Of Things That Shouldn’t Exist

I know some of these may get me flamed, but I’m hoping it can all be examined with an open mind and run as smoothly as my last thread on a similar field did. Now you probably know where this thread is headed, questioning the accepted origins of mankind; but I am forced to make a statement first in regards to my beliefs due to some recent U2U’s questioning some earlier threads. What I post below does not reflect my beliefs, it merely reflects my interests. Aristotle once said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

So, what of these things that shouldn’t exist? The currently accepted timeframe of human history and evolution is always being reformed and refined due to new archaeological findings and continually developing analyses of already available finds. What happens when a find comes around which makes you question our ‘start date’ in the range of 100,000 years? It is usually examined in close detail, confirmed and then accepted as history; examples include recent finds of weaponry and cookware in ancient caves. But what of the finds that come around that push our ‘start date’ back 1 million years or even 100 million years? They are usually ignored and sometimes suppressed.

Incipio!

The Cambodian Stegosaurus

On the beautifully decorated temple walls of Ankgor Wat lies a carving which seems to depict a Stegosaurus. The Stegosaurus armatus or the ‘armoured, roof lizard’ is believed to have died out some 145 million years ago, yet there is a clear depiction of a beast which oddly enough shares its exact characteristics depicted on a temple wall which was built as early as the 12th century A.D. Angkor Wat is a mystery in itself, depicting symbolic details of the precession of the equinoxes among other oddities which are yet to be explained. Bits of information like this should not add credence to the claims that an extinct dinosaur is carved into its walls, but should emphasize that every aspect of this amazing building, every carving and caricature is there for a significant reason. Examine it for yourself.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0411fc7f277a.png[/atsimg]

Mystery of the Shoes

On June 1, 1968 an avid American fossil collector by the name of William J. Meister made a startling discovery. In Antelope Springs, a fossil loaded excavation site, he found fossilized footprints on an old rock. What makes this discovery startling though could only be seen on closer inspection, where trilobites (one on each shoeprint) were discovered embedded into the fossil. Trilobites first appeared about 540 million years ago and died out around 240 million years ago. Who could have walked the lands in shoes or sandals more than 240 million years ago?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b30141d3bea.png[/atsimg]

Hundred Million Year Old Hand

In 1995 Carl Baugh discovered what appears to be a well preserved human hand print on a rock that is said to date back to the Cretaceous period (145-65 million years ago). It was discovered near Whetherford, Texas and is described by its founder as a handprint “...[which] is so specific that it displays impressions of the thumbnail, impressions of the tissue webbing between the thumb and index finger, and the impression left by penetration of the middle finger into the mud." If this find is indeed legit, it crushes all standing knowledge on human evolution.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe898e1ba98e.png[/atsimg]

Oh... the Big Balls

The infamous giant stone balls of Costa Rica have garnered a lot of interest ever since they were discovered in 1930 by a group of women who were clearing jungle land for the United Fruit Company. The spheres vary in size, some as small as a few centimetres, while others as large as 2.5 metres. The largest of them weighs an astonishing 16 tonnes. Most of the spheres are geometrically perfect, but some diameters vary by up to 4cm. But it is impossible to know their original shape as many were damaged during their initial discovery and since then. It is not know who built them or how they were built.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18fae3d7730b.png[/atsimg]

Stones and ‘Saurs’

Dr. Javier Carbera first discovered the Ica Stones in 1961 when he received one for his birthday. Carbera immediately recognized that his stone was depicting an aquatic animal that had long been extinct. The stones were said to have been discovered in river beds. Carbera became fascinated by the stones and collected them from local merchants who were in possession of them. Many of the stones bear graphic images of a sexual nature, but others depict dinosaurs, such as pterodactyls, tyrannosaurus rex’s, etc. There are a few engravings which show interaction between humans and dinosaurs, such as a man riding a winged beast, closely resembling a pterodon. Some depict some form machinery, others depict maps, etc.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/26183a1b3c5b.png[/atsimg]

Metal Tubes

Now this case for some reason fascinates me the most, but any specifics are now lost and no photographs exist, for obvious reasons. This find was made in 1885, France. A set of semi-ovoid metallic tubes were dug out of a 65 million year old block of chalk. There was not just one tube, but many. They were claimed to all have the same shape but they were of different sizes. The tubes were being researched in the Geomorphology Laboratory of the Université de Caen, but that is the last ever heard of them.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84ff1a5c8aa3.png[/atsimg]

___________________________________________________________________________

I hope you found some of the above information intriguing. If you have any other similar 'out of place' finds then please do share. I just posted only a few of the ones that I found the most fascinating, but I know that there are many more!

Thanks for reading.

Thanks for the thread

Well, I for one feel there is more to these things than meets the eye or what we are taught by either side of the equation.

I'll be digger deeper into those finds as I to find all the oddities of this world interesting..

thanks S&F

There's many threads already on out of place artifacts.
Anyhow, I will add what I think.


The sandal footprint has real trilobites, but the "sandal pattern" is false. It resembles a sandal print, yes, however the 'heel' part of the print is actually just a crack that runs further out than the actual boundaries of the sandal print. The print could therefore be anything, likely from a geochemical process.

The hand print doesn't really look like a human hand. It has 5 fingers, but they aren't proportionate to the palm. It could be from an animal now extinct or the whole print could be fake.

