Prehistoric footprints.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Hate to be the bull in the china shop but?,

Who built this then, not on earth but it sure look's to be human like to me?.
metaresearch.org...

And what about these, much closer to home but still up there?,

files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Or this,
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Zoomed and colour mapped - the blue and red part go together they are two parts of the vehicle which is blown onto it's roof long ago, the chasis wheel base is pointing up in the air, two caterpiller treads can be seen to to the left of it and one wheel still partially wrapped in tread/track.
In green some form of contents and nearby are several other object's of interest.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
You may regard it has a pile of rock's but it is most certainly not just a pile of rock's and this is pertinent for the following reason.

If those tracks are human then human's have been around a very long time, maybe they did not even come from here but even if they did they they HAVE had other civilization's, perhaps far more advanced then we are, someone did a pretty good clean up job or the earth was abanded then for a VERY long time, it would only take about 50.000 years for most of our plastics and other materials to degrade away into nothing.

a reply to: LABTECH767

You do understand that those have nothing to do with the op?

Either way, I've got a single word that sums up all of those images.

Pareidolia

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
a reply to: TerryDon79

They are thought to be our ancestors, and the footprints are identicle to ours. I was questioning if this could be an explination for some of the oopart footprints or not and curious as to what others here on ATS had to think about it.

IF what you postulate is true, it is likely early homo genus (erectus/ergaster ancestor) footprints or the ancestor prior to the homo genus. They had similar foot structure to modern humans, which would leave near identical footprints. I have yet to see a human footprint with dinosaur prints that didn't end up being a hoax, so I'm not sure where you are going with that one. I've seen tons of anti evolution sites claim they exist, but they either don't release the relevant science info or are hoaxes made by modern man to sell religion. Looks like the misunderstandings have already been addressed, sorry if you already heard this

a reply to: LABTECH767

I think maybe you clicked the wrong thread.

a reply to: Barcs

Sometimes I ramble, I wasnt really trying to prove/disprove the dino footprints so I dont know why i brought them up in my first post.

originally posted by: Barcs

IF what you postulate is true, it is likely early homo genus (erectus/ergaster ancestor) footprints or the ancestor prior to the homo genus. They had similar foot structure to modern humans, which would leave near identical footprints.

He's talking about the Laetoli footprints found by Mary Leakey in '72. They're from an Australopithcine, most likely A. Afarensis but there were other Australopithecines that were contemporaneous in that area. With an ascribed date of 3.6-3.8 MA they predate our genus by up to a million years. The big 'to do' at the time with these footprints was their evidence that bipedalism predates larger crania. This was also 2 decades prior to discovering the first Ardipithecus remains and long before Orrorin Tugensis or Sahlanthropus Tchadensis so at the time, it was a huge deal. I'm not sure why the OP's source citation printed this yesterday as if it was some amazing new piece of the puzzle when it's been widely known for over 40 years.

I have yet to see a human footprint with dinosaur prints that didn't end up being a hoax, so I'm not sure where you are going with that one. I've seen tons of anti evolution sites claim they exist, but they either don't release the relevant science info or are hoaxes made by modern man to sell religion. Looks like the misunderstandings have already been addressed, sorry if you already heard this

The most famous example of this would be the Paluxy Riverbed site. Even before the onset of evangelical YEC madness, people were forging footprints in limestone. It was a very common practice during the Great Depression where people would cut out and sell some of the better impressions and when they ran out of those they started forging them because 10-25 dollars for a piece of limestone back in the 30's was like striking gold. Granted, the most popular prints to forge were dinosaur prints but even supporters of YEC admit thst there were forged human prints and not just humans, GIANT humans because these forged prints were upwards of 20" long.

Flood geologist Clifford Burdick was/is one of the biggest supporters/proponents of this site because he believes thst they are evidence that support a Noachian flood and several of the prints he claims are known forgeries. At best, some of these impressions are examples of erosion artifacts. At worst there are definite forgeries.

Burdick's prints have been cross-sectioned, and the results are ambiguous. John D. Morris claims that these cross sections prove that the prints are genuine. He reasons that, if the tracks were carvings, they would be scooped out and would slice across horizontal strata. He claims that the cross sections show that the laminations of the rock follow the contours of the print. However, Seventh-day Adventist geologist Berney Neufeld offers a different version:

- page 18 -
Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist from Tucson, Arizona, has a manlike track and a catlike track. Both have been sectioned and the evidence is equivocal. Some cross sections have a slight indication of carving; others of conformation. The difficulty with these tracks is that they are in blocks of limestone whose pattern is more mottled than layered.

