Giant Footprint Two Million Years Old

originally posted by: NOrrTH
I looks like a foot print to me and is possible according to this guy:


"C.David on September 23, 2014 at 11:14 pm said:


…Granite is igneous…..?
In fact Granite is not igneous as was once supposed. Granite comes in two forms. The first is the harder of the two from which most of granite bedrock is made. This type of granite was never under a molten state and is found accross the earth. It contains radio isotopic polonium halo imprints within the granite which have had half lives of less then 90 seconds and all of which are completely round. These polonium halos are found in this granite in every sample no matter where in the world they are found.
The second type of granite is sedimentary granite which comes from the former type of granite but has been pulverized to a finite level several times larger then that of silica or sand. This is where we find footprints of man or animals. It hardens into concrete much the same way sandstone hardens from compressed sand, therebye preserving the footprints.

Wish I could flag a post
This is very interesting, I am glad you brought it to our attention.
We all have so many preconcieved ideas about what does and doesnt happen, the truth is always different and science discovers so much more we cant keep up.

a reply to: borntowatch

...yeah, except that quote is meaningless pseudo-scientific gobbledegook.

originally posted by: Cinrad

Whether the guys bringing this to our attention are creation scientists or not, the claims have to be discussed not the philosophies of the ones bringing it to us.

Thats where you are wrong, anything a creation scientist says must be dismissed as stupidity and anti science.
Creation science is not science, its faith and no amount of discourse should be undertaken with creationists.

As the average secularist would say I think.
Irrespective, the print is what it is and no pebble (as a previous poster stated) or five of them is going to wear in to granite those toe marks, thats a funny statement, the pebbles would wear out before the toes holes were formed.

I am interested in your thread on giants, I look forward to it.

I am wondering if the lack of true discourse between creationists and secular scientists is not based on pure fear.

a reply to: borntowatch

I am a university trained scientist, I am a Christian too. I don't particularly like creation scientists because so much of what they write is either bad science or slanted to their point of view. But I don't dismiss their claims simply because of who they are, there are some very good points made by them, for example who would have studied polonium halos if it had not been brought up as a subject by a creation scientist?

BTW you don't have to be a YEC (young earth creationist) to believe every word of Genesis.

originally posted by: Cinrad
But I don't dismiss their claims simply because of who they are, there are some very good points made by them, for example who would have studied polonium halos if it had not been brought up as a subject by a creation scientist?

They may appear as good points to the uninitiated, but when further investigated....

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.

In the end, Gentry's young Earth proposal, based on years of measuring discoloration haloes, is nothing more than a high-tech version of the Creationist "Omphalos" argument. This is the late nineteenth century proposition that while God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago according to the Genesis account, He made everything appear old. Unfortunately, because Gentry has published his original work on haloes in reputable scientific journals, a number of basic geology and mineralogy text books still state that microscopic discoloration haloes in mica are the result of polonium decay.

From the link above.

I realise it is a long quote, and yet it is only the summary of the article in the link. Well worth the read if you would like to be informed.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I really appreciate your adding videos and pics and information. Intriguing.

a reply to: Night Star

No, thank YOU for being such a brave trooper by creating this thread.

Like someone else said, I think we all have learned a lot from it.

I was just searching Google images using the term 'footprints in granite' and ran across an awesome blog post.

Wendy Selvig over at snatchproof.org believes this may be a Nephilim footprint.

She visited the site and took a high resolution photo that appears to show six toes... (Click on the image to zoom in)

The first footprint I ever read about was in South Africa. I’ve seen pictures and read people’s online debate about whether it is a real footprint or whether it is just strange “weathering.” On our trip to South Africa last year I arranged for us to go see this footprint.

When I got there, I was excited to see this almost 4 foot tall footprint. What I did not expect was to have “a moment.” As I touched and felt the footprint, I could see and feel the mud that squished between the toes and hardened over time. I could feel the curvature of the arch and the impression of the heel. This was no product of weathering. This was a foot. And, if you know anything about the study of the Nephilim giants (which is what I believe this is), they were reported to have six fingers and six toes. I saw and felt the sixth toe on this foot.

