Giant Footprint Two Million Years Old

Yes, I seen this back in 2012. Mr. Tellinger made a big deal out of it, claiming it was 200 million to 3 billion years old.

It's not a footprint.

a reply to: Night Star

Hi Night! I am Starring and Flagging this Thread even though I saw a pic of this a little while back. Fascinating! I see some of the NaySayers out already on this.

What, We can't have had Giants roaming the planet Millions or Billions of Years ago? Who the hell are they to say it did not happen. Just ridiculous. ( I can see the Flame Throwers being prepared for action with that statement!) LOL!!


Syx.

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: Night Star
I see some of the NaySayers out already on this.

What, We can't have had Giants roaming the planet Millions or Billions of Years ago? Who the hell are they to say it did not happen. Just ridiculous. ( I can see the Flame Throwers being prepared for action with that statement!) LOL!!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this one-off thing is not extraordinary evidence at all.

originally posted by: thesaneone
www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is old news.

Why do people always do this? It may be old, but some of us havent seen it, and we dont have time to search the entire sight for it. And, as anyone who has been on ats for awhile knows, the search function here is horrible.

originally posted by: SyxPak

What, We can't have had Giants roaming the planet Millions or Billions of Years ago? Who the hell are they to say it did not happen. Just ridiculous. ( I can see the Flame Throwers being prepared for action with that statement!) LOL!!

If not a matter of choice, ego or bias its a matter of evidence. Mean old evidence tends to cut off at the knees many fanciful but fun ideas.

I looks like a foot print to me and is possible according to this guy:


"C.David on September 23, 2014 at 11:14 pm said:


…Granite is igneous…..?
In fact Granite is not igneous as was once supposed. Granite comes in two forms. The first is the harder of the two from which most of granite bedrock is made. This type of granite was never under a molten state and is found accross the earth. It contains radio isotopic polonium halo imprints within the granite which have had half lives of less then 90 seconds and all of which are completely round. These polonium halos are found in this granite in every sample no matter where in the world they are found. When melted and recooled, the structure of the rock changes and it becomes another type of mineral and is no longer granite neither contains any characteristics of granite. Therefore in modern science we know that granite was never molten. …The second type of granite is sedimentary granite which comes from the former type of granite but has been pulverized to a finite level several times larger then that of silica or sand. This is where we find footprints of man or animals. It hardens into concrete much the same way sandstone hardens from compressed sand, therebye preserving the footprints.
Although most science and text books still teach that granite is igneous, this was scientifically proven to be incorrect nearly 30 years ago. Published periodicals were challenged, but all lab created chalenges up til recent times have failed to be able to reproduce granite which contain any circular radio polonium halos which are the authenticating indicator of true granite. Information can be review on this subject by viewing work fro Dr. Robert Gentry in his books and periodicals. This information thoroughly explains why we are now finding many imprints in reconstituted compressed sedimentary granite which can never be found in rock which were once molton."

greaterancestors.com...

originally posted by: NOrrTH
I looks like a foot print to me and is possible according to this guy:


"C.David on September 23, 2014 at 11:14 pm said:


…Granite is igneous…..?
In fact Granite is not igneous as was once supposed. Granite comes in two forms. The first is the harder of the two from which most of granite bedrock is made. This type of granite was never under a molten state and is found accross the earth. It contains radio isotopic polonium halo imprints within the granite which have had half lives of less then 90 seconds and all of which are completely round. These polonium halos are found in this granite in every sample no matter where in the world they are found. When melted and recooled, the structure of the rock changes and it becomes another type of mineral and is no longer granite neither contains any characteristics of granite. Therefore in modern science we know that granite was never molten. …The second type of granite is sedimentary granite which comes from the former type of granite but has been pulverized to a finite level several times larger then that of silica or sand. This is where we find footprints of man or animals. It hardens into concrete much the same way sandstone hardens from compressed sand, therebye preserving the footprints.
Although most science and text books still teach that granite is igneous, this was scientifically proven to be incorrect nearly 30 years ago. Published periodicals were challenged, but all lab created chalenges up til recent times have failed to be able to reproduce granite which contain any circular radio polonium halos which are the authenticating indicator of true granite. Information can be review on this subject by viewing work fro Dr. Robert Gentry in his books and periodicals. This information thoroughly explains why we are now finding many imprints in reconstituted compressed sedimentary granite which can never be found in rock which were once molton."

greaterancestors.com...



