Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

page: 17
151
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
well, I dont know about this footprint but theres been others, like the one found in the 80s in Turkmenistan:

. . .if we speak about this human footprint, it was made by a human or a human like animal. Incredibly, this footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks. We can say the age of the footprint is not 5 or 10, but at least 150 million years old. It is 26 cm long, that is Russian size 43 (9.5 American) and we consider that whoever left the footprint was taller than we are.
info here:

livingdinos.com...




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Just curious,this giant footprint,if thats what it is,what kind of substance or stone is it imprinted into? was it made by stepping into cooling down but still very hot volcanic magma? thats what it looks like to me.That would really hurt and even giants would avoid stepping into molten rock,unless they were surrounded by lava while trying to escape the pyroclastic flows from a nearby erupting volcano, perhaps one of the ways they were eliminated from the earth?...
edit on 10-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


Wrong! If there were pyroclastic flows then there would be several preserved bodies.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
well, I dont know about this footprint but theres been others, like the one found in the 80s in Turkmenistan:

. . .if we speak about this human footprint, it was made by a human or a human like animal. Incredibly, this footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks. We can say the age of the footprint is not 5 or 10, but at least 150 million years old. It is 26 cm long, that is Russian size 43 (9.5 American) and we consider that whoever left the footprint was taller than we are.
info here:

livingdinos.com...


That footprint doesn't look even remotely real. Unless real means it looks just like what a second grader and some paper mache could come up with.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 12MoonCats
 
That "human" print looks a lot like some of the plaster casts and pictures of "bigfoot" tracks i've seen...



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Come on! They are cutting foam blocks with an electric hot wire cutter. That proves nothing. They used an improvised "ancient" tool to establish the line, a modern ball point pen to draw it, and modern hot wire technology to cut the foam "rock". Why did they not do a proper job and use the actual materials?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equidae
*facepalm* Demons make NO sense. Where is all your evidence for the existence of these demons? A 40 foot tall hominid in the Triassic is much more plausible (though still wrong.) There has never been the slightest inkling of evidence for the supernatural, let alone a bunch of demons who have turned the core of the Earth into their very own Waldorf-Astoria?
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that I was joking.
I guess you never know on this website though....
edit on 11-1-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Almost every living thing,including plants and trees were much larger millions of years ago,so why not humans as well? One of the theories why things grew so large back then was that the earths atmosphere contained more oxygen.Have we been evolving smaller and smaller ever since? i know how on average we are taller than people were a few hundred years ago,but overall,have we been getting smaller? And are we now getting slowly taller and larger again?

Giants > www.burlingtonnews.net...
edit on 11-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Almost every living thing,including plants and trees were much larger millions of years ago,so why not humans as well?


Er,
Because there were no humans millions of years ago?

Harte



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
to my artsy eye... the big toe is way too far from aligning with the shape of a modern human foot.
there also seems to be 5 small toes along with the big toe)

it (the big toe) almost seems to be protruding too much to its right side... into where the instep arch should be.

which give rise to the notion that a indentation in the stone was discovered some years ago... and as a prank, some unknown amateur sculpture decided to carve the illusions of toes into the indented rock...
perhaps as a month long task- joke or at least a quizzical anomaly for future 'sleuths' to ponder upon.

there you go... South African humor
edit on 12-1-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 
Fallen angels mating with human women would probably not produce a race of giant offspring with proportionate feet or any other body part either,they would be monsterous..



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Equidae
*facepalm* Demons make NO sense. Where is all your evidence for the existence of these demons? A 40 foot tall hominid in the Triassic is much more plausible (though still wrong.) There has never been the slightest inkling of evidence for the supernatural, let alone a bunch of demons who have turned the core of the Earth into their very own Waldorf-Astoria?
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious that I was joking.
I guess you never know on this website though....
edit on 11-1-2012 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)


Oops, sorry! I think it's a PTSD reflex from encountering Revelation Generation so often.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I used to be a lava walking hominid, but then I took an arrow to the knee



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
"What's fascinating about this is, anybody that does a study of this will notice this piece sticking out, here. It's like when you put your foot it mud, and you pull it out. Your toes will lift up a little mud where your toes were. And that's exactly what seems to have happened here: this rough granite is just - psshh - pulled up, this overhang here. It's spectacular."

