Amazing Evidence: The Human Specie is Hundreds of Millions of Years Old!

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The terms 'forbidden history' and 'forbidden archaeology' are encountered more and more often, from newspapers all over the planet to online articles and more recently in TV programs! Both terms originated from the unhappy archaeologists who witnessed their discoveries being ignored or truncated to fit the official lies.

Read about:
1. The 3 to 4 Million Years Old 'Castenedolo Skull' of Italy;
2. The 145 - 195 Million Years Old Footprints of Turkmenistan - Jurassic Period;
3. The 205 - 250 Million Years Old Human Shoe Print of Nevada - Triassic Period;
4. The Human & Dinosaur Footprints of Texas;
5. The 280 Million Years Old Human 'Coal Skull';
6. The 260 - 600 million years old Human Shoe Print of Utah - Before Animals Existed;

Click Here for Source

AND:

7. 290 Million Years Old Human Footprints! *New* (The 290 to 248 million years old New Mexico Footprints)
Click Here for Source




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
There was a thread on the carbon dating being incorrect about a month ago...but I can't seem to find it (at least not the one I was looking for), anyway it seems that the effects the sun has on the earth can make things age much quicker than first thought...so seemingly older artifact's are not as old as the were first claimed to be.

I don't want to discredit your thread at all...but I think it will make an interesting point of view when considering using carbon dating to indicate how old something may be.

I did find some of the related material that was posted in the oringinal thread about it being inaccurate...and it can be checked out HERE.

It is my opinion that science may be changing the way we look at dating things and a whole new idea is being explored...I just wanted to add that little bit because I think it is interestiing when considering how old something might be...and certainly more interesting when we are talking about the human race!

Edit: This is the thread I remember reading about the sun and carbon dating...HERE!

It's very neat stuff when looking at where we are and where and when we may have come from...all the original arguments of evolution, creationism, etc...it is alot of fun...who knows?
edit on 4-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Wow! Amazing find and now you got me in a study that could last days/weeks/months! Star and Flag and a star in my firefox browser as well (that is top honers in my book)



very cool



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gekados
 


I thought radiocarbon decays constantly and after a certain time it can't be predicted accurately.



In an earlier section we mentioned that the limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years. Obviously, the limit of the method differs between laboratories dependent upon the extent to which background levels of radioactivity can be reduced. Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. Beukens (1994) for instance has stated that this means the limit of the range for his Isotrace laboratory is 60 000 yr which is very similar to the conventional range.


I'm curious as to how they dated this...anyone know?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Seems that the footprint is here on display and the dating method is the one that you are questioning.

I'll see if I can find the complete testing done on it to be sure...if it is anywhere to be found.

There is an interesting article here:


terestingly enough, since these tracks have been discovered, evolutionists have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. Nor have they tried to argue that the footprint isn't human. (Often they claim that it's a print that just "looks like" a human footprint.) Their very silence is deafening.
Footprint

And an even closer look here:


"On a scale of one to ten," says James Farlow, an Indiana University fossil-footprint expert, "I'd give the Robledos findings about a hundred. They've got everything: reptiles, amphibians, insects, gorgeous plant fossils, even some bone beds, all in the same rock. It's one of the best footprint faunas of any kind, any age, anywhere." The slabs that MacDonald has been splitting open and hauling out may contain evidence of more than 100 different animal and plant genera, many of which appear to be new to the world of paleontology.
footprints
edit on 4-6-2011 by jerryznv because: ...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jerryznv
 


to help clarify for you, there is no way to use carbon dating on items that are older than 10-20k years. While you are correct that carbon dating has been shown to be a very poor way to date items, it is not relevant when discussing dating items that are millions of years old.

One thing: knowing when the sandstone was made, and how long it take to form, having a footprint set in stone is kind of irrefutable. I have seen some of the footprints up in Dallas. they are a interesting, but not as convincing as other artifacts I have seen.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then maybe you can tell me what process they use to date things that are beyond the science of carbon dating?

I am just curious...I have no idea and aside from carbon dating that was the proof of an artifacts age for so long (and now that is unreliable)...what is the process for dating back millions of years, and how much credit does it get?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Then maybe you can tell me what process they use to date things that are beyond the science of carbon dating?

