Um, no. They have never proven anything from Paluxy to be fake. At most, some of the samples were inconclusive. One of the fossil tracks (containing a dinosaur footprint overlapped onto a human footprint) was even subject to CATSCAN and showed unequivocally that the depressions were made at the same time and that it is authentic.

This direct evidence is simply ignored by evolutionists.
The consistent carbon-dating of dinosaur fossils to 22,000-39,000 years old is ignored by evolutionists.
The problem of preserved dinosaur protein found in fossils supposed to be 65+ million years old is ignored by evolutionists.

Connect the dots.

Here is the bottom line AC483. If those tracks are authentic then Evolution is dead wrong. A multi-billion dollar industry comes to a screeching halt. So what's more likely... evolutionists admitting these are real and effectively committing ideological suicide, or is it more likely that evolutionists will attack or ignore that the evidence exists?

Sorry, but you're cherry picking - read the links above for the true story. Some of the footprints are obvious fakes, and a few are ambiguous, in that they do show a certain amount of curvature of the laminae. These are the ones I referred to as embellished rather than outright faked - you take a slightly worn dinosaur footprint that looks vaguely like a human foot, and neaten up the edges to make it look more convincing. Given that some are clearly fakes (I've even seen some that are paler than the surrounding rock, showing that the weathered surface has been scraped off to make the 'fossil' - that's just being lazy. E.g. [link to www.stanleyrice.com] would you really trust others that are so ambiguous? Think for yourself, and don't believe what someone tells you without going into the evidence objectively.

As for the carbon dating thing, you do realise that carbon dating doesn't work on things older than 50,000 years or so, right? It's because of the short half-life - as you approach the decay tail, the errors become enormous, just as they do at the other end of the decay curve. I once saw someone trying to pass off evidence against an old Earth on the basis of getting a dodgy answer from K-Ar dating of a modern lava flow.