I have been disheartened that an unfounded and malicious rumor about me destroying a track was presented on a web site, then repeated and encouraged by various individuals in Talk.origins and other newsgroups. Fortunately many people, especially those who know me and my work, recognized the groundless nature of the rumor from the start. I have learned that many have already spoken on my behalf, and I want to thank them for that.
Unsubstantiated rumors do not require a rebuttal, as doing so can appear to dignify them. However, in this case I will rebut the rumor, because it concerns not just me personally, but also fosters misleading notions about the Paluxy tracks.
Before I do so, allow me to recount the version of that appeared at the web site promoting Don Patton's Paluxy claims, at http://www.bible.ca/tracks.htm
Prize Track destroyed once for all time by Evolutionist!
Saturday, August 1st, 1992 Don Patton spoke at a creation conference in Dayton, Tennessee. He presented evidence that all the data relating to the Taylor Trail was best explained by both human and dinosaur tracks. He featured -3B. Glen Kuban was conspicuously disturbed by this presentation. Kuban has acknowledged flying to Dallas, Texas and being in the Paluxy River the next day. He was seen in the river with an "iron bar." Three days before he was in the river this beautiful fossil footprint looked like the picture on the left. Three days after he was in the river, it looked like the picture on the right. Of course the track is so well scientifically documented, that whoever did this, accomplished nothing.
This insinuation that I destroyed a track is thoroughly unfounded. The rumor contains a hodgepodge of misstatements, half-truths, and groundless innuendo.
For starters, the Dayton TN conference was in 1989, not 1992. I did not even go to Tennessee or Texas in 1992. I did work in the Paluxy along with several other researchers and visitors after the Dayton conference in mid-August of 1989. However, I did not do this in response to any evidence in Patton's talk; the trip had been planned for weeks in advance, as reservation records show.
The rumor claims I "acknowledged" flying to Texas after the conference. This makes it sound like I was admitting guilt for something. In fact, I freely told many people I was going to Glen Rose before the conference even began, to work there as I had done many times before. Moreover, at no time did Patton come to me to discuss this matter or ask me about it. I recently emailed him to ask about it, but so far have not heard back.
Significantly, the "before" and "after" pictures of track -3B at the web site could not have been taken only a few days before and after the Dayton conference as the rumor suggests, because the entire Taylor Site was flooded with over a foot of water during that time. This is corroborated by photos by me and other workers as well as weather records. We were able to clean and view some of the tracks through the water, but none could be photographed in a dry state, and none of the Taylor site was dammed at that time. So, the photos could not have been taken when the rumor implies they were.
The "before" and "after" photos do not even look very different, so there is little evidence that anyone even damaged a track, let alone destroyed one. Indeed, photos by me and others from as recently as 1997 still show little change. Although the small size of the "before" and "after" photos and lettering over them makes them difficult to compare in detail, I see no changes in the second photo that could not be due to normal erosion and occasional sloughing out of the infilling material.
The "after" picture is taken at a closer distance than the "before" picture, and neither shows the actual boundaries of the track, only a portion of the infilling material inside the track. The actual track boundaries show it to be a largely infilled, metatarsal theropod dinosaur track, as are the rest of the tracks in the Taylor Trail. Moreover, there could not be a track inside the infilling, since there are no bedding planes in the infilled region of these tracks, as core samples demonstrate. For more information about this please see my article, "Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks" at
and other relevant articles at my Paluxy web site:
Ironically, the only problematic features I see in Patton's photos are some shallow dots within the infilling region. These Patton interprets as human toe marks, but they are not in proper positions for his interpretation of the rest of the foot, which seems to represent an odd, four-toed human foot according to Patton's own interpretive drawing above it. Such dots do not appear in any previous photos by either by creationists or mainstream workers. Moreover, the alleged human print itself, divorced from Patton's suggestive drawing, is ill defined and the bottom contours conflict with those of a genuine human footprint. And again, geologically speaking, there could be no real tracks within the infilling material, since it contains no bedding planes. How the shallow dots got there is not something I care to speculate on. I certainly don't claim to have seen anyone in the riverbed with a rod whenever the photo was taken.
