When evaluating some of these so-called shoe prints, we should be careful that we are not experiencing some form of pareidolia. In the case of the Fisher Canyon shoe print, the archaeologist you quote, Hubbard, seems to be unreliable in that he claimed a piece of artwork carved in 1917 was actually a fossilized human. His ability to evaluate evidence is highly questionable. Also, the claim that humans couldn't produce such a shoe, which resembles a basic moccasin, in 1917, is rather silly, as shoes in general are ancient technology.