Prehistoric footprints.

Hello fellow ATS members, I bring to you today a scientific article about our ancestors footprints.

U nderstanding our ancestors footprints.

Prehistoric ape-men, living some three and a half million years before the first anatomically modern humans, walked like us – according to remarkable new research, carried out at a UK university.

3.5 Million years ago is quite some time, and they were aperently a lot more like us than we thought originally. In order to add to the meat of this thread a little I pose a question. do you guys think this could be an explination for the so called OOPART footprints? Or could this be a coverup of some kind? I am a little sleepy and cant come up with a link on the footprints but I think most of you guys here know what Im talking about. The many examples of dino and human footprints or human footprints by themselves in stone.

If these ancestors were this much like us 3.5 million years ago who is to say that those footprints do not belong to them? The biggest problem with this thought and the footprints with the dinos is that they supposedly died out at least 65 million years ago. Long before that 3.5 million year mark.

And before anyone decides to reply, my opinion is up in the air. The way my mind works I am leaning towards this being a legit answer to oopart footprints.

a reply to: DeviantMortal

Well. the foot prints themselves when dated, reveal the age of the rock, not the foot that made them.

That should start a storm.

Compelling though, for our forebears to find prints walking up the side of stone. They had no clue what this meant.

link to images

Well there is always the, they are normal footprints from normal people and the rock dating, ash bed dating is wrong.
Scientists are not perfect and dating methods are poor at best

But hey, never question a scientist or their beliefs, it's a blasphemy

That is one thing I think is wrong with the science community, they should always be questioning one anothers research. And what ever happened to the word "theory: behind scientific? When I was in school everything had that word at the end of it. Even the now accepted Plate Tectonic Theory (spelling?) I personally think that most mainstream scientists have a massive ego and just because they had a result it vindicates what they believe.

a reply to: DeviantMortal
I don't believe 100% in evolution, well sure, living creatures can evolve some and when needed, but I don't think homo sapiens come from apes, I think we have been around for millions of years and they keep that from the main population, sometimes I feel like we are repeating history again, not history from 5000 years ago but millions of years ago, for what we know, there could of been a civilization a lot like us, technology, civilized, wars. (even though war wouldn't seem so civilized) and they were killed by war or a major catastrophe, or they even left.

a reply to: ware2010

Those are fantastic thought, I often find myself thinking about what it might have been like. To me these thoughts are fun because there is no proof that it did not happen, and some proof that it MAY have happened. Of coarse the proof that it might have happened might just be something that is not understood at this time and as infact not proof of anything at all. But to me it is still an entertaining thought.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
...dating methods are poor at best

Just which dating methods would those be?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I have not done a search to provde any links, but I have read several articles on the subject I will do my best to answer your question. If you date the footprint itself, your dating the rock and will come up with the wrong date because the rock should come up as older from the material it is made of. (I think.) If you date material IN the footproint, such as soil samples or plant matter you dont really know when that material was added to the footprint or if the material was already there when the footprint was made making that date while possibly accurate to the material, a moot point. So IMO, scientific dating using the methods I mentioned are simply VERY educated guesses.

a reply to: DeviantMortal

I remember one foot print, I think it was from the Paloxy Track's before that idiot took a crow bar to them to try to destroy them, when it was analysed it was shown that the foot print impression which appeared human was contiguous to the layer of strata it was pressed into, meaing it was the same age as the rock and made when it was still soft sediment or mud.

Further analysis done by the use of electron scanning microscopy showed that the footprint had apparently been made by something that walked JUST LIKE A HUMAN, the same pressure and compression patterns and the same displacement of what had once been mud had occured as would have if an approximately 11 stone human of about 6' tall had walked over that mud? (they studied the grain displacement and compression patterns after taking cross section's of the foot print).

It is a controversial subject and one that many paleatologists, archeaologists and many others would like to see go away, indeed someone took a crow bar to the exposed trackes in an attempt to destroy them for good.

The implications are that the dating techniques are wrong and the rock is much younger and that dinosaurs died out only a few thousand years ago OR that the human race is far, far older than the primates that standard evolutionary theory claim's it descended from and another is that there were other human's or humanoid biped's (with very human feet) before the human race, maybe even identical in what we can find which admitedly is not much and of course this research is hampered by a seeming cover up and professional disdain for the subject matter as well as an entrenched attitude that this is not to be reseearched by respected professional's with many that posit these now alternative but once mainstream theory's which do not agree with the Darwinian view of the human race or our history litterally having had there carreers wrecked.

www.ancient-code.com...
members.iimetro.com.au...

