Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> You said that those footprints look like bear footprints
No, they DO look like bear footprints. I didn't invent bears, footprints
nor any similarities to bears in this case. They are all external to me.
If you read for comprehension, the cite is claiming to have made a
determination, which means prior to this work there was no
If something "Proves" hominin footprints now that means before now
there was no proof, that nobody saw unambiguous hominin prints.
So once you get this far, grasp this much, you've got to ask yourself
pertinent questions such as, "Are North American black bears really
the best model for comparison?"
If you want something a great deal more nuanced:
The claim here is that they see more similarities with [A] than they
do with [B], AFTER THEY EMPLOY THEIR HOCUS POCUS.
So test the hocus pocus. And we can start with the bears:
The North American black bear is not only a different species than
anything that might've lived there at the time, it is classified as a
So what you need to do is test bear prints from the same time period,
associated with the same Genus at least, and compare THAT to
hominin prints which are it's contemporary.
THAT is a test. What they do here is NOT a test. It a a pile of assumptions.