Granite is made from magma when it cools, not mud. Unless the "giant" was walking on molten rock as it was cooling (>1000 degrees C), barefoot, this isn't a real footprint.


Probably chiseled out by some artist, not made by a giant.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Well the picture tells me it was formed some other way than you think it was. At least in this geographic area. Bible thumper?? Grabbing a few desperation straws are we to try and bolster your position. Not working. Great post and great picture of a giant footprint......in granite!



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharpenmycleats
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Well the picture tells me it was formed some other way than you think it was. At least in this geographic area. Bible thumper?? Grabbing a few desperation straws are we to try and bolster your position. Not working. Great post and great picture of a giant footprint......in granite!



Well they say ignorance is bliss so I am sure you will be BLISSFULLY happy with both your book of fairy tales and how you think that shape was formed.

I feel sorry for kids brought up in the bible belts what a disadvatange they start out with



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Incredible how humans are willing to believe anything.




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


And it never ceases to amaze me how some humans can be fooled and fobbed off by mainstream dogma too, without questioning the actual evidence.

More and more ancient artifacts and sites are being found as the technology to find them moves on...and each and every day more and more evidence including bones is found that mankind's history is not how evolutionary science would have us all believe.

Getting back to the OP -

Captain Cook and other early explorers detailed accounts of coming across Giants on their travels.


"But one day (without anyone expecting it) we saw a giant who was on the shore [near today’s Puerto San Julián, Argentina], quite naked, and who danced, leaped, and sang, and while he sang he threw sand and dust on his head. Our captain [Magellan] sent one of his men toward him, charging him to leap and sing like the other in order to reassure him and to show him friendship. Which he did. Immediately the man of the ship, dancing, led this giant to a small island where the captain awaited him. And when he was before us, he began to marvel and to be afraid, and he raised one finger upward, believing that we came from heaven. And he was so tall that the tallest of us only came up to his waist. Withal he was well proportioned. . . . The captain named the people of this sort Pathagoni.*

The etymology of the word is unclear, but Patagonia came to mean “Land of the Bigfeet.”


Interesting if the name Patagonia really comes from Land of the Bigfeet,because names of places normally have some truth behind them.

Although these accounts are often just dismissed as myths about unusually tall meN, there does seem to be a fair few accounts to dismiss!

Giants of Patagonia

What is also disturbing is to hear that the curator of the Smithsonian Institute in the 1920/30s was a keen exponent of eugenics and beleived evidence of any sort of gigantism within the human race should be immediately disposed of. Although denied by the institute there are a number of accounts of giant bones as well as other out of place artifacts being disposed off instead of investigated by the respected faculty.

Bones aren't an infinite resource - there are only a few bones used to back up mainstream anthrapology and a huge amount of assumption has been made that Home Erectus became Homo Sapiens over thousands perhaps millions of years... Therefore IF bones have been destroyed early in the last Century, that would have provided proof of the existence of gigantism within the human race, then it's hardly fair for Science to be now shouting - "Show us the Proof"!
edit on 14-1-2012 by JB1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JB1234
 





Therefore IF bones have been destroyed early in the last Century, that would have provided proof of the existence of gigantism within the human race, then it's hardly fair for Science to be now shouting - "Show us the Proof"!


Tens of thousands of ancient remains have been found since the 'early last century' you should have no problems finding new bones or fossils - reports of such come up regularly. Science will continue to ask for proof - in the way of fossils and bones, and now days DNA.

What you need to ask yourself is how such a seamless conspiracy has managed to work for centuries without being known; across vastly different political system and more importantly without any particular motive and no administrative centre --- a marvolous achievement in organization and operational secrecy.

You might wish to investigate the story of the Patagonian giants a bit more.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 
The "there were no giant humans in the past" conspiracy isnt seamless,if it was,we wouldnt be discussing them,or finding remains and seeing photographic evidence of them.But they are purposefully hushed up,ridiculed and supressed from the mainstream by tptb who would rather keep their sheeple dumbed down and living in denial,instead of us finding out about reality,about our hidden past,about our actual origins,about the truth,which would result in tptb losing some of their control over everyone...
edit on 14-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
There is no way that print is erosion,its genuine for sure,interesting to the extreme,very good find.





new topics

top topics



 
151
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join