Scientific Proof Giants Were Real

The foot print may have been made just before the flood, which would explain why it was preserved so well.

The giant that created it probably drowned.

“Giants often have six fingers and six toes.” Many in the Illuminati Royal Families had 6 fingered Hands. (Reptilian Blood lines) The amazing revelation that GIANTS are back on the earth in increasing numbers makes any Bible-based Christian think of our Lord’s words: “ But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” Matthew 24:37. There were giants on earth before the Great Flood (and in the land of Canaan later on): Deuteronomy 2:20; 3:13; and Joshua 17:15 et al.

PDF - GIANTS ON THE EARTH

originally posted by: HooHaa
One of the characteristics of a nephilim is 6 fingers and 6 toes.

originally posted by: HooHaa
...the bible also says the nephilim have six fingers and or six toes. You can do a google search and find digs where they have uncovered tall skeletons (9 to 14 feet) that have six fingers and toes.

originally posted by: Chaos Lord
Research Anunaki and Nephillim! While your at it Grigori, Elohim, Cherubim! This is also mentioned in the Bible. It's why Native Americans used to say "How" and hold their hands high when greeting eachother. To show that they did not have the sixth digit. Why is ancient math based on a HEXADECIMAL sytem of 12!?!

Oh my..... looks like creationists are going to have to push their timeline back by a lot.

originally posted by: L0125D
Oh my..... looks like creationists are going to have to push their timeline back by a lot.

Or atheists improve on their outdated dating techniques, oh wait, you cant be wrong, science is perfect

a reply to: Murgatroid

I'm learning some things from you. Thanks!!

Just a little correction, it is not the Bible that says the Nephilim had 6 digits, it is the book of Enoch which is not in the Bible. It is probable that they did, but the Bible tells us very little about the Nephilim. They were also supposed to be neuter, like mules.

a reply to: Hanslune

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Ok I understand Your statements, but what if there is only One piece of incidence for this? That foot print. You can see where the mud, at the time of origin, squished up from the front of it's toes. Pretty fair hoax, if it is. But Thanx for the replies.

There have been many OOPART's found. Not that this is one necessarily, but in those cases, only one piece of 'evidence' to something strange and 'not acceptable' is right there!
I'm staying with an open mind on this. Later, Syx.

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: Hanslune

a reply to: SlapMonkey


Ok I understand Your statements, but what if there is only One piece of incidence for this? That foot print. You can see where the mud, at the time of origin, squished up from the front of it's toes. Pretty fair hoax, if it is. But Thanx for the replies.

There have been many OOPART's found. Not that this is one necessarily, but in those cases, only one piece of 'evidence' to something strange and 'not acceptable' is right there!
I'm staying with an open mind on this. Later, Syx.

Howdy

Well the problem is that the footprint isn't in mud its in granite, as other posters have noted - you might want to look at how granite is formed.

I'd says it's more likely magma consumed a giant manmade statue from 200million yrs ago and the statue eroded away leaving the print.

If it's not just a hoax in general.....

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
I'd says it's more likely magma consumed a giant manmade statue from 200million yrs ago and the statue eroded away leaving the print.

If it's not just a hoax in general.....

Given what we do know I think a hoax is extremely probable (it is possible it was done as a piece of innocent art). I'd say the possibility of it being real is the same chance as you being kicked in the back of the head by a 130 year old Hideki Tojo.

Just in case anyone here wants to actually visit the site:

Google Maps - 26°17'54.7"S 30°38'33.5"E



Click on below image to zoom:

-26.298530, 30.642651

Road to Impuluzi's foot print

• From the N17 turn to Amsterdam on the R33

• At 6km you will get a beautiful view of the typical boulder area which you are traveling in before it was planted with trees this was how the Empuluzi district looked like.

• At 8km you will cross the Mpuluzi River which starts close to Florence Guest Farm.

• Just after the river you will see die Busby Eucalyptus oil factory on the left (No Entry). You can see the typical eucalyptus trees on either side of the uphill road.

• At 12.9km the Lothair turn off to your right (you are welcome to investigate this typical wood industry town.

• At 15.8km turn left to EMPULUZI

• Zero again

• At 4.4km turn left at the York Arhur Seat Sign. ( It was ran over by a truck, and does not exist) It is only l.l km gravel road to the footprint.