Neufeld demonstrates by documentation that the Columbia Union College prints are nothing but clever carvings:

Dr. Don Jones of Columbia Union College, Takoma Park, Maryland, has a number of tracks whose origin is reported as the Paluxy River. The collection includes a right and left human footprint, a pair of three-toed dinosaur tracks, and a large cat print. . . . All of these, in separate blocks, appear to be in the same type of limestone. They also have a single human track of inferior quality that is in a limestone of a different color and texture from that of the other
prints. . . . One of the three-toed dinosaur tracks and both types of man prints have been cross-sectioned. In each instance the rock layers end abruptly at the edge of the track, indicating that they are not the result of a foot stepping into soft mud but are produced by carving.

ncse.com...

a reply to: TerryDon79

Absolute bull, it is not looking at cloud's and imagining thing's, it is not joining dot's either and it most certainly DOES have to do with the subject matter as I pointed out above however the ability of the human mind to actually see such patterns is a very human trait, it is not a flaw of the mind, it is an ability and actually is a part of what makes us HUMAN, in other words it set's us apart from animal's or at least what we know of animal psychology and is a part of our creative intellect (in fact without that ability the TV would not look so good), sadly for your argument I am far from an artist so I am not just seeing thing's, the first time I saw the face on MARS was on a childrens BBC TV series when I was a kid called John Cravens Newsround, a newspaper at the time had ran it as a story about NASA finding a city on mars and he picked that story up, afterward for about three month's they had another presenter on the show and he only returned some time later with no explanation.

What I do not get is how these thing's upset people like yourself so much, it is like a psychological block comes up and perhaps you shut it out then perhaps because of the obvious fear which accepting it as a fact must cause those that CHOOSE wilfully to deny it then seek to deflect it by reflecting a form of denial upon it and upon those that posit this obvious fact.

What worries me even more is that seem's to be a herd mentality (Or a form of Social Psychological conditioning) and most certainly it is not an open minded attitude which mean's that such as yourself are like puppets on a string to those that want you to simply deny it, you deny the fact because it has been explained to you that it is not a fact and even if it had been explained as a fact you would probably then still deny it because it makes you uncomfortable with the implications inherent in the subject matter.

Guess what, Pareidolia is not as the Disinformation guy's and professional skeptic's love to make out a flaw of the human mind or a fault rather it is actually how you and all human's racognise the human face, guess what I am actually face blind and struggle even to remember my own mothers face, I recognise her of course and my own image but even if I could draw I would not make a very good impression of them so I am actually what could be therefore termed Pareidolia impaired, guess that mean's it really does look like a face, probably because it was INTENDED too, I worked security for many years and had to learn other techniques to identify people, memory trick's etc though I found it easier to study the way they walked, there mannerism's etc to recognise them along with any distinguishing feature's which is how I got around my face blindness, oh and before that I was scientifically and technically educated, I am for example a fully qualified laboratory technician though I never pursued it as a profession and I was studying for an engineering degree when I suffered a series of personal miss-haps which put that part of my life behind me, I was doped by some moron when I left my food which made me very ill and about a year later I suffered head injury's which took away my ability to concentrate or study for about three years or more, I would fall over my own feet and walk into doors for about five years, yet even while I was ill I worked my way up in a Japanese engineering firm based here in England, that company sent me to japan to train up on process to bring back to the UK and to holland to teach process at a subsidiary there, I left that job because both I did not like the English staff whom were back stabbing keniving nasty people (Though I had no problem with the Jap's at all) and I wanted something else having grown tired of what was going there (I found out that a head of department - english woman called McHale was using my name on substandard part shipment's which were being sent to Sanyo italy and that she was litterally trashing my reputation just to fill her orders when I had nothing at all to do with the product she was sending so I made my complaint in writing and walked out of the door), so believe me I know what I am looking at DO YOU.

Someone wanted that structure gone very badly, badly enough that they tried to destroy it.

It WAS a deliberate and FAILED attempt to destroy it, probably the folk's at mission control never even knew about it but what do you really think happened when they lost contact with the Mars Observor when it was on it's final orbital insertion.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My very strong belief is that it had an altered payload and control was switched at that moment to it's OTHER mission control, probably at some military site on an air force base and it was then sent on it's kamikazi run, probably an air burst device of medium yield, it caused a serious amount of damage but over an area so was not a direct impact, the damge is more in line with the shock wave having dissipated over a wider area but even despite the damage it survived if in a ruined state, which of course mean's they seriously underestimated how large a device to use thankfully.

I find it mildly offensive that someone who does not know me at all think's I am imagining a stone is a face but also quite funny since I am not imagining anything on that matter at all.

a reply to: Barcs

No I have not clicked the wrong thread, I have seen how many gang up and tear into anyone that show's the slightest interest in the possibility of evidence proving human's or something human like lived long before it was supposed to, it is like watching a pack of wolves circle a lone sheep salivating and waiting for the kill and I Swear that some of them are more interesting in winning an argument than the fact's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Hahahahahaha!

