teeth" are? With my finding of hundreds of piscine teeth along the Paluxy since 1987, I think I can guess pretty well. It might be fun to see them try another human tooth claim! Rule: Follow the direction evidence leads, not the direction of your preconceptions. The earliest inquiries about their tooth cast reasonable doubt that it was human. That should have told Baugh and Patton something, but, again, they seemed determined to be terminally uninformed. They spent well over a year following a trail that evidence abandoned from the very beginning. RE: "Dr. Hastings is seen as hostile, as he is a member of ASA and tries..." Correction -- I am a friend of the ASA, which is not the same as a member. Being associated with ASA in any way no more makes one hostile than going to a garage makes one a car. Baugh has used the hostile and dangerous description before to steer inquirers away from a person whose testimony about him is severely damaging. I suspect similar tactics here. The points is: Read Kuban's and my publications, contact and talk to Kuban and me (Helfinstine and John Morris, are you out there?), and, if you can, visit the Paluxy (I would be happy to be your guide on many, many weekends) before concluding anything about mantrack claims along the Paluxy. Also, if you can, find and talk to the tens of people over the years who came to the Paluxy thinking that Baugh might have something at last for anti-evolutionists and who subsequently disappeared in embarrassment from the scene when they saw him in action. Finally, when talking to someone on any science topic in order to come to some conclusion, and especially when talking about mantrack claims, talk to someone who plays by the rules of science. This does not necessarily mean someone with advanced science degrees (there are junior high students who can do science better than Baugh and Patton), it simply means someone who plays by the rules. I can be contacted through Mark Meyer or John Blanton.