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.

 

Prehistoric footprints.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

3.5 million years and 65 million years is a hell of a gap. To even come close to saying 3.5 million year old footprints have anything to do with interacting with dinosaurs that were alive 65+ million years ago really is the biggest stretch I've seen.




posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Raggedyman

You can question it all you want, but when they use methods that are easily reproduced by other people, the claims get harder to question.

Why do you think the dating is wrong?
Oh you were already asked that ans dodged it...


Are you for real
Did you read the op, the part where human footprints were discovered in 3.5 million year old rocks.


But did you do any reading beyond the OP or is due diligence beyond your capabilities? Perhaps it's just easier to to maintain that veneer you put forth? See, if you had dome any reading in your own, you might have found that it's not just "rock" that the footprints were found in, it was a layer volcanic tuff. You also would have found out that these prints aren't from Amy member of the genus Homo and in fact were from 3 A. Afarensis.


Do you get it, can you apply reason to the issue at hand, the point of the whole


Are you capable of discussing things in a rational, calm manner or do you absolutely have to act like a child in the midst of a tantrum?


Can you see the simple problem that the op raised and you think you are going to argue with me


Nice deflection from your inability to discuss the dating techniques in question. While stratigraphic analysis was one method used to discern a base range for the age, K-Ar dating was used on the volcanic tuff to obtain the actual dates. Please tel me why K-Ar dating is inaccurate.


Tell me then sremm, what is the problem, 3.5 million year old humans or wrong rock dating, please, make your call, enlighten us all, argue with the issue, not me.


The only thing wrong here is your argument based on no research beyond reading the OP


I just said I doubt 3.5 million year old humans and suggested dating rock issues, that means you think 3.5 million year old humans by default, that sounds a little foolis, actually very foolish by comparison


Yes, you suggested dating issues What are those issues which you refuse to address while deflecting with slurs and ad hominems.


Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are...


You should learn to take your own advice.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Because I read the article before posting it? Ofcoarse i may have misread something in the article and I am willing to look it over again. I understand questioning information given most of the time. Some bad info was started with a misunderstanding that was repeated.




Discovery suggests some very early human ancestors may have been more like us than previously thought.



Because modern gait and modern body proportions are closely associated, the new discovery raises the possibility that the latter developed much earlier than currently thought. At present, most experts think that modern body proportions only appeared sometime after 2 million years ago.


The second quote leads me to believe they have not finished studying the footprints and more info may be available later.

I also want to clarify I am not making any claims, just posing a question and sharing an article that some of you may find interesting.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

Human ancestors doesn't mean the homo genus. It means the thing that came before the homo genus.

Also, the second quoted part is about how they walked.

There is nothing in the article to even imply they were a footprint from the homo genus.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Dating methods?

Dating methods, what dating methods do you think, all of them?



What a silly question, just go read my post and apply a little common sense, you work it out, it's not very hard, I assure you

Seems like your getting upset because you don't know? but like I put it 'seems' that way



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

None of that even comes close to suggesting that "the footprints are identicle to ours".



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ware2010
a reply to: DeviantMortal
I don't believe 100% in evolution, well sure, living creatures can evolve some and when needed, but I don't think homo sapiens come from apes, I think we have been around for millions of years and they keep that from the main population, sometimes I feel like we are repeating history again, not history from 5000 years ago but millions of years ago, for what we know, there could of been a civilization a lot like us, technology, civilized, wars. (even though war wouldn't seem so civilized) and they were killed by war or a major catastrophe, or they even left.



Except all the evidence suggests we evolved from primitive primates and no evidence to suggest there was ever a civilization anywhere near as advanced as we are today. Fanciful idea but zero credence.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I think this thread is going sideways - I wasnt trying to say that it explains every OOPART footprint out there, I was asking if some of you guys think it could explain some of them. Not all of those prints have dino tracks with them. While I do not fully trust scientific dating methods (mostly because I do not fully understand them) I am not questioning them at this time. Untill I have a better dating system (hah) I have little choice but to accept the current scientific methods as the most accurate date we are going to get.

