Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

page: 7
151
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   


Add to that, the footprint is anatomically incorrect for a walking foot, its flat...
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 



Well to some according to some like Lloyd Pye as it should be for weight differential for a Large humanoid !

Modern mans feet are made for short burst sprinting !

I had High Arches that dropped !! in the military Reason I Humped a lot more weight then my body could Could handle with Fallen Arches

[FLASH] SWF
Hominoid Tracks - Lloyd Pye
www.lloydpye.com/flash/9-Hominoid-tracks.swf


Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominid Tracks in North America
www.cryptomundo.com...


edit on 7-1-2012 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Welll....

That guy spoils the presentation by saying the stone is granite

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

You do know that accidents happen, don't you? The giant could have stepped into the lava accidentally, maybe he fell into it feet first.

Ko3



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
just figured i would add a touch on this....as yes giants are mentioned throughout history and in many biblical texts.....but here is a story on this woman.....


As he sat at the foot of the slope, he turned to look at the footprint and through his rather thick glasses, stared at the footprint and began to weave an intriguing story. According to the legend Shaka named the area iMpuluzi after he had driven out the Swazis that had settled in the area. 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.


also what is noted here is this was also a visit on which David Icke was present.

Source

there is some interesting items written here.....

also read about Baba here....

source



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
Now if I was a pro football coach, that is the kind of lineman I would want to protect my quarterback.
Maybe a little hard to throw over though
For sure he would be banned from playing defense.

Actually you could win the game out of forfeiture from sure fright of the opposing players!

A giant like that would change the whole rules of the game.

I know there are sumerian tablets that have kings or rulers sitting in a chair and if he stood up he would be twice as large but I don't think as large as Michael Tellinger displays. But he really is an interesting guy!
If I am that tall, I will not play football. I will play basketball. I will be the perennial best offensive and best defensive player.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
20 million tourists leaving money in the base of the foot sounds profitable



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
I think we got the explanation for this in the first minute of the video. "It should be drawing 20 million TOURISTS a year". Someone is seeing dollar signs.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Wow that's pretty interesting, thanks for posting. S&F.

I do see what the man is talking about concerning the bit of rock at the top of the footprint. Anyone who has ever walked on wet sand would be familiar with it too.



This image shows the effect well, the person was wearing shoes in this picture.


This image is of a standard footprint in the sand picture, you can see there is a little bit of uplift. The conditions and what the person is doing at the time would cause the uplift to be bigger or smaller.


The walking or running on granite ash sounds like a plausible theory but then again I'm not a Geologist. If they were running on the granite ash then the footprint would be deeper and have a bigger uplift at the top. I don't know what the normal giants footprint would look like so I can't confirm or deny that one.


It makes me wonder, if there were giants roaming the earth then where did they all go?
edit on 7-1-2012 by CheekyRob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I think somone really ought to tell the guy that granite doesn't form out of mud
And when that rock solidified it was deep underground.

Still, an interesting example of exfoliation
edit on 7-1-2012 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kemal
Well in Islam it's also said that there once were giants on Earth.


Why do people have to constantly bring religion into everything? Bugs the hell out of me.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Throughout the thread i have seen countless of people creating hit and run posts claiming that giant bones and almost complete giant skeletons have been found throughout the worldand that they were even stored and documented.Not one of these posters left a sliver of evidence of these finds or their proper documentation.

1 case in point:


The footprint itself just does not convince unless someone would look at it and let their wishful imagination run loose on it.

If it is granite then a giant would have to have stepped on lava and it would have to have cooled down straight afterwards in order to keep the print.The footprint is at a very strange and ackward angle for a print to be left and the lack of other prints near it do not support the claim either.Then if it is between 200 million years and 3 billion years old how did the granite preserve a print and its detail so amazingly well.

The reference to bibles does not help the stories credibility either considering the claimed age of the footprint.


I think that all the amazing numbers and claims that are being thrown around here,including the 20 million tourist comment says it all.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
"200 million to 3 billion years old." - I always face palm when I read something like that. How do these people know its not 5000 years old or 3000 years old. This foot print sounds very much like the nephilim giants talked about in the bible. When I read the title the nephilim immediately came to mind.
edit on 7-1-2012 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
i think the giant really stepped in the molten rock while wondering in the field and died, that is why there is only his foot prints left haha



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


These type of fossils don't form in granite. You find them in sedimentary rock but the processes involved in creating igneous rock doesn't allow for the preservation of imprints.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MushroomWig

Originally posted by Kemal
Well in Islam it's also said that there once were giants on Earth.