You say people like me get upset, but you posted a long as hell rant?

It's pareidolia. Recognising shapes and seeing faces. I used to do it with the clouds all the time as a kid.

"The face on Mars" is pareidolia too. It's all about shadows and seeing what it looks like.

You ever make a butterfly on a piece of paper by folding it, unfolding it, painting one side randomly, folding it, squishing it then unfolding it? That's exactly the same thing.

Every link you posted is nothing more than pareidolia. Sorry.

a reply to: LABTECH767
Nice rant, but nobody said pareidolia was a "flaw of the mind". Making baseless statements based on pareidolia (and wild imagination) is certainly flawed thinking, however.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I certainly never said it was a flaw either. I think it's the opposite. It shows we have a great imagination.

Some people just take imagination a bit too far.

originally posted by: peter vlar

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.

Prove it PV prove what it is.
Empirical evidence

Stop preaching, dictating, prove it wasn't a homo sapien sapien, prove the rock s are millions of years old, show me the empirical evidence

I am sure plenty of your fan boys would love to hear your preaching, me not so much

Empirical evidence

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: peter vlar

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.

Prove it PV prove what it is.
Empirical evidence

Stop preaching, dictating, prove it wasn't a homo sapien sapien, prove the rock s are millions of years old, show me the empirical evidence

I am sure plenty of your fan boys would love to hear your preaching, me not so much

Empirical evidence

So no, you don't bother engaging in due diligence.
No, you can't conduct yourself in a calm rational manner.
And No, you are incapable of discussing what you believe to be the flaws with K-Ar dating.

Got it.

Anytime you want to discuss what you believe to be the flaws in the dating of Laetoli, I'm happy to respond.

Polite Mod Reminder...

Hi People,

While we certainly appreciate that at times our discussions can become quite passionate - they should never become poisonous.

By all means discuss, debate - but please refrain from the more personalised derisive stuff...


Thank you for your understanding.


Regards,
Alien

meh not worth it

a reply to: peter vlar

Raggedyman already has all the answers, they are blessed with confirmation bias.
The information must fit their preconceived narrative or be made to fit it.


Here's the proof Raggedyman does not care about evidence, dating, science, unless he can make it fit his religious delusions.

I think dinosaurs and man once walked together Recorded footprints of both man dinosaur footprints together Many dinosaur sightings in recorded history You can find this information on the net

Someone in this post suggested these dragons were around 300 years ago, I think it's possible

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL!

a reply to: flyingfish

First I would like to thank Alien for correcting ME, I was out of order as I was getting a little but annoyed and had no right to get annoyed.

Now my opinion is this, everyone here has an opinion, consensus of opinion does not make an opinion right just as it did not make the NAZI's right despite consensus of German Opinion which brought them into power.

Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it CORRECT and just because only a few people believe another thing does not make that INCORRECT.

Raggedyman happen's to NOT be alone in his belief and you also are NOT along in yours, even my probably insane theory (Which by the way is probably incompatible with my religious belief as well since I share Raggedyman's christian conviction's).

It is not about consensus therefore but a discussion, not a definitive answer as one on this subject is simply not possible unless you take by faith, your choice in what you have faith in is a personal matter, do you say this fit's your religious idiology or do you say if fit's a general scientific consensus and ignore the fact that each scientists is no more intelligent than yourself and indeed no more intelligent even than most whom disagree with them.

Even scientists often have there own belief's, there internal database of information and there personal interpretation of that information as well as the CONSENSUS which they may or may not choose to adhere closely too also colour there interpretation's and observation's.

We do not have unquestionable empirical evidence here for anyone's point of view, what we do have is divergent opinion and none of us can truly say for a fact one way or another, to claim otherwise is simply not correct, however we can say we believe our own point of view and if we keep an open mind maybe we can learn something from one another.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: peter vlar

Raggedyman already has all the answers, they are blessed with confirmation bias.
The information must fit their preconceived narrative or be made to fit it.


Here's the proof Raggedyman does not care about evidence, dating, science, unless he can make it fit his religious delusions.

I think dinosaurs and man once walked together Recorded footprints of both man dinosaur footprints together Many dinosaur sightings in recorded history You can find this information on the net

Someone in this post suggested these dragons were around 300 years ago, I think it's possible

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL!

As opposed to you having all the answers or science having all the answers or your own confirmation bias.

As for me believing man walked with dinosaurs, yes

Are crocodiles dinosaurs, havnt there been accounts of many lake monsters.

I am sorry if you think it's funny, I don't.

call it confirmation bias, the onus is still on science to provide empirical evidence.

It will always be a theory if it can't be proven.