I'd like to make an analogy here. I think there may be the possibility of a giant primate existing in remote areas of the world, in the US called bigfoot or sasquatch. I've done a lot of reading about this and as usual with me, the jury's out -- I'm open-minded. This is also an area in which evidence is ambiguous, and you do encounter hoaxes. You can't accept everything you hear or read because you want to "believe," and the more carefully the evidence is scrutinised, the better. People have been caught hoaxing tracks, and sometimes those tracks had previously been endorsed as genuine by people with scientific credentials. People can make mistakes and at the end of the day, the best way to get at the truth is by having a lot of experts examine the evidence in as wide a variety of ways as possible, with comparison to other similar types of evidence.

That appears to have been the case with the Paluxy tracks and judjing from what I've read about them, even most creationist organisations nowadays no longer claim that they are "man tracks." The particular print that your video shows does indeed appear to be carved -- by Baugh or someone else, I don't know, but that is what the evidence indicates. You can read about it here. Of note:

Quote
Baugh and Patton further maintain that cross sections of the track show pressure lines proving its authenticity. However, the slab is actually one of several loose "man tracks" with ambiguous histories and severe anatomic problems. The alleged subsurface pressure lines are actually algal structures which often truncate abruptly at the print depression, demonstrating that the print was carved. Moreover, the orientation of the algal structures indicates that the "up" direction of the print is the bottom of the rock bed, providing further evidence of carving. Nevertheless, a few individuals continue to promote "man track" claims, including Carl Baugh and Don Patton


So it would seem that on closer observation than a cursory look on a video, there are features in the print which you would not expect to see in a natural print.

Quote
Several known loose "man tracks" are reported to have come from Glen Rose, Texas, or nearby areas. Four of the slabs are strikingly similar in appearance: all having long toes, very wide ball, and other abnormal features, possibly indicating a common carver. At least three such "long-toed" slabs still exist, including the "Burdick track" and two slabs that led paleontologist Roland Bird to Glen Rose in 1938 (discussed below). A fourth long-toed slab is known only from a photograph. Yet another slab, often called the "Caldwell track," has a very different appearance (with short toes and narrower ball); although still promoted by Carl Baugh and a few others, it was shown to be a definite carving years ago (Neufeld, 1975).


So we have the provenance for at least some of the tracks: we know they were carved. One would have to be increasingly skeptical about the authenticity of the remaining ones.

Quote
At least one man is known to have carved several "man tracks" in Glen Rose during the 1920's and 1930's. In 1970 a Glen Rose resident, Wayland Adams, stood before a group of creationists and described the technique his uncle George Adams used to carve such tracks. First, a suitable-sized stone slab would be found (preferably one that already had some depressions, to save carving time), and a shady spot under a tree would be selected as a workshop. Next, the footprint would be carved using hammer and chisel. A center punch was used to simulate raindrops, followed by an application of muriatic acid to dull the chisel and punch marks. For an aged appearance (p. 73) the slab would be covered with manure for a few days. Last, the edges of the slab were chipped to give the impression of a track chiseled from the riverbed (Morris, 1980, p. 111-12).


So now we have evidence of fakery in the past, and an explanation of how it was done. If we compare this method to the appearance of Baugh's tracks, we see that this is indeed a possibility.

Now I'm quite keen for genuine bigfoot evidence to come to light; but if these were alleged bigfoot tracks, I'd have to say that the probability is very high that they have been faked. You don't get closer to the truth by accepting false evidence.

Would you like to try again?