Why do people have to constantly bring religion into everything? Bugs the hell out of me.


psst, because it's the history books of the time frame. the only reason we call them religion today is because
we are at historical disadvantage. we weren't there. so we assume everything they experienced was false. in addition, people looking to make money or false positives, will do silly stuff and cast doubt on the whole thing.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightBright
reply to post by wavemaker
 


These type of fossils don't form in granite. You find them in sedimentary rock but the processes involved in creating igneous rock doesn't allow for the preservation of imprints.



almost looks like the foot print was formed making that extension of the mud-ash at the big toe, pull out from the rock as the foot was lifted and then was suddenly freeze-dried into place. perhaps an ice age artifact. unless that was some very thick mud why would it stand straight up ? some of those toes don't look human.
edit on 7-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wavemaker
 


They say its in granite then it CAN'T be a footprint, if you know how granite is formed then that proves it's NOT a footprint.
edit on 7-1-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by wavemaker
 


They say its in granite then it CAN'T be a footprint, if you know how granite is formed then that proves it's NOT a footprint.
edit on 7-1-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


no, it doesn't prove it isn't. here's a possible scenario:

the lava starts to cool on the surface first. it forms a crust with a descending layer of cooling ash. mud may have mixed into the cooling lava as well. guy walking along steps on the crust, and it collapses, he yanks his foot out just as the whole thing is like freeze-dried. if it's ice age time, it would begin cooling suddenly with waves of increasing cold preceeding it in bursts, most likely.

i mean we have to take all the data, not just the most logical data, into consideration, just in case our haste to find the path of least resistance ends up throwing the baby out with the bath water
edit on 7-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
The fact that this "artifact" is in granite, about the only real fact that seems to be verifiable in the story, makes me wonder if we aren't really looking at the work of an acient shaman's grafitti. Granite is very durable which would make erasing any chisel marks a very long term ordeal. The time that would take, indeed, makes this very old, indeed.

There are examples of ancient footprints all over the world, however. I don't know if this has been brought up in this thread or not but if you would like to take into consideration another foot print that is in a much more plausible rock formation - sedimentary - look at the one that intersects with a dinosaur foot print here in Texas. This isn't the exact site I remember reading about it but it will give you the general idea: paleo.cc... It may have been at s8int.com... but I can't find it there for sure without some digging. One thing I remember about the description of the Texas footprints, though, is the evidence that the speaker in the main video on this thread spoke of with the uplifted part of the rock that occurrs when you step out of a mud print going forward. This appears on the Texas man/dino print with the mud from the human print going OVER the dino print.

There are a lot of hoaxes perpetated on the Internet but I'm a firm believer of "where there's smoke there's fire". As time goes on and more people become aware I honestly think history as we know it, as well as the religeous implications that result, are going to turn our old historical perspectives on their ear - and sooner than you'd think.
edit on 7-1-2012 by Ollie769 because: Clarifying my text



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ollie769
 


there's also the possibility a statue originally stood in the spot and the magma formed around it but that would mean there's some type of platform the statue stood upon, still buried in the rock below the foot. it's hard to describe it horizontally, when it's standing vertically

this reminds me of the various attempts to find out how the incas, etc, created such odd shaped rocks that fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. one theory was that the rock was turned into an amalgam of some sort first by using a substance that melted rock, so the shapes could be formed into whatever they wanted before solidfying. another theory example is this:

we assumed because they weren't uniform blocks that it proved they were just primitive people, but turns out the irregular shaped stones, fitted in irregular patterns actually makes them earthquake proof.

this video (very long but incredibly good, shows further evidence that'll make giant foot prints in granite seem like no big deal. If you want to be totally surprised, watch this

edit on 7-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Once again the Holy Bible is proven true. It normally takes science 2000 to 4000 thousand years to catch up with the Bible. But eventually they some times do.





new topics

top topics



 
151
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join