look at the shape of the footprints, they even have different labels for each set of footprints. there's several different animals footprints in that image.
also this evidence is very old so the footprints couldve possibly changed slightly over time.
shouldn't this be in the paleontology subforum?
i'm not disputing that it's an animal print. just the fact that it's not all from one animal. unlike humans, animals pretty much share the land. they might have their own little homes somewhere but they need to hunt for food and obviously walk on land that hasn't been claimed.
if you went into the country side and saw footprints you wouldn't just see footprints of one animal.
the footprints might not match any animal we know, but we are 'discovering' new species all the time, and hence opinions will change over time. are you saying there's nothing left for science to discover?
and animals dont always share the same place. often one species all own one territory to themselves.
pterosaurus may have walked on all fours when it was on land, but i reckon it flew around because its wings would have allowed it to soar the skies. that animation of it on all fours makes it look terribly cumbersome for it to walk, i doubt it would have been able to run fast enough to catch anything to eat trying to run on all fours like that. catching its prey whilst in flight sounds more convincing to me. it would have flown a lot better than it walked if it indeed walked on all fours.
if, like you say, this is from one type of animal it doesn't mean that it is the result of just one animal, just that one type of animal. and if, like you say, that footprints will make different shapes when the ground is slightly different in small parts of land then how does it suggest that the footprints are made by different limbs?