Archaeologists Found 115,000-Year-Old Human Footprints Where They Shouldn't Be

www.yahoo.com...

Fossilized footprints in Saudi Arabia show human traffic on the cusp of a subsequent ice age.

Like carbon dating, scientists use isotopes and context clues to calculate the approximate age of fossils.

These human prints were surrounded by animals but not hunted animals, indicating humans were just thirsty.

A uniquely preserved prehistoric mudhole could hold the oldest-ever human footprints on the Arabian Peninsula, scientists say. The seven footprints, found amidst a clutter of hundreds of prehistoric animal prints, are estimated to be 115,000 years old.

This would be news that is fascinating if only it mattered...The fact is this planet has many civilizations yet to be found, because they are covered by 1000's of things, never to be discovered by anyone in this lifetime and many more to come. This is why whenever they talk about 11,000 years it is ridiculous to assume what they are talking about is in anyway accurate.

a reply to: spiritofsoul

Sometimes I really believe that archaeologists , at least in the area of dating, are in the dark.

What if geologic things don't actually take 100's of thousands or millions of years to happen.

There is no known reason why those footprints "shouldn't be there." The dating is well within the known age of Homo sapiens. Further, footprints don't equal a "civilization." The article suggests these guys were near a watering hole just like all the other animals. In other words, this is not a big deal.

I'm fine with suggesting there were "other civilizations" in the past we don't now about. Hancock and others have presented plenty of evidence for this to be true. But "civilizations" suggests cities. That's what the word means. And they didn't find cities here. They found a few footprints.

I'm sure there are a few fakers in the archeology departments these days.

Chip away with modern tools and hey presto...ancient remains of something amazing.

Shame we pay more attention to something so old, yet our own footprints are not so innocent.

originally posted by: schuyler
There is no known reason why those footprints "shouldn't be there." The dating is well within the known age of Homo sapiens. Further, footprints don't equal a "civilization." The article suggests these guys were near a watering hole just like all the other animals. In other words, this is not a big deal.

I'm fine with suggesting there were "other civilizations" in the past we don't now about. Hancock and others have presented plenty of evidence for this to be true. But "civilizations" suggests cities. That's what the word means. And they didn't find cities here. They found a few footprints.

Of course, what is buried deep below those footprints....way down deep...perhaps a civilization does reside there...and we will never know...because the average life span as we know it today is 75 years old...archeology of any kind is completely subjective, especially when it comes to dating things we have found...they have theories.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: spiritofsoul

Sometimes I really believe that archaeologists , at least in the area of dating, are in the dark.

What if geologic things don't actually take 100's of thousands or millions of years to happen.

The problem with dating of any kind is that the atmosphere has changed, gravity has changed, magnetic influxes have happened, floods, earthquakes, asteroids...

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: spiritofsoul

Sometimes I really believe that archaeologists , at least in the area of dating, are in the dark.

What if geologic things don't actually take 100's of thousands or millions of years to happen.

You are correct!

You want to hear it from several scientists? All phd's too

Grand canyon-minutes

Dinosaurs with soft tissue, and you can see it yourself. Even on an electron microscope.
DNA cant last millions of years. We have been lied to


www.youtube.com...


It wont imbed

originally posted by: spiritofsoul

originally posted by: schuyler
There is no known reason why those footprints "shouldn't be there." The dating is well within the known age of Homo sapiens. Further, footprints don't equal a "civilization." The article suggests these guys were near a watering hole just like all the other animals. In other words, this is not a big deal.

I'm fine with suggesting there were "other civilizations" in the past we don't now about. Hancock and others have presented plenty of evidence for this to be true. But "civilizations" suggests cities. That's what the word means. And they didn't find cities here. They found a few footprints.

Of course, what is buried deep below those footprints....way down deep...perhaps a civilization does reside there...and we will never know...because the average life span as we know it today is 75 years old...archeology of any kind is completely subjective, especially when it comes to dating things we have found...they have theories.

Not to mention - with our shat-termed memories, how do we know? We have issues debating facts and history that happened 50 years ago. When I hear "carbon dating" I have to laugh. I'm not disputing carbon decay - Maybe it's HOW they're doing it that is all wrong.

Sure they can look at the layers of sediment and all that but has anyone ever looked at the grand canyon and contemplated sediment layers?

Personally, I fully believe in a pre-historical civilization but like many, I have a hard time believing that cavemen decided to walk outside of their abode one day and said... Let's build a city, lets create letters, lets hunt/farm, unlike anything our parents did... lets just suddenly spring into civilization after hundred of thousands of years.

Maybe one day - intelligence just happened.

I would expect to see a very gradual rise to civilization and not all over the world at the same time.

Perhaps my thinking is flawed - I just feel like something was there and we believe it was primitive and it was likely no where close. The mythologies and stories from around India about nuclear waste and the like, the descriptions passed down in stories that sounds like science fiction today, lead me to think there is more to this ancient civilization than we think.

a reply to: visitedbythem



Copy paste everything after youtu....be... /

a reply to: spiritofsoul

At 115000 years it is well within the current accepted chronology for modern human's which dates back at least 250.000 years (and far more if you believe some evidence of far more ancient human artefacts and foot prints).

However there is evidence that is ignored, belittled or denied that proves humanity is far, far older OR that dating technology and the current view of human history is very wrong indeed.