[/quote/]

Looks like you just cut the legs out from alot of know it alls above. Nice work!

a reply to: aboutface

Same reason the Smithsonian has a vault no one is allowed to see.

a reply to: NOrrTH

What complete and utter tosh that quote is. You do realise that Dr Robert Gentry is a young earth creationist?

There are, indeed, two types of granite: S-Type, and I-Type. link

This quote from your post is meaningless:
"The second type of granite is sedimentary granite which comes from the former type of granite but has been pulverized to a finite level several times larger then that of silica or sand."

That sentence doesn't even make sense and while it sounds 'flash' it is really gobbledegook....tell me, how large is silica? What type of sand? Coarse, medium, fine? I don't even know what he means by 'pulverized to a finite level'.

I can't believe I'm spending time on this crap, yet again!

originally posted by: skunkape23
I would say it is a really cool natural formation, or carved, not evidence of giants. Granite is an igneous rock. It doesn't form from mud. If it is a footprint of a giant, he would have had to have walked through magma.

About what I was concluding myself - but then the thought of a giant that could walk through magma crossed my mind... Scary, but imaginable. Isn't there like a ... 'theory' that anything imaginable is achievable, otherwise we wouldn't be able to imagine it, as we would have no concept of it?

*shrug*

Not arguing the likely-hood that this is carved or something, but if it was it was particularly well done. I see little segments where the 'magma' would have clung to [his] foot and lifted away when he took his next step, and then grading where his toes would have started to dig, that looks as if it got pushed around when pressure got exerted in a forward motion... Creases in the right places and such too.

*moar shrugs*

I'm at work so I'm not going to watch the video right now - the preview frame was enough to pique my interest though, so I will when I get home. Very interesting.

EtA: Curious that someone would carve a giant foot with 4 toes; unless that impression is just very faint due to the 'minimal' pressure exerted by the pinky toe; but I'll take a closer look in that region when I have time.

S&F

The quote below the video in the OP says it all:

Prof. Pieter Wagener from UPE, suggests that "there is a higher probability of little green men arriving from space and licking it out with their tongues, than being created by natural erosion".

Michael Tellinger and Klaus Dona visit the giant footprint in South Africa on the 17th Jan 2012. They talk about the mystery of this footprint in rough granite and debunk those who believe that it is a fake carved footprint by pranksters. This amazing human-like footprint remains one of the least known of the many great mysteries on Earth. The being that left this footprint would have been about 7,5 metres tall - this supports the findings of giant skeletons of about 7,5m that Klaus Dona made in Ecuador.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It's a rock carved by water. Each of the "toes" was where a small rock was stuck in a divot and kept rolling around, carving out a hole. This formation just happened to have several of those holes near each other until the walls separating them was ground away as well.

The laws of probability suggest that the odds of that happening are almost non existent.

Besides that, the evidence that correlates these discoveries is far too abundant.

The second video in the post above is just one example out of many.

• A human thigh bone 8 feet 4 inches long from Mexico.

• Human skeletons unearthed near Palermo, Sicily, in 1548 and 1550, measuring 30 feet, 33 feet and 30 feet.

• Two human skeletons unearthed near Athens, Greece, in recent centuries (one 34 feet long, the other 36 feet long).

• A skeleton reportedly 29 feet in length found in 1456 near the Rhone River.

• A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.

• 23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.

• A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.

Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.

Source

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

a reply to: Murgatroid


Yes, I'll agree it says it all. I think it quite possibly is made (that is, fabricated) by man, by somebody who wants to further their agenda.

I know I would rather trust a geologist on this matter than an applied mathematician (Pieter Wagener) or a songwriter (Michael Tellinger).

As for T.M.Sparks: "I am a self studied Bible believer and Born Again Christian for over 45 years" Source

As for Klaus Dona, he's a 'spiritual archaeologist.'

As for Michael Cremo, he's a self-professed 'Vedic Creationist.'

Yep, says it all, alright.

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: Night Star

I can't decide whether Michael is a fraudster or not. He was a sound technician who networked with African scientists and worked hard to get some kind of touristy business going there. He was quite active for a while on the net. I have no idea whether that footprint is fake or not, but if it were real, why isn't mainstream archeology discussing this more?

Mainstream archeology won't discuss this at all because it's not mainstream. Anything having to do with giants in our past is completely ignored. I'm not saying this is real, it's probably faked, but there is other compelling evidence out there of giants and it is ignored.

originally posted by: aorAki
I know I would rather trust a geologist on this matter

Makes just about as much sense as trusting the MSM and politicians...

