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.

 

Are there fossil remains of ET?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by star in a jar
 


That is incredibly fascinating! I found another article talking about this and other such shoe prints: www.asianresearch.org...

If this is true then this suggests prehistoric humanoids walking on this planet 600 million years ago. Amazing!



What does a fossil of a 200 million year old piece of toilet paper mean? Exactly! It's misidentified! It's not what it seems.




posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Here are some more fossils with humanoid footprints side by side with dinosaur footprints
paleo.cc...


[edit on 15-12-2009 by conar]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If ET's have really existed on this planet and may have been here for millions of years before humans arrived on the scene. Such as we hear about reptillians that one time were on land, then shouldn't there be fossil remains of ET species? Is there any such evidence available? And if not, why not if we assume it is true that ET's did inhabit this planet before humanst?


You've answered your own question! No ETs, no fossils to find. Heck, we can't even find a bigfoot skeleton and they're being seen every day!

Don't assume anything because when you do you make an ass of u (and) me.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta
 


Wow those do look very alien to me too! Although some of them can be explained as cultural practices of elongating the ..

The starchild skull is especially interesting! If there was an ET fossil, my bets would be this is it.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
Here are some more fossils with humanoid footprints side by side with dinosaur footprints
paleo.cc...


[edit on 15-12-2009 by conar]


It's not right to bring attention to a link as if doing so supports your comments. You know darn well that the link you provided has an explanation that does NOT support "humanoid footprints."

From his link:
"However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock). A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups."



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join