My above post only posted today, I could not make changes to my remark which in fact does not address the subject matter.
I am not wrong to say that the footprint dating is not directly measured but requires belief and dependence on other variables. The earth is billions of years old and it is not uncommon to find substrate millions of years old. The extrapolations used or the logic and reasons used to conclude that the prints are circa the same date as the substrate might be valid and the prints could be that old based upon the logic. But how do you know for a fact without a measurement. We know for a fact the date of the substrate based on the dating method but not of the prints. If you can prove the date of the prints, I will believe it.