• The gravel road will immediately fork but keep left it will fork again but keep right this time on the bigger road. The road are not in good shape, take it slow.

• At 5,5km you have arrived at IMPULUZI'S site. A Forest signboard will mark the spot.

www.chrissiesmeer.co.za...

The footprint is way at the top at the base of the "mound" of rocks near the top. Also, there is what appears to be a hand print, right next to the footprint. Which makes me think there is something significant about this place. The rocks to me, do not appear to be naturally jutting out of the ground like one would supposed. They appear to me, to be placed there (by more giants?)... and if it is a hand and footprint, could this be a marker...even a grave marker? Could this giant be buried here? I might be completely wrong, but I can't get that idea out of my head.

Also, there is what appears to be a hand print, right next to the footprint. Which makes me think there is something significant about this place. The rocks to me, do not appear to be naturally jutting out of the ground like one would supposed. They appear to me, to be placed there (by more giants?)... and if it is a hand and footprint, could this be a marker...even a grave marker? Could this giant be buried here? I might be completely wrong, but I can't get that idea out of my head.

Different people take different shots of the footprint and depending on the angle you take the photo at, it looks like a 5 toed giant or a 6 toed giant. It is because of the depth of the footprint and if you take it from too far left, it covers the 6th toe. There is definitely a 6th toe....I've outlined it below:

As I said, if you get too far left, the crease between the last two toes disappears and in an illusion, you see that being one toe.

I interviewed a guy who told me the local folklore of the footprint. Also, very interesting, I spoke with a lady who told me about another footprint in Swaziland. She mentions the area that it is in at the very beginning of the clip. She didn't want to tell me much about it at first because she said it is so sacred, but I got her to talk about it a little.

Giant Footprint of Mpuluzi

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: L0125D
Oh my..... looks like creationists are going to have to push their timeline back by a lot.

Or atheists improve on their outdated dating techniques, oh wait, you cant be wrong, science is perfect

You have yet to have shown any real knowledge of the dating techniques and I already explained to you in a past thread that scientists are constantly improving on the dating techniques. You can use ice core samples and dendrochronology samples to calibrate the Carbon 14 dating technique to get a perfect calendar year date.

You are once again gravely mistaken. I really dislike seeing you try and post on a topic you really know 0.000000001% of the science behind radiometric dating.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Scientists KNOW that carbon dating is a big fat lie.

Many have admitted it.

Just like MD's and many other 'professionals', their job requires them to lie.

Carbon dating and archaeology are one HUGE lie.

Don't be gullible.

Science "knowledge" is nothing but one huge mind control OP with a stealth agenda.

Evolutionists/uniformitarianists base their assumptions upon other assumptions and claim it is scientific to do so. All dating methods are fallacious, based upon circular reasoning, plagued by numerous problems, and begin and end with assumptions. The only thing about them which is scientific. is the estimated decay rate, and even this is speculative since it is verified that the speed of light is decaying (reducing) and thus also the decay rate of radioactive materials is also decaying (reducing). Science demonstrates the earth to be only a few thousand years old, just like the bible tells us it is!

a reply to: Murgatroid

...lol so why does it (science) work then? This Internet thingy is based on scientific knowledge, so are millions of other things, they appear to work. Could you perhaps tell us which parts of science are fake and which ones are real?

When I was an archaeologist I don't recall anyone telling me I had to lie about C-14. Why did they skip over me...and yes I help to process many samples for C-14 dating.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I call bullsh#t on the video. I am not a liar nor am I gullible with a degree in this very field. I understand the methods used and I understand the calibration processes. As soon as Radiocarbon Dating was discovered, they knew it was not entirely accurate because of the changing rates of decay over years hence how they are able to match/calibrate through yearly carbon deposits found in mountain ice lakes and in the growth rings in trees. Show me peer reviewed academic articles that debunk the entirety of the field of radiometric dating and I'll show you a thousand that demonstrates the opposite.

You sound exactly like Creationists who claim that Evolution is this hugely debated and controversial in the scientific community when it isn't. What is debated are the methods of evolution and even that what is debated is the influence.