I am just curious...I have no idea and aside from carbon dating that was the proof of an artifacts age for so long (and now that is unreliable)...what is the process for dating back millions of years, and how much credit does it get?


en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Pythein
 


Ok thanks...much reading to do...will quietly bow out and get "knowed up" on all the dating scene!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Here is a twisted thought. If some of the time slip theories are right that foot print could have been made by someone not even born YET. Now think about that for a while. If animals where not even around at that time what would have been the food source for such people? I think is it just a matter of time before that find a 10 million year old cell phone or something and they have done so already we will never know.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jerryznv
 


to help clarify for you, there is no way to use carbon dating on items that are older than 10-20k years. While you are correct that carbon dating has been shown to be a very poor way to date items, it is not relevant when discussing dating items that are millions of years old.

One thing: knowing when the sandstone was made, and how long it take to form, having a footprint set in stone is kind of irrefutable. I have seen some of the footprints up in Dallas. they are a interesting, but not as convincing as other artifacts I have seen.


you're almost right. radiocarbon dating can accurately date back 55,000 years, give or take a few thousand. of course, that is assuming a constant amount of carbon 14 present. a large disaster that destroyed a bunch of trees would make things look older than they actually are.

i know a family of archeologists who told me things are routinely covered up to fit with the current theories. there are depictions of dinosaurs drawn in detail on gravestones. that would not be possible if dinosaurs were extinct. its a huge find, but one that is not mentioned.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
So if this is true that would make both the ape theory and the bible are completely wrong right? Therefore there is another reason why we came to be?

Because if this is before animals, then that would say that is coming from apes is wrong, and well the bible is just wrong anyway.. But you get my point..
edit on 6/4/2011 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I love out of place artifacts!

I have always believed man has been here for millions of years. I believe there have been many civilizations and either due to natural causes and disasters or war they were wiped out and had to start over again.

I mean look at the layers of the earth and what we have found in them. Look how deep the oceans are and we haven't even really touched them. We know more about the moon than our own oceans. Also the deserts are probably my favorite place for discovery. What is under all that sand!

S&F!

If you like out of place artifacts, this site has pages upon pages of them. Many cool ideas for threads in there as well.

Out of Place Artifacts



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Because if this is before animals, then that would say that is coming from apes is wrong, and well the bible is just wrong anyway.. But you get my point..


The coming from apes is wrong, a common simplification though.

We have ancestors in common with apes, we are not descended from apes.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ThichHeaded
 


actually, it destroys the current evolutionary theory timeline. it supports a biblical view of events. so many people are ignorant to what the bible claims in terms of a timeline. actual dates aren't mentioned. dinosaurs and humans being alive at the same time? there is evidence of that in the bible, evolutionary theory rejects it.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
So if this is true that would make both the ape theory and the bible are completely wrong right? Therefore there is another reason why we came to be?

Because if this is before animals, then that would say that is coming from apes is wrong, and well the bible is just wrong anyway.. But you get my point..
edit on 6/4/2011 by ThichHeaded because: (no reason given)


How old is the human race? No one knows and may never know. We could have came from another planet or another dimension. The human race could be older that the planet Earth is for that matter. The human race has been around for a very long time but I fear we may be reaching our end, at least on this planet.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by gekados
 


I think the human and dinosaur footprints in Texas are a tourist attraction hoax.
Some of those impressions were deliberately altered to appear like human footprints. Seems very strange and significant to me that an entire theory, man and dinosaur roamed the earth together and man is much older than previously thought now widely accepted can be based on a single hoax.

Of course man is likely much older but who is to say the creature that walked with the dinosaur or is responsible for many of the artifacts we are now finding to be impossibly chronologically placed...was "man?"



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Earth may be like a big blue house.
We may only be the most recent tenants.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded


Because if this is before animals, then that would say that is coming from apes is wrong, and well the bible is just wrong anyway..


This may help clarify any misunderstandings you may hold ....




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
How can this be. Witchcraft I say. We all know the world is only 6000 years old & all that scientific evidence was planted there by Lucifer.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join