The Ica Stones don't contain organic material and therefore can't be carbon dating, and so their age is unknown. A Spanish investigator in 1998 concluded they were a hoax, mentioning that there was traces of modern paints and abrasives on the stones. There is no erosion on the detail of the stone.

Those big balls can't be dated, so with the age of them unknown they could be modern.

No evidence of those metal tubes anywhere, so it is hard to know what exactly they were or their age.

it's a social issue, no amount of proof is going to convince, because there's always a fly in the ointment.

depictions of long extinct animals may be convincing but not tangible proof while artefacts in coal or rock will be dismissed as fakes one revealed. since recovering these will inevitably alter the evidence one cannot win this type of debate as long as the majority of scholars are in deliberate denial and everybody else is simply ignored.

unfortunately, there's a reason this type of discussion is typically avoided like the plague, more often than not fringe related people with an agenda of their own will jump to bizarre or preconceived conclusions.

that's of course a recurring topic on ATS take the following thread for example

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sure, there may never be enough proof however at the very least a date is needed. Many of these can't be dated, is it not naive to assume they are extremely old when they could in fact be made less than a hundred years ago?

Originally posted by serbsta
I know some of these may get me flamed, but I’m hoping it can all be examined with an open mind and run as smoothly as my last thread on a similar field did.

all either a hoax, wrongly interpreted or no proof that they ever actually existed. For example The "stegasoarus" is actually just a chameleon!

Hundred Million Year Old Hand

lol, when I read stats like that I always have to shake my head. Remember that "dating" of artifacts, fossils etc. is just guessing. Not actual dating. So I don't know why scientist throw around those numbers like it is a fact.

Those scientists..

I really enjoy mysteries like these. Thanks for posting.

I was thinking about the stegasaurus picto graph. Wonder if the natives may have found a wonderfully preserved fossil of the animal in what may have been mud, that left a clear preserved image for them to copy. Just a thought. As for the other things hard to say how these things can happen. I sure do enjoy speculating though. Love to get an update on those metal tubes.

Originally posted by dereks

all either a hoax, wrongly interpreted or no proof that they ever actually existed.

Fantastic, you got any proof to back that up?

reply to post by Hellas


It's not a statistic, its a sensationalized heading. The exact date is obviously unknown.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by serbsta

The "stegasoarus" is actually just a chameleon!

How do you know that? Looks more like the Stegasoarus to me.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by sparrowstail]

web.ku.edu...
www.theness.com...
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...
paleo.cc...
en.wikipedia.org...

Humans has around for Several Millions of Years Alongside Prehistoric Creatures until Modern Day, This just Ignored by Global Mainstream Media

reply to post by dereks


Still could be a representation of a stegososaurus that came from an uncovered fossil by a river bank where by the head portion was distorted creating the illusion of horns and a bigger head.

anyway I see a lot of guess work going on here from both camps.

So far none of the debunking holds any water as even with the links provided there is no positive proofs, just speculative guessing with maybe the one exception of the Stegasaur depiction.

Originally posted by Nventual

The sandal footprint has real trilobites, but the "sandal pattern" is false. It resembles a sandal print, yes, however the 'heel' part of the print is actually just a crack that runs further out than the actual boundaries of the sandal print. The print could therefore be anything, likely from a geochemical process.

False.

The 'heel' part is not the big crack that runs along both prints. The heel part is an indented layer to the right side of either print. Therefore, yes, it could be anything, but your hypothesis is false therefore this could still be resembling the imprint of a shoe/sandal.

Further to prove that these can't be the effects of geometrical processes, I did a bit of work:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ae9002d1a46.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 1/2/2010 by serbsta]

Originally posted by serbsta

Originally posted by Nventual

The sandal footprint has real trilobites, but the "sandal pattern" is false. It resembles a sandal print, yes, however the 'heel' part of the print is actually just a crack that runs further out than the actual boundaries of the sandal print. The print could therefore be anything, likely from a geochemical process.

False.

The 'heel' part is not the big crack that runs along both prints. The heel part is an indented layer to the right side of either print. Therefore, yes, it could be anything, but your hypothesis is false therefore this could still be resembling the imprint of a shoe/sandal.

Further to prove that these can't be the effects of geometrical processes, I did a bit of work:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ae9002d1a46.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 1/2/2010 by serbsta]

An interesting thread...but is it not more reasonable to assume that the rock looks like a sandle, than to re-write science based upon a fluke? I have a rock that looks like a skull...even has teeth. It freaks people out, but at the end of the day, it's still just a rock that looks like a skull.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I'm not re-writing science. This is just assumption. I was only pointing out that the both 'heels' of both imprints were oddly close in resemblance.

Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

I'm not re-writing science. This is just assumption. I was only pointing out that the both 'heels' of both imprints were oddly close in resemblance.

My thought was that the item itself is being used to 're-write science', not that you are doing so. Your curiosity is commendable, and should not be stifled. It was material such as this that got me interested in archaeology, but I always look to the science for an explanation. Sometimes it remains a mystery.

Please note that the stone in question is not two separate 'footprints'...it is a rock split in half resulting in a positive and a negative impression. Sure looks sweet, though...read a story called "The Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury.

Look at my avatar.

The Heiroglyphs of Abydos Egypy.
AKA Dendera.

Fossilized alien skull, found on the shores of Lake Ontario! Positive proof of... I donno...something dramatic.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6596a5286157.jpg[/atsimg]