290 million year old human footprint

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

The question is will science change there theory in regards to this find?

You put too much weight on hoaxes.

Why would theories be changed from this "find"?

A few dubious websites claim something and now scientific theories have to be changed?

Didn't you just say "This footprint is proof that science is wrong."? If the science is wrong then wouldn't they have to change the theory?

I was being sarcastic in that post.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: borntowatch

That baffles common sense, "Hey lets make a phony foot to make a phony footprint, just because my real foot is to real and not phony"

Wouldnt logic suggest using a real foot to make a real footprint, cheaper, easier and realer than making a phony foot to make a footprint

Borntowatch talking about logic and common sense? am i in the twilight zone?

The problem seems to be that the footprint hasnt been shown to be real. Plus, only a few unknown websites seem to show this "news"

If this were credible, professionals in the field would have been all over it.
Seriously, this is the kind of thing people in the credible scientific world DREAM about discovering. You can guarantee that it hasn't had any credible science backing it up because anyone in the field would look at this and laugh.

It's bunkum and nonsense.

do these ancients step in molten rock to leave their footprints? I see the "african footprint" is pictured in the link. That is in granite if I recall. There was a couple threads on about it.

I'm not able to examine it so I can't say if it's real or not, but I do think there is a chance some humans were here before mainstream history accepts. That being said, I just wanted to help you expand your options because I noticed in a scientific debate you were having with another ATS member you implied the only other way, besides this being real, was iff someone created a fake foot, then ussd it to make the print.

First of all that would be impossible to make a print in solid rock, so this foot faker would have done this approximately 290MYA.

Secondly, there is a third option. I don't know how feasible it is, but it seems to me to be in the realm of possibility. What if someone carved it out of the rock using tools?

scientists seem to always = right, why is that? scientists know as much as the next man,they can take a guess but going on what has been discovered in last few years then their guess work is pretty crap.

a reply to: borntowatch

Looks like its leaning toward a BS story and should likely head on over to the HOAX bin unless a credible source is found.

I found a couple articles in regards to the footprints that claim the Palaeontologist Jerry MacDonald made the discoveries and the story was printed on the July 1992 Smithsonian magazine.

However it does not appear to match the author or the title suggested by the sites listed below. I think they might have taken some creative freedom. Although I didn't find the actual article itself I was able to find information into what Jerry MacDonald discovered and there was no mention of human footprints .

www.phenomenalog.com...

In July 1992, the Smithsonian Magazine ran an article on MacDonald's tracks, "Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts."
Thanks to Before its News.com

The following site actually claims to have the actual transcript from the article and even added a copyright notice to make it look more legit I suppose.

forbiddenHistory
COPYRIGHT © 1992, Smithsonian Institution
"Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts" by Jerry MacDonald, Smithsonian, July 1992, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 70-79

However I found the July 1992 Vol 23 Issue 4 Smithsonian magazine contents which does not appear to have the article. In addition, all the other links I saw related to the story claimed the same thing or linked to bogus sites such as BIN. Unless someone finds a credible source or the actual article with such claims I call it BS from what I have seen

july92Smithsonian


Smithsonian
Volume 23, Number 4, July, 1992

Adams Smithsonian horizons . . . . . . . . . . 10
Michael Robinson Phenomena, Comment & Notes . . . . . . . 22
Richard Wolkomir The quiet revolution in `hand talk' . . 30
Bruce Fellman Rustle ye rosebuds while ye may . . . . 44
Michael Webb The pleasing places of Arata Isozaki . . 58
Doug Stewart How do you get to Pelycosaur Heaven? . . 70
David Nevin From Sam Houston, a surprising bonus . . 82
Noel Vietmeyer O Possums! New Zealand's immigrants run
amok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
John Krakauer Who was `the lout who built this route'? 102
William Rathje and
Cullen Murphy The truth about trash . . . . . . . . . 113
Barbara Holland It was a wonderful toy and a glorious
war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Expanding page 70 there is an abstract reference to Jerry MacDonald and Permian fossil trackways.

Doug Stewart How do you get to Pelycosaur Heaven? . . 70

@Article[Stewart:1992:HDY, author = "Doug Stewart", title = "How do you get to [Pelycosaur Heaven]?", journal = j-SMITHSONIAN, volume = "23", number = "4", pages = "70--??", month = jul, year = "1992", CODEN = "SMSNA5", ISSN = "0037-7333 (print), 1930-5508 (electronic)", ISSN-L = "0037-7333", bibdate = "Fri Jun 21 14:38:22 MDT 1996", bibsource = "http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/tex/bib/smithsonian1990.bib",

abstract = "Jerry MacDonald isn't telling, because that's where he's found the world's best Permian fossil trackways.", acknowledgement = ack-nhfb, ]

In regards to the trackways that Jerry MacDonald discovered:

In the mid-1980s Jerry MacDonald, an amateur paleontologist, brought national recognition to the Robledo Mountains when he found intact, Permian-aged fossilized trackways in the Las Cruces area. However, I did not find any mention of human foot prints tied to his discovery.

nature.nps.gov...

