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 Human Footprints Discovered?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Prehistoric Human Footprints Discovered...by...me! Yep, discovered these strange and intriguiging footprints in a quarry near where I live. I have two university Paleo/Anthro types coming out to take a look soon...

Anyhow, thought these might interest people. Wasn't quite sure where to post this. Are prehistoric hominids classed as 'Cryptos'? Not sure....Please move if you need to.

Jimbo







[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]

[edit on 15-11-2007 by jimbo999]




posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


What? Nobody has anything to say about something that may change the face of our understanding of human evolution on this planet? How curious. I thought some of you were thinkers... These prints are in sedementary rock that could be up to 6 million years old... This, my friends, could be one of the finds of the century.

J.

[edit on 16-11-2007 by jimbo999]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
That is very fascinating....Keep us posted as to what the experts say.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Hm..interesting but I see they are incomplete.

If they are hominid than they must of been tip toeing.

How many of them are there ?

[edit on 16-11-2007 by sherpa]

[edit on 16-11-2007 by sherpa]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Ignore above I should not try to look at images through those picture frames.

I will repeat the question though, how many are there ?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Where is the other tracks / footprints .. and the other picture to show us where this is ? This is BS IMHO! Give us pictures of the whole place, and the rest of the tracks... This is waste of time..

[edit on 16-11-2007 by tep200377]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
What rock were they in? What is its age? What is the context?



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimbo999
What? Nobody has anything to say about something that may change the face of our understanding of human evolution on this planet?


Trust me. A dumb footprint somebody probably decided to chip into a rock ain't gonna change anything.


BTW, this is what a real footprint looks like:



Wig

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
An excellent find! You must have been really chuffed to find that. Were there anymore? Keep us posted.

Remember folks you saw it here first.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Location, location, location.....

Can you give us a rough idea of where these prints are, such as country.
Do you have other pictures of the geology of the area ?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by anxietydisorder
 


Location? The UK. There are about 8 footprints and one hand print. I've just had experts (a paleologist or two and an anthropologist ) examine them and take some rock samples. Are they real? They certainly look it to the experts - or they are, and I quote, 'the best fakes we've ever seen!'. After rock tests are complete, a specialized scanner to actually scan the prints and create a 3d image could be the next step.

Here's the real academic problem here - although there are possible explanations - the rock is approx. at least 3 million years old!! But there's a posibility that the prints were made later in some sort of mud or sedement that lay on top of the older rock.

Anyhow, fascinating stuff. I'm awaiting the results of the testing/research now...

J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by jimbo999
What? Nobody has anything to say about something that may change the face of our understanding of human evolution on this planet?


Trust me. A dumb footprint somebody probably decided to chip into a rock ain't gonna change anything.


BTW, this is what a real footprint looks like:



Actually, that picture DOES look fake.
The ones I discovered are far more believable. So - what university did you say you got your Ph.D in Anthropology in? Must be one hell of an academic institution if you can tell a fossils' authenticity from a pic: when 3 world-reknown experts were left perplexed after 2 hours of minute, personal examination of the actual site. I'm so impressed.

J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
What rock were they in? What is its age? What is the context?


I believe it's stratified ocean rock layering. Limestone perhaps? Minimum estimated age: around 3 million years. Found in an old disused quarry in the UK.

J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Where is the other tracks / footprints .. and the other picture to show us where this is ? This is BS IMHO! Give us pictures of the whole place, and the rest of the tracks... This is waste of time..

[edit on 16-11-2007 by tep200377]


There ARE more tracks. These are just samples of two of them. BS? Nope, 'fraid not. I can't divulge the exact location, as research is ongoing and the 3 university professors who examined them requested that nothing be tampered with/moved on the site. The scientific value of the prints becomes ZERO if they are moved or damaged.

J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa

Ignore above I should not try to look at images through those picture frames.

I will repeat the question though, how many are there ?


8 footprints. And one handprint too. Just click on the link below wach photot to get a full image without borders.


J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Steff
That is very fascinating....Keep us posted as to what the experts say.


Will do. Thanks


J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Thanks for the update jimbo, is there any chance of a photo of the other prints in context ?

Would the professors names be confidential at this time ?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Thanks for the update jimbo, is there any chance of a photo of the other prints in context ?

Would the professors names be confidential at this time ?


I'm afaid I can't name the professors - for obvious reasons
If it turns out to be some kind of fake - they won't want their names associated with it....

I can post another pic of the actual slab of rock with a distanced view of the prints if you want, but again, for reasons of scientific credibility and data integrity, I can't actually name the location. Sorry 'bout that, but I'm sure you understand.

J.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 

Here you go:





posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Thanks for the new pic jimbo, it's interesting they are on a vertical exposed rock.

Has any discussion taken place about exposing more of beneath ground level as I notice it seems to dissapear into vegetation and I am assuming the ground.

Did you yourself make the discovery or were you told of this by the discoverer ?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join