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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Just a couple of notes. Firstly I am going to play devils advocate for a moment. Our concepts of known human history have massive gaps in them, we have no way of knowing if there was some variety of hominid species alive at that time, currently DNA studies show we are a composite of at least 5 and we have only been able to ID 2 of them for any certainty. Ok now that I got that out of the way.

Secondly I agree geological time is tricky at best so that print may also in that line of logic be a print. There are a number of ways things like that can happen, a footprint is not the only out of place artifacts out there. I suspect it is in fact a footprint I doubt very much it is a hoax, just the age has been terribly misjudged. But I am not a geologist or an anthropologist so this is merely me speculating. (another example of strange might be a human print to old to make sense is the ones in Texas, I live not 45 min. from that site and have seen them. so who knows?)




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

He doesn't even believe it's real. In his mind, it's further evidence that MES and supporting mechanisms, specifically how we date artifacts and remains based on geology, is completely faulty and based on faulty, inaccurate science. It's essentially a troll thread for borntowatch to sit back and laugh while we all scramble to debunk this absolute malarkey.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:52 AM
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.



Actually, no, what this tells us is that the foot owner walks heel to toe and at least in this instance rotated his foot inward as he shifted from his heel to the front pad of his foot.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: danielsil18

Yeah because paleontologists who are looking at something that makes their ENTIRE career and knowledge base irrelevant are always so quick to let EVERYONE know about it.

Are people really this naive?

Jaden



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: danielsil18

Yeah because paleontologists who are looking at something that makes their ENTIRE career and knowledge base irrelevant are always so quick to let EVERYONE know about it.

Are people really this naive?

Jaden


They can't be as naive as the folks who believe this is automatically authentic with zero evidence of that whatsoever. It's funny how confirmation bias is so strong that it leads folks to believe something instantly just because it appeals to their emotional connection to a religion or faith. Evidence doesn't matter to folks like that. Anybody can say anything. Do the research and due diligence instead of just assuming it's true because somebody said so on a religious website. Evolution is backed by hundreds of research papers. This is backed by nothing.
edit on 31-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

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.



Actually, no, what this tells us is that the foot owner walks heel to toe and at least in this instance rotated his foot inward as he shifted from his heel to the front pad of his foot.

Jaden


And apparently only gets around with one right foot.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Barcs

He doesn't even believe it's real. In his mind, it's further evidence that MES and supporting mechanisms, specifically how we date artifacts and remains based on geology, is completely faulty and based on faulty, inaccurate science. It's essentially a troll thread for borntowatch to sit back and laugh while we all scramble to debunk this absolute malarkey.



So basically any other borntowatch thread?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
So the sole (pun!) evidence that modern humans walked the Earth tens of millions of years before the first dinosaur is a single alleged footprint. And the fact that no-one takes it seriously is evidence of a massive global cover-up.

Yeah, that makes sense



Actually, I would have thought the footprint is much better evidence of time travel.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 12:46 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.



Are you saying then in order to fake this / hoax this or otherwise pull the wool over our eyes, the perp couldn't find a real foot with which to fake an imprint?

If you're going to fake a 290 million year old footprint, obtaining an actual footprint is going to be the easiest element in the con.

There is the possibility that it is actually a Human or Human like creatures fossilised footprint. I understand the obvious instinct to reject this out of hand, as it doesn't fit with our teaching about the history of the Human family and so if we reject that Humans or another member of our lineage were walking around 300 million years ago, we're left with science fiction and fakery to work with...fakery being the obvious choice.

The science fiction angle, is probably even harder to swallow than the 300 million year old Hominid angle.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
There is the possibility that it is actually a Human or Human like creatures fossilised footprint. I understand the obvious instinct to reject this out of hand, as it doesn't fit with our teaching about the history of the Human family and so if we reject that Humans or another member of our lineage were walking around 300 million years ago, we're left with science fiction and fakery to work with...fakery being the obvious choice.

The science fiction angle, is probably even harder to swallow than the 300 million year old Hominid angle.


They are both hard to swallow and probably false. The problem is, the people who discovered this have refused to provide any scientific analysis or show the public / academia the results that prove this thing is almost 300 million years old. They've had 20+ years to let scientists analyze and date it, but still no evidence has been provided. A discovery such as this would be groundbreaking. It doesn't make sense for people to claim it's real and then refuse to prove it or even let independent geologists and paleontologists come in and verify it.

Hominid footprints from a time before mammals even existed does not make any sense. It doesn't fit the picture, and there is no evidence, so it can be dismissed as a hoax. The burden of proof is on the folks making this claim, and they have failed thus far. The sad thing is, instead of scrutinizing the find people are embracing it as automatic truth, with no evidence for the finding at all.
edit on 31-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
You got to love confirmation bias, with it by your side you can make anything legit.
It sounds impossible but borntowatch's delusional fantasy world has expanded, all it takes is vague photographs as evidence then UFOs, fairies, Elvis, bigfoot, ghosts and countless other photographic claims are also proven!

With this logic this should be proof enough of Unicorns!


This sample is even more compelling due to the fact it was taken in the wild, and obviously from another separate individual!