These sites consist of tracks and imprints made by reptiles such as Dimetrodon, amphibians, fish, arachnids, and insects, along with marine fossils, plant fossils, and petrified wood, as well as rare eurypterid traces shown below.

I don't trust this. It looks as if a supposed person just sat their foot down in mud or sediment and then remained stationary. What did they do immediately after, fly away? Wouldn't the toes show movement and weight shift? You know, the toe imprints should be dug in much deeper than the remaining print, no?

a reply to: borntowatch

a reply to: sparky31

scientists seem to always = right, why is that?

They use logic, facts, , proof and tests cases before finalizing their conclusion. Its a recipe for high success.

scientists know as much as the next man,they can take a guess

Sure they can , but they won't pass it as a fact.

but going on what has been discovered in last few years then their guess work is pretty crap

Interesting conclusion to derive by someone speaking to the world via electronics developed on scientific principles by scientist that have no idea what they are talking about.

The other beauty about science unlike the majority of forum users (not saying you ) is that being wrong is absolutely acceptable if the facts suggest as such, as its purpose is to seek the truth and not reconfirm their invalid conclusions.

Yeah this is looking like a big fat Hoax.

1. No credible sources that I found.
2. Links back to BIN.
3. Some sites appear to have taken creative freedom and cited an article that appears to have never existed in the Smithsonian as proof of the story. See previousPost

4. The articles also give credit to an amateur palaeontologist named Jerry MacDonald including the OP. Although Mr. MacDonald did make a remarkable discovery in regards to Permian-aged fossilized trackway, there is no mention of any human foot prints that he has found.

nature.nps.gov...

a reply to: borntowatch

Warning - sarcasm below:

Just as Feinstein, it's probably hers...the old dinosaur.

a reply to: interupt42

It's not just this example though. Every single one of these "ancient human footprint" claims are bogus. Not one of them has a shred of any scientific legitimacy, not one of them holds up to any serious scrutiny at all.

a reply to: borntowatch

Unfortunately in a find like this there are two sides to it. The mainstream oppressors of the information and the group that are prepared to look at all possibilities. And they can both use unethical methods to make their point. Have a look at Michael Cremo’s pdf and you can also visit Graham Hancock site. And although he repeats himself a lot, he is about the most trusted on Ancient issues. Just ignore his Joe Rogan pod-cast where he made a bit of a mess with smoking pot on TV. I’ve got nothing against pot but though it to be a bit of unnecessary “Throwing away of name” But that’s my opinion and shouldn’t affect his work done.

a reply to: borntowatch

You have to be a troll or an ignoramus.
How many times do we have to tell you we are all transitional animals.
As for the foot lol really?
You will attempt anything to dis prove evolution won't you.

Hoax or not, it looks just like a footprint in the mud. I'm not sure what people are talking about with sharp edges not being possible and whatnot; that's exactly how footprints look when you step in the clay/mud or wet sand even more so .

a reply to: Halfswede

as i have already asked the OP - can you recreate it then ? - using a human foot - and the media of your choice - OH and PS - document how it was done

a reply to: borntowatch

Why is there only one footprint? Seems that someone walking through whatever muck that caused that one footprint to be preserved so nicely would make other equally nice footprints. So where are they?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
So let me get this straight?

You say the geological time scale is a hoax (care to elaborate?) but accept this footprint as probably true based on what evidence?

An Alleged Human Footprint on Permian Rock

sorry my sarcasm wasnt as clear for you as it is to others.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Why is there only one footprint? Seems that someone walking through whatever muck that caused that one footprint to be preserved so nicely would make other equally nice footprints. So where are they?

As I said, buried next to all the missing link fossils I hear about

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Why is there only one footprint? Seems that someone walking through whatever muck that caused that one footprint to be preserved so nicely would make other equally nice footprints. So where are they?

As I said, buried next to all the missing link fossils I hear about

Lol, using what you think is a hoax to defend what you DON'T think is a hoax. That's rich!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Why is there only one footprint? Seems that someone walking through whatever muck that caused that one footprint to be preserved so nicely would make other equally nice footprints. So where are they?

As I said, buried next to all the missing link fossils I hear about

Lol, using what you think is a hoax to defend what you DON'T think is a hoax. That's rich!

Krazyshot, I am sorry I disagree with you in the other thread, sheath your knife.

I dont believe that the footprints 290 million years old, I think sarcasm may be above your paygrade

I have said I dont believe in the geological time scale, if you put all the pieces together, if you thought, connected the dots you would see

Oh never mind