Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

page: 4
151
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


The pillowed nature of the rock he walks by would indicate Granite. When you see that type of weathering, it's fairly certain what we are looking at. I see nothing to make anyone believe it is Sedimentary.

That and of course the location.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
LOL well it is a big foot made by a giant, yet somehow evolution says that we are getting bigger..... looks to me that you evolutionists have some explaining to do haha. Maybe the giants before the flood about 4000 to 5000 years ago made that, ie the Nephilim.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I am not saying this isn't possible nor probable but I'm not understanding the mechanics involving granite and ones footprint. Even if five elephants stepped on a rock it wouldn't make an impression.

So what am I missing here please?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


In the waaaaay back before it was granite.... but wait, isn't granite compressed, years.....billions millions year old molten lava?
Giant got a hot foot I guess.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
Now that's wild.

As far as regular people throughout history telling stories of giants walking the earth, I'm more apt to believe them than the scientists who are paid to do and say certain things depending on where their grant money comes from. I don't like biased information. It's usually wrong.

What reason would people have 5,000 years ago to lie about such things? Can't think of one.

What reason would scientists have now to lie about such things? Job security.

Besides which, if that's just a natural formation due to erosion, that's one hell of a coincidence. You gotta admit.

And as far as that rock being molten lava at the time, don't automatically assume that the foot of that giant had the same type of skin that we do now. Our skin has softened over time because it doesn't have to be as tough as it used to be. Look at aboriginies around the world. I'll bet you any kind of money that their skin is a lot tougher than ours simply because it has to be if they don't have footwear. Also don't automatically assume that the giant was native to this planet. That's kind of like assuming that aliens have the same basic body structure that we do. 2 arms....2 legs....etc... In the box thinking like that doesn't really get you anywhere.





I like how you think!

Why are things always so damn controversial? Why can't one ancient secret be discovered without all the speculative wiggle room?
It seems we are constantly at loggerheads saying "Yeah, it looks like so-and-so but it also can be such-and-such"
Is this the life of Human polarity? Where nothing is ever cut and dry? And there's always an alternative explanation?


I for one am getting sick and tired of this historical buffet line. I don't want choices anymore. I want conclusions.

End rant~



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gwampo
AMAZING! thank you for sharing, this is incredible. How tall do you think someone with a foot that big would be??? like 20 feet?


I am 6'2" and my foot is 12" long so although everyone is a little different I would think you could assume a ballpark figure or a foot being ABOUT 1/6th of your height so a 4' long print would make them somewhere in the neighborhood
of 20' - 25' tall.

Although there are many parameters maybe it would get you in the neighborhood.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Granite does have volcanic origins, but what if it was not molten lava but merely warm lava ash? At least that's the theory that some of the natives of the region believe:


... Furthermore, he pointed out that the footprint is that of a woman and that her name was iMpuluzi and named as such by Shaka, which means the naked goddess. .This giant live in a time, which is lost in the mists of time and that this giant was approximately 36ft(10,97m) high and that her footprint was approximately 6ft (1,8m) long. The imprint of her foot was made as she ran across an open piece of ground that was covered with warm lava ash and that is how the footprint came to be in granite, which is now so prominently displayed on the side of this hill.


Source



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
That dude has really bad cardio.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


To add to your analysis, my views are that the following also indicate this is carved and fake:

a) Toes too short
b) Toes not jointed
c) Big toe looks pointed whereas big toes are usually bulbous in shape
d) the whole sole of the foot looks flat and does not show contours for the arch and ball of the foot



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


But the "footprint" should be the same colour as the rock being that old. Of you look at pictures of other prehistoric footprints they're the same colour as the hardend surface they're found in. This print is a later edition to the material it's found in. And I mean very recent.

HOAX

Also. That bloke needs to walk up and down that slope more.


This just in. Giant footprint causes heart attack.
edit on 6-1-2012 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
\

Granite is igneous rock - lava. So nobody was stepping in while it was hot.



No one has ever accidentally stepped in lava ever in history? Oh.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Here is some evidence tht prehistoric prints can be found on slopes or hills. io9.com...



In Sucre, Bolivia, a limestone wall rises at an angle above the ground, its surface criss-crossed with thousands of dinosaur tracks.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 





I like how you think! Why are things always so damn controversial? Why can't one ancient secret be discovered without all the speculative wiggle room? It seems we are constantly at loggerheads saying "Yeah, it looks like so-and-so but it also can be such-and-such" Is this the life of Human polarity? Where nothing is ever cut and dry? And there's always an alternative explanation? I for one am getting sick and tired of this historical buffet line. I don't want choices anymore. I want conclusions. End rant~


Sooo.....

People should stop being objective and just believe whatever they are told?


(sigh)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


Or they just carved it into 200 million year old rock.


I never really understood how you can carbon date something that is not carbon.

Outside, of course, the closer elements with dating systems. Phosphorus, etc etc.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
One word.

Nephilim


Indeed.....and it's probably not any more than a few thousand years old.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


i like how hes wearing crocs haha



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


It's interesting !

I am not gullible to believe anything I see on youtube or the internet. I want to hear the geologists talk about this. I want to see the evidence that this indeed is 300 milion to 1 billion years old...Otherwise I am not going to believe anyone without peer reviews.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. Granite is an igneous rock that forms underground, and is then revealed through erosion. Moreover, the "shape" bears only a cursory resemblance to a real footprint, and has no real markers of an actualy footprint.

Epic Fail.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I am not saying this isn't possible nor probable but I'm not understanding the mechanics involving granite and ones footprint. Even if five elephants stepped on a rock it wouldn't make an impression.

So what am I missing here please?


You're missing nothing here. That feature is not a footprint. The Granite (or Basalt) is Igneous not Sedimentary, meaning the one thing it cannot be is a footprint and it's utter nonsense.

The rock did not form on the surface, the shape is a fluke caused by weathering.

The guy in the video is either attempting a hoax or is illiterate on the subject.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


I am not sure if this is the same footprint...but it is interesting too....in Africa they have named it (Goliaths Footprint).

numbi.hubpages.com...





new topics

top topics



 
151
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join