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

According to the OP's source:


The discovery of the 290 million year old footprint was made in New Mexico by paleontologist Jerry MacDonald in 1987. In the vicinity of this mysterious footprint there are fossilized impressions of birds and other animals.

www.ancient-code.com...

You do know that birds first appeared around 150 Ma (if Archaeopteryx counts) or later, right? Saying that the footprint is dated 290 Ma "along with birds footprint" is a blatant proof of hoax.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but I took some time to find some pictures of human foot prints in mud and the difference seems pretty obvious.

The edges in the 290 million year old print are almost cartoonishly perfect. In most of the real footprints the displacement of the foots pressure on the mud causes it to bulge out on the sides, and the spaces between the toes are not so pronounced.



the picture is actually larger than that, ATS resized it, but if you right click and select view image you can see the larger more detailed pic.
edit on 07pm11pm312015-07-31T23:36:50-05:0011America/Chicago by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Confirmation in Science / Nat Geo or GTF[anciful]O.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: sycomix


Secondly I agree geological time is tricky at best


Would you be able to outline why you think so?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
So do you have evidence to show it's real?


Not a drop, no evidence at all, truthfully I havnt a clue, just thought it was interesting and have seen others in supposed old dated rocks so its not unique.

Never said it was anything, could be less than 7000 years, thats my bet, who knows.
I never said anything, just reported it.

Comprehend what I said science hater.
I dont know, its not my story, it was a link. Get that?


originally posted by: Barcs
There is no science here for me to hate.


Cool, you hate discoveries that are not science, so you hate more than just science.

Science haters hate lots of things they cant understand

(I dont think you hate science really, just noted your churlish behaviour and acted like you)



originally posted by: Barcs
You hold evolution to such ridiculous standards of proof and deny all evidence


Yes I hold evolution to a scientific standard, I hate its not based on science but faith, its not ridiculous its scientific.
You love evolution because it supports your faith.
People dont run around defending gravity because it has evidence. Evolution is being questioned AND SO IT SHOULD BE. iF IT WASNT IT WOULD NOT BE SCIENCE
i THINK YOU HATE SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU ACCEPT EVOLUTION AND DONT QUESTION IT.

yES i QUESTION gOD, i HAVE FAITH BECAUSE i OFTEN DOUBT.

yOU ARE MORE HARDCORE FUNDAMENTAL IN YOUR CHOSEN RELIGION THAN ME.


originally posted by: Barcs
yet believe a picture of a footprint blindly with no supporting evidence whatsoever because it reinforaces a worldview.



I dont blindly believe that picture is anything, it needs to be studied.
You are proposing your tried and true strawman.
I have made no hard and fast comments about what it actually is


originally posted by: Barcs
Keep that hypocrisy coming.


Well we can walk that road together

Sorry about the capitals, my error



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Masterjaden

You do know that birds first appeared around 150 Ma (if Archaeopteryx counts) or later, right? Saying that the footprint is dated 290 Ma "along with birds footprint" is a blatant proof of hoax.


You do know that according to what has been discovered bird are around 150 Ma is a guess. Its a belief, its not science.

More evidence will show up and change the timelines as per usual.

assumption is not science, never has been.
Evolution theology changes weekly if not daily.

See that "Theology" because I think its a religion.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

The hypocrisy coming from yourself astounds me.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
So let me get this straight?

You say the geological time scale is a hoax (care to elaborate?) but accept this footprint as probably true based on what evidence?

An Alleged Human Footprint on Permian Rock


I think its a real footprint because it looks like a footprint.
I think its stupid to think someone made a fake foot to leave a footprint.....unless they had no feet, then you might be on to something.
Pity God doesnt restore limbs isnt it. he/r could have had the limb restored and left a real footprint. Sadly that poor footless person had to manufacture a fake foot to leave a footprint

I accept its probably a real footprint because it does look like a real footprint, absolutely no other reason than that

Hard to believe i can accept a footprint comes from a foot. My evidence its a footprint is based on the fact it doesnt look like a handprint, bum print or face print.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

You do know that according to what has been discovered bird are around 150 Ma is a guess. Its a belief, its not science.


Good gracious you're obstinate and ignorant. Of course it's science. You just have no demonstrable notion of what science is.


originally posted by: borntowatchMore evidence will show up and change the timelines as per usual.


There will be refinement, of course, but based upon the fossil record we have so far it is a pretty fair bet that this is quite a reasonable timeline


originally posted by: borntowatchassumption is not science, never has been.
Evolution theology changes weekly if not daily.

See that "Theology" because I think its a religion.


Just because you 'think' something doesn't make it so. I guess that is why we have the definitions 'Religion' and 'Science'. They're different. They rely on different evidence sets (obviously).
Theology has no demonstrable evidence from a scientific approach, whilst it does from a religious approach (I'm being kind here).

The lack of any evidence against, as well as the overwhelming evidence FOR there being no bipedal hominid-like creatures of that (re: the OP ) age make this claim akin to that of 19th century charlatans selling snake-oil.

Say, do you wanna buy a bridge?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join