It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

290 million year old human footprint

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
These are all to common seemingly, quite a few out of place footprints and other things turn up where science (or scientists who think they are science today) dont think they should.

How can this modern footprint be located in the Permian strata,its in 290 million year old strata...supposedly Its modern and its there.



Is it possible that we have history all wrong? That the dates that conventional history is giving us regarding mankind are all incorrect? That humans lived on Earth much sooner that science originally thought so? With all of the recent discoveries that are being made, it certainly seems like a possibility. A Possibility that mainstream scholars seem to have a problem with, since that would mean our history book would need to be rewritten? The origin of man and the fundamentals of religions would change a lot, and that is something that mainstream scholars cannot possibly deal with.


www.ancient-code.com...

So for mine this proves that scientists havnt a clue about dating rocks and strata and geology is based on some very poor evidence. Its 200 year old theory needs to be revisited and questioned.
Geology is the only science that still uses a 200 year old theory as a fact.

Or this footprint is 290 million years old because man evolved before dinosaurs or something

If our beliefs in the scientific method fordating rocks is so wrong, then obviously so are our timelines



+4 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

This is the image of the "footprint":



The "news" has been plastered all over sites with dubious reliability, such as Beforeitsnews.

Notice how the edge of what is supposed to be the foot's instep is way too edgy. A real foot has a smooth instep, whereas the footprint in the picture comes from a foot whose owner had half a foot.

Sorry - I call BS on this one.


edit on 29-7-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
When's mainstream science going to admit, "hey we just have no idea but we can manipulate a few things and that's it".


Still waiting for it.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
You are mighty quick to believe this. I guarantee it will end up being proven a hoax if it already hasn't. The print seems a bit TOO perfect to me, the edges aren't rounded like a natural footprint would be.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

if you contend that this is a human footprint - heres a challenge - re-create it in what ever media you chose

and show us how you did it



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
When's mainstream science going to admit, "hey we just have no idea but we can manipulate a few things and that's it".
Still waiting for it.

Well, that can't be Jesus's footprint, because he wore sandals and besides, he was carrying me when times got tough so there is only one set of footprints.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: borntowatch

This is the image of the "footprint":



The "news" has been plastered all over sites with dubious reliability, such as Beforeitsnews.

Notice how the edge of what is supposed to be the foot's instep is way too edgy. A real foot has a smooth instep, whereas the footprint in the picture comes from a foot whose owner had half a foot.

Sorry - I call BS on this one.



Thanks for embedding the photo, thats very kind.

Ats has dubious credibility, so has the MSM, seriously if its on the net its dubious, throwing slanders does not address the issue

It could well be BS but in reality what knowledge do you have other than being an internet conspiracy crusader.

What do you know of strata and footprints

I see footprints that look like that on the beach all the time.
A feathered edge, seriously.
You think someone made a phony footprint, made a phony foot to make a phony real human footprint

That baffles common sense, "Hey lets make a phony foot to make a phony footprint, just because my real foot is to real and not phony"

Wouldnt logic suggest using a real foot to make a real footprint, cheaper, easier and realer than making a phony foot to make a footprint



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Im trying to find a scientific journal or a reliable source but nothing. This only shows up a few websites that i never heard of.

The Zapata Track

From what i have seen so far is that it has not been proven to be a real footprint.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: borntowatch

This is the image of the "footprint":



The "news" has been plastered all over sites with dubious reliability, such as Beforeitsnews.

Notice how the edge of what is supposed to be the foot's instep is way too edgy. A real foot has a smooth instep, whereas the footprint in the picture comes from a foot whose owner had half a foot.

Sorry - I call BS on this one.



Thanks for embedding the photo, thats very kind.

Ats has dubious credibility, so has the MSM, seriously if its on the net its dubious, throwing slanders does not address the issue

It could well be BS but in reality what knowledge do you have other than being an internet conspiracy crusader.

What do you know of strata and footprints

I see footprints that look like that on the beach all the time.
A feathered edge, seriously.
You think someone made a phony footprint, made a phony foot to make a phony real human footprint

That baffles common sense, "Hey lets make a phony foot to make a phony footprint, just because my real foot is to real and not phony"

Wouldnt logic suggest using a real foot to make a real footprint, cheaper, easier and realer than making a phony foot to make a footprint


That all made me laugh lol. But I see your logic the way you said just made me laugh.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




That baffles common sense, "Hey lets make a phony foot to make a phony footprint, just because my real foot is to real and not phony"

Wouldnt logic suggest using a real foot to make a real footprint, cheaper, easier and realer than making a phony foot to make a footprint


Borntowatch talking about logic and common sense? am i in the twilight zone?