That being said after I read through the article again and read some of the oopart sites again, it seems likely my theory could be right, Some of the oopart prints are old, but not as old as these. So there is at least a chance that our prehistoric non-modern human ancestors could be the cause of SOME of our ooparts.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

Dude, read this, PLEASE.

Dinosaurs stopped being on this planet about 65 million years ago.

Those foot prints are from a NON homo genus (read non-human) from about 3.5 million years ago.

That's a gap of 61.5 MILLION YEARS.

Simple answer to the "are these the ooparts prints" is no the gap is too big to even consider it.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I disagree, but I understand you see things differently and we will probably not agree and I am fine with that. I am not here to push an agenda it was simple question about what I think may be a posibility on wich I do not see where you commented on ( I may have have over looked it ) Rather or not these recent finds could indicate that at least some oopart footprints might not be modern man like many beleive they are, and instead could be from prehistoric ancestors.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Except all the evidence suggests we evolved from primitive primates and no evidence to suggest there was ever a civilization anywhere near as advanced as we are today. Fanciful idea but zero credence.

quit watching the main stream media, I think you are a sheep buddy,
anyway!



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
I don't think homospaiens are 3.5 million years old, but could there have been an up right common ancestor back then? Sure why not. I am asking why you think the dating is wrong, or why you doubt it.



edit on thTue, 26 Apr 2016 12:19:58 -0500America/Chicago420165880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The oldest evidence outside of any oopart footprint of modern man that I have been able to find on the internet are skulls that were found in Ethiopa (link) at the oldest sits at 300K years old. There are modern human prints in stone as "young" as 1.5 million years old (link)

To ask the question in another way - do you think modern man is older than the oldest evidence outside of footprints, or do you think our non human ancestors were more like us than we understand them to be.

I feel I may have not worded my thread correctly to begin with.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

You do know that homo habilis is dated between 2.8 and 1.5 million years ago?

The homo type of the 1.5 million year old foot print is Homo ergaster.

Homo erectus were also around 1.9 million years to 70,000 years ago.

Based on just the above, I'd be surprised if there WASN'T a footprint that looked similar to our current footprints.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Thats kind of what I was asking, I do not know many of the different prehistoric ancestors of ours. People put these oopart prints out like they are all modern man. I guess you just answered my question. congradulations! LoL



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

I think I got the jist of what you were asking a bit later than I had hoped lol.

The homo genus goes back roughly 2.8 million years. Anything "human-like" within that period is (in my opinion) pretty much a given. Before that you can look at pre-homo genus (common ancestry) and see if there are any similarities and come to some form of conclusion (not always right though).

I've read through A LOT of the ooparts, ancient civilisations and what not. It's what originally peaked my interest in conspiracies as I didn't understand the human timeline. Once I started to understand more and more, the "modern human footprints" stuff made more sense, but not inline with the conspiracies, but inline with science.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

First link:


The bones have been allocated to the sub-species Homo sapiens idaltu. Contemporary humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.


Not human.

Second link:


The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster, an early form of Homo erectus. Such prints include modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes.


Not human.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Terry pretty much answered my question, and I see the error in my logic from the original post. For some reason after my first read of the article i took it to mean that the footprints were a lot more like ours than they expected them to be and this a possible cause for some of the oopart prints.

But Terry pointed out that we have a closer relative that seems to explain most of them. OFC there are some outliers that Im not sure how they would be explained like the ones with the dino tracks in the same stone. If anyone wants to keep this thread going by discussing that please do, if not I dont see a reason to keep this one open.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Um, hate to be that guy, but homo means human or man. So technically both homo ergaster and homo idaltu are humans. Just not "modern humans".



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DeviantMortal

Believe it or not, the "human footprint in a dinosaur print" is nothing more than a misunderstanding. I know some will disagree, but that's life.

The "human print" is actually another dinosaur. Some of the prints you can even see the middle toe.

You can go to Paluxy River in Texas and see for yourself that some do "look like" human prints, but next one is obviously dinosaur.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join