Giant Footprint Two Million Years Old

I came across this video and found it quite interesting. Has anyone ever heard of this before?

a reply to: Night Star

Woowww nephilim? Very interesting ms Night Star! Snf

a reply to: Night Star

I think I remember seeing this in either a video or a thread about mysterious artifacts and such. If I remember correctly, it never really came to a conclusion other than the scientists being baffled as to it's origin. Let me dig around a bit and see if I can locate the first place I saw it.

I would say it is a really cool natural formation, or carved, not evidence of giants. Granite is an igneous rock. It doesn't form from mud. If it is a footprint of a giant, he would have had to have walked through magma.

a reply to: Night Star

I can't decide whether Michael is a fraudster or not. He was a sound technician who networked with African scientists and worked hard to get some kind of touristy business going there. He was quite active for a while on the net. I have no idea whether that footprint is fake or not, but if it were real, why isn't mainstream archeology discussing this more?

The problem is that it is granite rock, not sedimentary rock. Perhaps a natural feature was later made to look like a footprint? Dunno

What the monkey said above.

Well, there are apparently some troubles with this.

CLICK FOR MORE

Mr Tellinger, perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the time difference between 200 million years and 3 billion years is around 2.8 billion years. Considering the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old this would mean that this granite was in the process of being formed for more than half the total age of the earth.

So what do geologists say is the real age of the granite? The Mpuluzi Batholith belongs to the 3.105 billion year old granodiorite-monzogranite-syenogranite GMS suite intruding paleoarchaean TTG (trondhjemite-totalite-granodiorite) plutons. The 3.105 billion year age has been established on numerous occusions by numerous geoscientists and is published in multiple peer reviewed earth science journals both in South Africa and internationaly. A quick internet search reveals a plethora of scientific papers on this much studied pluton. So I think we can safely attest to the fact that the Mpuluzi Batholith is NOT 200 million years old and certainly has not been in the process of being formed for over 2.8 billion years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is old news.

And someone beat me to it. My bad

originally posted by: skunkape23
I would say it is a really cool natural formation, or carved, not evidence of giants. Granite is an igneous rock. It doesn't form from mud. If it is a footprint of a giant, he would have had to have walked through magma.

Seen this before on here
The statement that the individual would have had to have walked on magma is just silly
What if the print is a cast of a print that was originally a footprint from mud, then another sediment filled the print, the mud was washed away and magma made that cast from the secondary sediment
To suggest its just a natural formation is denying the obvious to me.

I would like to know when it was first discovered, i am sure the youtube video maker was not the discoverer. How long have people known about it, did the locals know about it before it hit the msm

Here seems to be another giant print, they say a yeti or something, looks very human to me
greaterancestors.com...

Its an amazing discovery and is in South Africa i am sure

Yeah this has been known about for some time now but since it is a one-of-a-kind it has been dismissed and relegated to the fringe paranormal sights...

Personally I think it might just be authentic and very cool...

Nvm.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: skunkape23
I would say it is a really cool natural formation, or carved, not evidence of giants. Granite is an igneous rock. It doesn't form from mud. If it is a footprint of a giant, he would have had to have walked through magma.

Seen this before on here
The statement that the individual would have had to have walked on magma is just silly
What if the print is a cast of a print that was originally a footprint from mud, then another sediment filled the print, the mud was washed away and magma made that cast from the secondary sediment
To suggest its just a natural formation is denying the obvious to me.

Its an amazing discovery and is in South Africa i am sure

That is a stretch, but it could be possible. I am not a professional geologist.

originally posted by: skunkape23

That is a stretch, but it could be possible. I am not a professional geologist.

I think evolution is a stretch
yet many dont even question it anymore

All it takes is just two simple sedimentary layer castings, then a magma flow.
Over time, I dont think thats a stretch

But many think its natural or faked and thats fine by me.

Yo, but it's a foot-print . . . wtf?

That showed up a while ago, thoroughly debunked as noted by the posters above. This one is just to silly to really spend any time on.

It's a rock carved by water. Each of the "toes" was where a small rock was stuck in a divot and kept rolling around, carving out a hole. This formation just happened to have several of those holes near each other until the walls separating them was ground away as well.

Interesting replies. I didn't realize this was posted a couple of years ago. I must have missed it then or would have been interested in the thread.

is it real? who knows, but I don't see why people think it would be impossible to step into magma if this was indeed a giant of that size alive at that time what makes you think he wasn't tough as hell?.

at such a massive size and probably very resistant feet I would imagine for a giant it would be like stepping in hot water, but of course we have no proof of giants or any idea how it would affect them and how strong their body might be.

very interesting anyway!

What's the estimate on the height of the giant? If it's human footprint I'm guessing around 26ft tall!