More recent in earth's history but at least pre-ice age or during it - mankind was already here but we are supposed to accept we were nothing but hunter gatherer's.

earth-chronicles.com...
(if you look at this air field on google earth you can see the ghost patterns of other airstrips not yet built over in the same area under the soil of the ages meaning it was once a very large air facility long before our time)

And back to the oddities of the past.




Could this be cold war or something far, far older.


Something else that has thrown a clog in the work's for those that want to portray our ages of civilization as less than ten thousand years old.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: visitedbythem

Copy paste everything after youtu....be...

Thanks

a reply to: visitedbythem

I believe it is but that is my belief, there are TWO Noah's ark's, one that is made of stone (fossilized wood with iron rivets) and pushed up out of the ground by an earthquake and another that has eye witness testimony but is most linked to an old Armenian taxi driver from new york called George Hagopian whom grew up in the Ararat region and was taken to see it as a child (very early 1900's), later an identical ship but broken in two in a ravine as if it has slipped down from much higher was shown to a US engineer by a Turkish taxi driver in the 1950's.

I believe both story's are absolutely true and for my own sake reconcile them with the biblical passage there is nothing new under the sun.

So an earlier flood and an earlier Noah.

noahsarkdiscovery.com...

And

noahsark.it...

Both ark's match the bible but both ark's are very different, either they are from different flood's and one is older than the other or two parallel universes have merged and two ark's in different places but very close proximity to one another have emerged in our reality.

If there are two there may be more?.

When a harvest is done a new crop is planted or the field is left fallow for a time, a time between human races, between spiritual ascension's, between recreation of the ascended race, a new race of man, nothing new under the sun.

My take the one on Mt Ararat is from our Noah, the other at the mountains of Ararat is from an older Noah whose race had already been through there harvesting, one day we may meet them if we are worthy but likewise our houses may be separate and even in the spirit we may not meet them since they may have been physically alike to us but spiritually very different, then again let us create them in our image, man and woman in our image.

a reply to: StallionDuck

The earth has been dated to 4 and a half billion years old give or take a million...The cavemen are but a remnant of a previous civilization that existed before them and the Dinosaurs were another that was a result of radiation poisoning from a previous civilization and so forth, etc. In other words what we have been taught is all conjecture about all of it.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

You want to hear it from several scientists? All phd's too

Grand canyon-minutes

Dinosaurs with soft tissue, and you can see it yourself. Even on an electron microscope.
DNA cant last millions of years. We have been lied to

www.youtube.com...

They carbon dated many samples from the dinosaur soft tissue and its all less than 40,000 years old. The evolutionary narrative we were fed growing up is just another santa claus, and once you look into it without bias you realize how gullible it was to ever believe it.

originally posted by: spiritofsoul

originally posted by: schuyler
There is no known reason why those footprints "shouldn't be there." The dating is well within the known age of Homo sapiens. Further, footprints don't equal a "civilization." The article suggests these guys were near a watering hole just like all the other animals. In other words, this is not a big deal.

I'm fine with suggesting there were "other civilizations" in the past we don't now about. Hancock and others have presented plenty of evidence for this to be true. But "civilizations" suggests cities. That's what the word means. And they didn't find cities here. They found a few footprints.

Of course, what is buried deep below those footprints....way down deep...perhaps a civilization does reside there...and we will never know...because the average life span as we know it today is 75 years old...archeology of any kind is completely subjective, especially when it comes to dating things we have found...they have theories.

I am as skeptical of modern archaeology as anyone, but to call it completely subjective is erroneous in my opinion. There are things we can know because we have sufficient evidence.

The problem with dating of any kind is that the atmosphere has changed, gravity has changed, magnetic influxes have happened, floods, earthquakes, asteroids...

There is truth to this and scientists take these into account. They are continually refining and tuning C-14 dating to increase accuracy.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Im Armenian. My family moved to the US from Turkey. We lived near the base of Ararat until 1910. Grandpas great uncle was Minister of Finance for Turkey, and also best friends of the Mullah. I asked Grandpa about the Ark, and he went into details where its at. Everyone around there knew. It was high up, petrified, and frozen under thick ice. The only exception was when there had been at least 15 years consecutive drought, and the back end would be exposed. I did hear the back broke and tumbled down the mountain in the early 1900s (1916?) during a severe earthquake

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: visitedbythem

You want to hear it from several scientists? All phd's too

Grand canyon-minutes

Dinosaurs with soft tissue, and you can see it yourself. Even on an electron microscope.
DNA cant last millions of years. We have been lied to

www.youtube.com...

They carbon dated many samples from the dinosaur soft tissue and its all less than 40,000 years old. The evolutionary narrative we were fed growing up is just another santa claus, and once you look into it without bias you realize how gullible it was to ever believe it.

Whatever killed the dinosaurs, didnt happen as long ago as we have been told. It also appears that a bunch of them died at the same time.

I dont know if you could even survive in a deep under ground bunker during times like that

a reply to: StallionDuck

I just want to say thank you for uploading the video.

I wonder how long the Grand canyon would last if science, academia
or the elite could cover it up? I doubt it would be millions of years old
if that were possible.

a reply to: visitedbythem

I love this thread and your account.

a reply to: LABTECH767

As soon as i read the OP your first video came to mind. That shoe print is undeniable.
Mystery History what a great channel. Youtube are demonitising his video's because he speaks a lot of truths