The problem seems to be that the footprint hasnt been shown to be real. Plus, only a few unknown websites seem to show this "news"



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You are mighty quick to believe this. I guarantee it will end up being proven a hoax if it already hasn't. The print seems a bit TOO perfect to me, the edges aren't rounded like a natural footprint would be.


So you are saying its not a footprint made by a reral foot as well??

Or are you saying its a horses hoof print, maybe a dinosaurs and I am a little confused.

Are you saying it was a fake foot someone made up to trick people to believing its a real footprint

Are you seriously suggesting someone went in to so much effort to make a fake foot, nearly perfect but still imperfect, craft this poor copy of a fake foot, imbed it in 290 million year old strata and then ...

Instead of just use their own foot.

Dont you think your suggestion is absurd, thoroughly absurd.

if its fake its fake, its not done with a fake foot surely thats evident.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: danielsil18

Borntowatch talking about logic and common sense? am i in the twilight zone?



Well done Daniel Sil, attack me and address nothing.

Why Not call me names, why not call me a retard, dumb and stupid as well, surely you missed a few chances to throw some stones .



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: danielsil18

Borntowatch talking about logic and common sense? am i in the twilight zone?



Well done Daniel Sil, attack me and address nothing.

Why Not call me names, why not call me a retard, dumb and stupid as well, surely you missed a few chances to throw some stones .



Im guessing you stopped reading after the question mark.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

It looks like someone stepped straight down then picked it straight up again. If this were a footprint from someone walking it wouldn't look this way, the edges of the toes and upper heel would be smeared, not perfectly shaped as it is with this print.

Is this the only print that was found? If so, where are the others? A person walking leaves more than just one print.

This print was discovered in 1987 according to the article, where are these researchers that are scratching their heads? Why haven't they come out and spoken about this nearly 30 years later? Why haven't the biggest Christian churches and supporters been cramming this down our throats?

Probably because it's an obvious hoax. Only those who have the preconceived notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old will believe it, and when it's proven to be a hoax they slink back into the shadows waiting for the next big piece of evidence that seems to support their preconceived notions.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Actually I'm not saying any of that. If someone used their own foot then they stepped straight down and picked their foot straight up again. A footprint from a stride does not look like this. Or did the modern humans from 290 million years ago have their own Hollywood walk of fame? Because that's what this print looks like, someone who intended to make the print look as perfect as possible, and someone trying to fake something like this would do exactly that.
edit on 7/29/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
This is only evidence of micro footprints, not macro.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   
All of this just seems like hoax news.

I literally cant find anything else about this footprint. Those few websites claim that this is a big problem with paleontologists, but no one else is talking about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: borntowatch

It looks like someone stepped straight down then picked it straight up again. If this were a footprint from someone walking it wouldn't look this way, the edges of the toes and upper heel would be smeared, not perfectly shaped as it is with this print.

Is this the only print that was found? If so, where are the others? A person walking leaves more than just one print.

This print was discovered in 1987 according to the article, where are these researchers that are scratching their heads? Why haven't they come out and spoken about this nearly 30 years later? Why haven't the biggest Christian churches and supporters been cramming this down our throats?

Probably because it's an obvious hoax. Only those who have the preconceived notion that the Earth is only 6,000 years old will believe it, and when it's proven to be a hoax they slink back into the shadows waiting for the next big piece of evidence that seems to support their preconceived notions.


Seemingly the other footprint is stored with all the missing link fossils I hear so much about, they are there somewhere, jus cant find them yet.
Thats just a joke

You know what it does look like someone stepped straight down then stepped straight up, yeh thats the truth I think as well. Just you say a fake foot, I say a real one.

I think its possibly real.
The obvious hoax is the geological time scale that is 200 year old theory of science that scientists accept as real.
The geological time scale is a 200 year old theory that has never been seen in nature, never been tested by science, never been held up to scrutiny because it cant be tested.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: borntowatch

Actually I'm not saying any of that. If someone used their own foot then they stepped straight down and picked their foot straight up again. A footprint from a stride does not look like this. Or did the modern humans from 290 million years ago have their own Hollywood walk of fame? Because that's what this print looks like, someone who intended to make the print look as perfect as possible, and someone trying to fake something like this would do exactly that.


Maybe it wasnt a footprint from a stride.

Maybe the man or woman wanted to leave a clear, clean precise footprint 290 million years ago.

I have left my handprints in concrete, left my initials on trees, deliberate, you know.
Someone intended to make the print look as perfect as possible, it may not have been an accident, what do you think 290 million years ago humans didnt want to have fun, didnt live like us, didnt have feelings or a desire to leave a footprint



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: borntowatch

If someone used their own foot then they stepped straight down and picked their foot straight up again.


How do you know that wasn't the case. Do you think people back then were not smart enough to play in the mud from time to time? I'm a grown man and I still like to make footprints in the sand. Or is that something people only do in modern times?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join