Here we have evidence of tectonic forces difficult to imagine, dinosaur tracks, 462 trails of over 5000 prints, found on a verticle slab of limestone in Bolivia. The link was sent in by Robert Farrar – go to www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3062345/Keeping-track-s-time-Foo…
As you can see, the slab of rock is definitely vertical. It was pushed upwards by tectonic movements – uplift and warping. Of course, it may also imply the poles were somewhere different during the dinosaur era – and there is plenty of evidence to think that is a possibility (as the Arctic was temperate in climate). Text book geology (recent versions) say it was due to global warming as a result of excessive co2 in the atmosphere. Why that should be so is unclear as there were no coal fired power stations in the Jurassic or Cretaceous. In addition, the Arctic would still have been dark for six months of the year , not exactly the sort of thing to encourage verdant forest growth. However, if you are of catastrophist bent, or mind-set, anything is possible – and why not (even the idea of the poles moving). Rock moving from horizontal to vertical is due to a process differing from movement at the poles – but it is also a geological fact of life. It is caused by pressure of plates moving and colliding – but one always has to bear in mind these are theories and not necessary reality. It involves the mountain building process – warping under pressure by one plate moving against another (with one of them dominating).
Donald Patten proposed that an astral visitor was responsible for pulling up the major mountain chains from above with gravity – and the Earth was then forced to readjust to the uplift. In other words, he provided a means to create a vertical movement (from above) whereas in Plate Tectonics the movement is horizontal which presents a problem in achieving such a perfect vertical position (although still feasible). The problem here is that too often geologists allow themselves to be driven down a narrow land whereas they could be operating on a motorway if they embraced the various catastrophist theories and had a look at them objectively. That is not to say we should think the poles have definitely moved to a great degree, or that a large cosmic body came close enough to the Earth to exert force on the surface of our planet, but only that these ideas are just that. Ideas. Why sweep them under the carpet or define them as pseudo science just because they disagree with the consensus theory (and Plate Tectonics remains a theory that relies on other mainstream theories, bedded together in the uniformitarian model).
The discovery was made by ordinary workers in a quarry in Bolivia (and they gave it the oxygen of publicity by reporting the finds). It is now one of the walls of that quarry (300 feet in height). The limestone was formed during the Upper Cretaceous (somewhat at the same time as the chalk in the UK) and it could be that the formation is related to the K/T boundary event. The Yucatan asteroid impact was highly destructive – but only if you rearrange the mainstream geochronology (or layers of deposition). In other words, if the Upper Cretaceous was laid down quickly rather than slowly. Immediately we are provided with an explanation for the vertical slab of rock with dinosaur feet imprinted on it. Yucatan is just the other side of South America from Bolivia. One might imagine a great deal of upheaval – even uplift and warping (and a skewing of the geology).
The footprints, at the time of deposition, were made in a soft mud, possibly on the side of a lake. The article goes on to say they were preserved during a very dry period and later covered in mud – which assumes geological layering takes place over a long period of time rather than catastrophically (suddenly and immediately). At some point in time they were buried – at a deep level in order to generate the heat to harden the mud into rock (and preserve the footprints). In a catastrophic model the high temperature would have been part of the event and less than far fetched in application. The interesting thing is that when scientists removed some of the prints for research, or as a museum exhibit, or the limestone crumbled from the wall face, it revealed further footprints beneath the others. The limestone is used in a local cement factory which suggests a kind of chalky mud. It doesn't appear to be limestone with an origin in corals. The site is now a tourist attraction run by 'Cretaceous Park' which provides protection for the fossil footprints – but can't protect against erosion now they are fully facing the elements.