It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flatcoat
If they were pulled by animals, you'd expect hoof marks in the middle as well. Very interesting.
A very logical observation, and a significant one at that.
originally posted by: zatara
originally posted by: Flatcoat
If they were pulled by animals, you'd expect hoof marks in the middle as well. Very interesting.
It is obvious for us to assume that these tracks were made by wheels, just because the print looks familiar to us. But has it really..?
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
This just proves that the dating of rocks and stone is not accurate, does not work and is not real science.
My 2 cents
Actually the dating of the rocks/stone was likely accurate. What you CAN'T do is date the tracks since they could have been made/worn in at any time since the rock was there.
But likely that does not fit your creationist view.....so let's just say that god created the tracks on the 3rd day.../sarcasm
originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Who made these tracks, and why are they not publically discussed by mainstream archeologists? Because they don't fit the current history of human kind, perhaps?
-MM
I suppose in a general perspective you are correct. Guarding sites with machine guns is a bit toooo visual if your trying to hide something.
Archaeologists don't sit around and plot to "hide" history from you. They get paid pennies to slave in crappy weather exposed outdoors to dig in dirt. There is no men in black with machine guns pointing at them to hide history. They go back and write papers in the shoebox office, then release findings for peer review.