Earliest Footprints Outside Africa Discovered in Norfolk

JohnPhoenix
OMG WHO in their right mind would believe this Obvious HOAX story?

These were caused by rain wind and erosion - no footprints here, move along folks-

The article say's,

The markings were first indentified in May last year during a low tide. Rough seas had eroded the sandy beach to reveal a series of elongated hollows.

And it was raining -

Dr Ashton recalls how they scooped out rainwater from the footprints so that they could be photographed. "But the rain was filling the hollows as quickly as we could empty them,"

and also says,

The hollows were washed away not long after they were identified.

So, in wind, rain, erosion and in SAND you expect me to believe these hollows were made 800,000 years ago and just happened to stand the test of time for 800,000 years up until the moment they were discovered - then they promptly got washed away !?? You gotta be the stupidest man on earth to believe that.

This sounds like a guy who wanted grant money, publicity or both. This is an Obvious Hoax - half of ATS can see that, it only takes half a brain. LOL

Maybe you should read the article again. The footprints have been covered by layers of sand and silt for a long time, the unusually rough seas removed enough layers to make them visible for a time before they themselves started to be washed away. The article makes it sound as if they vanished but they had time to bring equipment and scan them all. I understood it as like when archaelogists remove layers of soil that's built up for thousands of years over artefacts but in this case the sea did it for them.

This isn't just one guy either, he has been working with various scientists for a year before releasing the information. According to these experts they are footprints.

This story has been on the news they had casts of the prints, there seems to be no suggestion that this is anything other than a genuine find.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


In 800,000 years how many times do you suspect those same rough seas could or could not have done this very same thing.. seems very likely to me if these were real, they would have been washed away in said manner years ago. As volatile as mother nature is in this area I cannot believe these were real footprints that just happened to magically be protected for 800,000 years.

They still now only resemble footprints, there are no hard fact proving that these are real human footprints that could not have been made another way through nature.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


The area where these prints were found, would not have been as close to the shoreline back in the ancient times. The sea has likely encroached further and further inland over that time, until now, when these slabs of rock are exposed, then covered, then exposed again as part of the beachfront.

So it is not as if the erosion of tidal forces, would necessarily have been acting upon them for all eight hundred thousand years since the impressions were made. That would be ridiculous!

They're Not Footprints!!...

Now THESE are Footprints.....

www.abc.net.au...

donsmaps.com...

reply to post by gort51


By all means, please refute this then
Hominin Footprints

Investigations at Happisburgh, UK, have revealed the oldest known hominin footprint surface outside Africa at between ca. 1 million and 0.78 million years ago. The site has long been recognised for the preservation of sediments containing Early Pleistocene fauna and flora, but since 2005 has also yielded humanly made flint artefacts, extending the record of human occupation of northern Europe by at least 350,000 years. The sediments consist of sands, gravels and laminated silts laid down by a large river within the upper reaches of its estuary. In May 2013 extensive areas of the laminated sediments were exposed on the foreshore. On the surface of one of the laminated silt horizons a series of hollows was revealed in an area of ca. 12 m2. The surface was recorded using multi-image photogrammetry which showed that the hollows are distinctly elongated and the majority fall within the range of juvenile to adult hominin foot sizes. In many cases the arch and front/back of the foot can be identified and in one case the impression of toes can be seen.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


reply to post by gort51


I find it funny that on ATS, people can post a picture of some grainy blob in the sky and people will insist for 30 pages it is the sign of the End times and Aliens are here, but post an actual scientific article and people will claim fake.

Did anyone bother to read the link on the BBC article for the details published in the Science Journal PLOS ONE? Clearly not, because they go into great detail to say how these are footprints and not any form of erosion or other mark left by nature or another animal.

I would post an excerpt of it, but it is in such detail doing so would not convey the information they have presented. Instead, I must insist people read the article before having any ill-informed opinion. For how they have determined the depressions to be footprints, look at the "results" section.

Also, JohnPhoenix, I did point out that this are of England during the Ice Ages wasn't near the sea - it is only in the last 10 thousand years or so that it has been part of a coastline. During the Ice Age's, it would have been an estuary area. It also makes this point not only in the Science journal, but also in the BBC article, so clearly you didn't bother to read either (or the thread even!) before making your comments.

JohnPhoenix
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

In 800,000 years how many times do you suspect those same rough seas could or could not have done this very same thing.. seems very likely to me if these were real, they would have been washed away in said manner years ago. As volatile as mother nature is in this area I cannot believe these were real footprints that just happened to magically be protected for 800,000 years.

They still now only resemble footprints, there are no hard fact proving that these are real human footprints that could not have been made another way through nature.

I know it sounds weird but from what I've read, these were layers of sedimentary deposits. Some may have been harder,, some softer. They are always being washed away because it's a continuous process. On one layer we have the 'prints' and that layer was protected for years by other layers, until each one was washed away.

The happisburgh site has been known for a long time which is why they were there to see the marks when they did, you can read more info here and a link to the Research paper;

www.britishmuseum.org...

reply to post by stumason


I read the PLOS article and it contains much better information and pictures than the OP article.
The sole convincing track is shown in Figure 7 where there appears to be 4 visible toes. It's not uncommon for the "pinkie" toe to not register in tracks and a leaning movement towards the side opposite the limb would further prevent such registration.

I would still argue there is no clear pattern of footfalls for any 1 individual (a group of 2 or 3 could be random "anythings")
Secondly, perhaps a quarter of all the depressions are being claimed as hominid tracks - the remaining 75% of the depressions were caused by what? They make no attempt to explain them which I think would be a necessary step in site assessment.

Come right down to it they use the same process that myself and other trackers do to ascertain what we are looking at - visual evidence:

It is therefore argued that the shape of the footprints suggests that they were most likely to have been formed by hominins and none of the prints are consistent with those formed by other mammals [18]. In some cases, left or right and front or back of the foot were also apparent, including one instance of toes, provided information about direction of movement (Figure 7–8). The depth of the imprints is consistent with formation in a soft-stiff muddy substrate, as firm mud does not retain footprint impressions and semi-liquid mud has insufficient strength to retain a clear, undeformed impression [18]. The less elongated features might also be hominin footprints, where impressions from just heels or the front of feet have been preserved, or overprinting has obscured original features.

The only other possibilities they entertain are other mammals. This is estuarine mud/silt flats certainly there will be many other types of animals native to such zones including turtles, crustaceans, insects, worms, mollusks and arachnids some of who make burrows, lay eggs, dig for food, etc.

It looks promising as a site, but I'm just pointing out the reservations I have and other possibilities for what left those traces.
Thanks for the additional link - much more informative.

stumason

Scientists have discovered the earliest evidence of human footprints outside of Africa, on the Norfolk Coast in the East of England.

The footprints are more than 800,000 years old and were found on the shores of Happisburgh.

They are direct evidence of the earliest known humans in northern Europe.

Details of the extraordinary markings have been published in the science journal Plos One..

Earliest Footprints Outside Africa Discovered in Norfolk

Wow - 800,000 year old Footprints found in Norfolk, UK!

Apparently, these are the oldest known Hominid footprints found anywhere except in Africa and sheds some light on the spread of early Hominids. This follows another recent discovery of Tools at the same site (another article here)

They have supposed these may have been the earliest Humans to have worn clothing, although it is not known if they had use of fire.

omg stumason? Is this another piltdown man? What are you upto now?
Everyone has heard of the artic monkeys