That someone may have seen me or others in the riverbed with a rod any number of times, is not surprising, but expected. All serious track workers regularly wield a variety of rods (some metal) including tripods, meter sticks, extension poles, brooms, and shovels. Of course, what could we have been doing with such tools except destroying tracks?
Furthermore, contrary to the implications of the rumor, I knew exactly what the track looked like long before the Dayton conference. The rumor author says that fortunately the track was documented. What it neglects to mention is that I am the person who first found and documented it, and identified it as a metatarsal dinosaur track, in 1980--long before Patton ever stepped foot in the Paluxy. Moreover, Ron Hastings, other mainstream researchers, and I have published detailed documentation of the site based on years of careful field work, including the only rigorously accurate maps of the site. So if I destroyed a track there, I would be undermining our own work.
One of the few correct statements in the rumor is that I was disturbed by Patton's presentation at the Dayton conference. However, it was not because I saw any good evidence for human tracks. It was because his presentation fostered many misleading impressions about the Paluxy evidence, which I knew to be wrong from my own detailed field work at the sites. For example, he showed a photo of track +6 (also shown at the web site) largely filled with muddy water, obscuring the bottom contours. Patton implied features at one end represented human toes. However, when the depression is well cleaned and the muddy water removed, one can see that the "toes" are actually a mud crack pattern which extends into the body of the depression, and which is actually part of a largely infilled dinosaur track.
It should also be noted that neither the author of the rumor, nor the person who supposedly witnessed me, nor the person to whom I supposedly "acknowledged" flying to Texas on the spur of the moment, is mentioned. Seems the author did not have the courage to even name himself or the alleged witnesses. One thing even more insidious than an unfounded rumor is an anonymous unfounded rumor.
Once the author of this rumor is established, this person should immediately remove it from the web site and issue a public acknowledgment that it was unfounded. If there is any reluctance to do this, I extend an invitation to that person to participate with me in a public polygraph test. It should be conducted by a neutral third party, and include a series of questions to both of us, such as:
- Have you ever destroyed any tracks?
- Have you ever altered any tracks to foster desired features?
- Have you ever misrepresented any Paluxy related evidence?
- Have you ever misrepresented the work or activities of your detractors?
- Have you ever initiated or spread unfounded rumors about any other workers?
Although I realize polygraphs are not 100% reliable, I think in a comparative test such as this, it is much more likely than not to indicate who is telling the truth.
In closing, it was upsetting that someone would initiate a slanderous rumor about me (imagine how you would feel if this happened to you), as well as to learn that other people were repeating and encouraging it in talk.origins and other newsgroups. I think we should keep in mind that bearing false witness is not just deliberately lying, but also spreading rumors about someone without knowing the facts or discussing it with the person first. Despite the distress and wasted time this has caused me, and I also have some sympathy for whoever is responsible, since only a very insecure or desperate individual would stoop to such an egregious and cowardly act.
I again want to thank all those who spoke on my behalf and vouched for my integrity and work in recent messages. I am moved by this and very much appreciate it. I think in the end unfounded rumors like this wind up doing more to discredit those who initiate and spread them than those they aim to smear.
Since one version of the rumor asserted that someone resembling Ron Hastings and/or me destroyed a track, Hastings plans to issue his own reply soon. I also will add both of our responses to a web site in the near future as as a reference for those who may stumble across the rumors in the future. I will send another post with the URL in the next few days. I hope this helps. Unfortunately, like viruses, unfounded rumors are hard to kill and often mutate as they proliferate.
I invite anyone with any further questions about the Paluxy evidence or my research to contact me at any time. Thank you very much for allowing me to clarify these things.
Glen J. Kuban
Paluxy home page
Commentary by Brian Johnson to Rumor