I stopped trusting the 'authorities' years ago after finding out they were lying...

Good luck on your search for truth...

Your going to need LOTS of it.

originally posted by: CaptainLJB
...there's tons of excavations of Giants, most of which were sent to the Smithsonian to...disappear! It's the same story over and over again: skeletons found and lost. It's a cover-up, trust me. There's just too many records of these things being dug up, not to mention Indian testimony that their ancestors fought these big guys. Everything points to the Mound-Builders being Giants...

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

It is true there were giants that roamed the earth. The reason we see no archeological evidence is because the government has the Smithsonian Institute come and take away the findings to their warehouse. Why do they intentionally do this you may ask? Because the archeological findings would prove the Biblical account of creation, and they can't as easily deceive the world into believing the lies we have all been taught. Remember Terry Burton and the Giants?

“we are told not to look into this, it’s pretty well communicated if you research into giants or other races they will end your career immediately, we are told to say it’s all 1800’s media fraud regardless of the evidence, if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”.

"A cave full of giant skeletons was found by telephone employees near Santa Barbara, California. Unfortunately, the cave entrance was sealed shut before proper excavation could be conducted."

"A giant skeleton on Santa Cruz Island, California, was sent to the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., where it was promptly "misplaced". Source

"...the sad fact remains that the most persistent commonality between all of these tales seems to be that the bones - the physical evidence - have all somehow gone missing.

If, as Stephen Quayle seems convinced, there is a concerted conspiracy of silence surrounding this archeological evidence, then it is a conspiracy of, well, gigantic proportions. The accounts of these giant remains are too numerous and too far-flung for all of them to have been lost, stolen, or secreted away. And yet, I truly believe the accounts. They are supported not only by an overwhelming body of evidence found in mythology, but an equally overwhelming body of archeological evidence." SOURCE

originally posted by: Murgatroid

Makes just about as much sense as trusting the MSM and politicians...

I stopped trusting the 'authorities' years ago after finding out they were lying...

Good luck on your search for truth...

Your going to need LOTS of it.

Yeah nah.

All the geologists I know do not fabricate their findings. It is an evidence-based science (and testable) and all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to change that. On my 'journey' I haven't come across anything that remotely supports the notion of giant humans in antiquity. My take on this is that it is the product of creationists and biblical christians (for want of a better term) who are trying to push their agenda to support the trumped-up book that they base their faith upon.

One possible explanation for 'historic' records of giant humans is that they found dinosaur bones and coupled this with a religious fervour denoted them the giants/nephilim as mentioned in the bible.

I don't require, nor wish for your 'luck'. Luck has nothing to do with it, but critical thinking does.

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
EtA: Curious that someone would carve a giant foot with 4 toes; unless that impression is just very faint due to the 'minimal' pressure exerted by the pinky toe; but I'll take a closer look in that region when I have time.

Looks normal to me compared to a few other prints.

Other than the size of course...

I have learned from this thread, thanks Night, lots of diverse opinions on this topic. The cast is certainly a good argument for the print being real. I would like to believe that once there were giants.

a reply to: Night Star

Unfortunately, this is one of the more recent hoaxes in "Archaeology" which has been thoroughly debunked.

The granite in South Africa date to 3.1 billion years ago. Another thing problematic is that granite forms below the earth's crust in magma chambers making it impossible for it to have been on the surface and also for a "giant" to have stepped into the molten mixture.

There is actually a whole thread on here already posted called Giant stone footprint in south africa (Debunk)

Hobbit humans are OK and legitimate science, giant humans are not. I have been working on a post for a while now, and I will post it in religious conspiracies soon, the whole giant cover up thing has added another piece to the puzzle, thanks everyone.

My notes on the OP, the footprint does seem to be in a strange place to have survived, right on the surface of a boulder, everything else eroded but not the print, however it looks like the whole formation was covered by sediment and the print has been protected.

There are youtube videos of other such prints in granite. Don't the forgers know how granite is formed and this is "impossible"?

Whether the guys bringing this to our attention are creation scientists or not, the claims have to be discussed not the philosophies of the ones bringing it to us. Of course it makes sense because someone who is sold out to the mainstream science would just look at at it as they walked past and say "oh, there is an interesting anomaly" or "ha ha, look what some native has carved". All new science starts on the fringe.