How about my favourite, a 285 million years old structure now buried extremely deep under north america in a coal mind discovered in 1928 and the mine then shut down, it was at the time the deepest coal mine in north america.
members.iimetro.com.au...

Then there are other story's I can remember but can not provide a link too but if you look around you may find them, one was about a coal mine in canada were they broke through into another mine while at great depth.
This other mine's coal (Which they had broken into) was oxidized and useless as if it had been exposed to the gas'/air in the mine tunnels for a very long time indeed, the other mine was not fully explored and was built in a strange fashion, it's mine bracing was made in a triangluar fashion so that the tunnels formed an upturned V shape with no horizontal roof supports, another was about another mine in the US were while clearing a clay deposit the story claimed they came accross a wooden ship entombed in the clay at great depth along with skeletal remain's and strange undecipherable writing like heiroglyph's.
There was also a story about a roman whom recorded a strange event as his party travelled, as they were walking along the Apenine road in italy there was an earthquake and some boulders fell onto the road, then out of the space they had made a petrified ship or boat slid down onto the road, Not sure but I think I read them in Charles Berlitze Atlantis many years ago when I was just a kid myself.

Interesting and question do not just accept the opinon of supposed expert's, how many time's have they been proven wrong in the past?.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I have seen some of what you posted before, but i will take the time later today to look them over. Different places might have different information :p. And I agree, always question scientific results. One just needs to look athe history of if eggs are healthy for you or not to know they change their minds a lot. Wich means they are wrong, a lot. But they seem to eventually get it right lol.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Dating methods?

Dating methods, what dating methods do you think, all of them?



What a silly question, just go read my post and apply a little common sense, you work it out, it's not very hard, I assure you

a reply to: Raggedyman

You can question it all you want, but when they use methods that are easily reproduced by other people, the claims get harder to question.

Why do you think the dating is wrong?
Oh you were already asked that ans dodged it...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Raggedyman

You can question it all you want, but when they use methods that are easily reproduced by other people, the claims get harder to question.

Why do you think the dating is wrong?
Oh you were already asked that ans dodged it...

Are you for real
Did you read the op, the part where human footprints were discovered in 3.5 million year old rocks.
Do you get it, can you apply reason to the issue at hand, the point of the whole

Can you see the simple problem that the op raised and you think you are going to argue with me

Tell me then sremm, what is the problem, 3.5 million year old humans or wrong rock dating, please, make your call, enlighten us all, argue with the issue, not me.

I just said I doubt 3.5 million year old humans and suggested dating rock issues, that means you think 3.5 million year old humans by default, that sounds a little foolis, actually very foolish by comparison

Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are...

a reply to: DeviantMortal

The article itself says it was australopithecines. They're an ape-looking hominid. They also had feet which would leave foot prints.

I don't quite understand what you're implying or trying to understand.

ETA: It is believed that the homo genus (specifically homo habilis) came from australopithecines. So the feet would likely be very similar.

a reply to: TerryDon79

They are thought to be our ancestors, and the footprints are identicle to ours. I was questioning if this could be an explination for some of the oopart footprints or not and curious as to what others here on ATS had to think about it.

a reply to: DeviantMortal

I didn't see where it said the foot prints were identical to ours.

ETA: Just read it again. The article says that it appears they walked like us. That does not mean they have the same foot print, but it does mean a similar walking pattern.

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
a reply to: TerryDon79
and the footprints are identicle to ours

And you know this... how, exactly?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did you read the op, the part where human footprints were discovered in 3.5 million year old rocks.

They were not human footprints.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did you read the op

I went one better: I read the article. And no, they were not human footprints.

originally posted by: DeviantMortal
That is one thing I think is wrong with the science community, they should always be questioning one anothers research. And what ever happened to the word "theory: behind scientific? When I was in school everything had that word at the end of it. Even the now accepted Plate Tectonic Theory (spelling?)

What leads you to think that the scientific community isn't questioning each others' research?

Also, nothing happened to the word theory in scientific terminology. It still has the same definition and exact same uses as when you were a kid.

I personally think that most mainstream scientists have a massive ego and just because they had a result it vindicates what they believe

I think you are letting biased media reporting distort your knowledge of how science works and is performed.