Fossilized footprint thats my size!?..or just a rock?

[powderpuf20]

Fossilized footprint that's my size!?..or just a rock?

Possibly a big stretch here but I picked this item up while field hunting in a sightly significant location (high hill near highest elevation in Mich.) However, this area has little if any known Native American occupations.

I found after area was recently plowed - as you can see some damage from plow. However, there are some other marks on it that are not recent but could be from plow of another era (this field hasn't been used since 1940s.) or maybe alteration from as a tool by an ancient user ?

I was taking pics for Treasure Net because I was thinking it could be something and it was at that time I realized it looked like a foot. I put it under my foot and it is my size!

I have a lot of pictures if anyone thinks uploading more would be helpful and/or worthwhile.

Thoughts
View attachment 1029805View attachment 1029807View attachment 1029809

For the record, my foot doesn't really look that bad. Haha. I had to darken and alter the image so that the contours of the "fossilized footprint" would show up more. I also added the yellow lines so you all could see what I see. It is really hard for you to tell how much this actually looks like my foot from the pictures I've posted. I actually think this "foot" is/was smaller than mine. I wear a size 61/2 in womens which is small for womens. This "foot" may have belonged to a child or a small adult like me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kiros32]

Just a rock, sorry. A fossilized footprint would be an impression (concave), not convex.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

In the fascinating world of fossils the "trace" fossils are evidence of where events occurred. Footprints, burrows, body depressions, etc. When silt forms over the trace impression it can make what is called a "cast" fossil. Not saying that yours is this because a footprint is seldom a perfect impression. As the animal passes it's weight shifts and foot, claw, pseudopod, whatever, pivots with the push and leaves a record of motion as well as shape of the foot.

Interesting because such finds tell us much about the animal: speed, height of hip off the ground, relative mass and more.

 

[Got_4by4]

Maybe 1/2 of a pair of caveman sandals.

 

[Red James Cash]

I always found this interesting.

The Paluxy Prints and Trail

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

And visted by an accredited palentologist who found . . .

The tracks were investigated by Glen Kuban in the 1980s, whose investigations showed that the tracks are not human footprints. The supposed “manprints” were made by the same three-toed dinosaurs: they appear to be human because only the middle toe is visible. In a number of cases, “manprints” have subsequently eroded to show their true origin.

The Paluxy River ?footprints? | Bad Archaeology

 

[Red James Cash]

Could be charlie,but what if.Thats the interesting thing.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Science always leaves the door open for "what if". The scientific method can only show what can or did happen. It does not allow for proving negatives; or what could not or does not happen. For example: you can't prove aliens never visited earth. But it does allow for "there is no evidence that aliens ever visited earth."

What if's are fun and a good exercise. But there are plenty enough astonishing what ares to keep a body busy. They just take more work as you have to do research instead of play make believe.

I like solving puzzles. What answers fits the pieces of evidence . . . and then a new piece comes along that doesn't fit and you have to start over. I try to get to the American Museum of Natural History every other year and what pieces we have are so mind boggling that science fiction and fantasy have little more to offer. Just fun!

 

[Red James Cash]

I'm just careful believing what archs and historians say.I know Samuel Morrison was a pretty narrow minded one when it came to some things

 

[rick67]

How bout Fred Flintstones Orthotics'?

 

[powderpuf20]

Just a rock, sorry. A fossilized footprint would be an impression (concave), not convex.

Kiros31....I believe the impression is concave where is should be concave and convex where it should be convex if this is actually a footprint. Although the top is almost completely flat the bottom is concave where the heel would have sunk in and the convex where the arch, in theory, would have been. It is hard to tell from the photos but there is a little bit of unevenness where the "toes" could have been.

What is interesting is that the type of rock it is and in my uneducated opinion is the type of material that could have possibly created this "cast" as another post pointed out.

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Trusting no one is a good policy. You are seldom disappointed and when something does work out it's always a pleasant surprise.

 

[powderpuf20]

I added a few more pictures.

 

[1shotwade]

It's an early model "dr. Scholls" foot pad!

Wade

 

[mojjax]

Nice rock ! Check this site - https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct...fvuzwu6weHVV0ofjx6jpW1SA&ust=1406666618852035