Dating methods wrong again?

Following our trend of pointing out scientists could often be wrong, yet believed for a long time.... Here is an interesting story where they supposedly found a 40,000 yr old footprint that shouldn't be where it was found that far back. OH! WAIT! after dating it again they find it's 1.3 MILLION years old! Hmmm.. ya know.. on second thought this is a "public place" where people walk quite often these days... perhaps it's just a cow or person and only a few years old.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177218,00.html


This is just silly... they are using dating systems that we are suppose to
be trusting for OTHER things they date? And they can't determine if it's 40,000, 1.3 million, or just few years old? Perhaps they shouldn't have said anything until they decided WHEN the footprint was possible, and then made sure the dating mechanisms just confirmed their "expected" date?

I've looked in to this in the past. There is HUGE debate both for and against almost all dating methods. The conclusion I finally came to was that there was no really way to know for sure if the dating methods are truly accurate or not.