Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

I have just read through ALL the posts in this thread. Some are very interesting and some go way off the path about this subject. Here is my take on this.

I have a lifelong interest in geology and geography. I have educated myself on the different types of stone and where it's found. As mentioned before 'granite' is a term used my most people to describe a hard stone. There are many gradations in that term though. It's hard to say what exactly what type of stone the footprint is residing in without close examination.

I learned to carve stone 20 years ago. I know what it takes with modern tools to do something like this. However that's not where I want to go. We know that man has existed on the African continent since the beginning of our species. I know some may argue that point but that's immaterial. I think there is a simple plausible explanation for this artifact. I think that a formation was exposed or created naturally eons ago that resembled a foot. Not as we see it today but close. Man has since left his mark on it by working with stone tools to make it look more like a foot they knew, they're own. It's amazing what can be accomplished with primitive tools to create things from stone. All they needed was a hard stone to pound on the naturally occurring shape to make it into what it is today. People that lived in that area had the time to do just such a thing. It's natural for man/mankind to create art. This is what I believe happened here.

I of course may be wrong but this is what I think happened. Nothing I've seen in this thread makes me think differently. I can however change my mind if a better explanation is put forth.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Do I really have to have Robert exhumed ?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.

I would think you know that.

reply to post by DGF476


I think what you suggest would be a tall order and not leave behind any eveidence of the poundings.

Not impossible but not likely either.

Originally posted by randyvs

This is truely an amazing find. People that don't believe the Bible have got another thing to find out someday.
The Bible says Goliath and Og were giants. How can anyone be so stupid to say the Bible isa full of crap.
We have giants around even today. Robert Wadlow was A GIANT. Suffering frrom Gigantism. Whats so unbelievable ? Peoples prejudice me thinkst.

There is (was) a whole stadium of Giants in New York

reply to post by randyvs


The poundings could have been minimal depending on the original shape. The poundings also would be of a fine material. Have you ever pounded a rock against another for any length of time? You do not get big shards you get sandy powdery stuff which would blow away easily atop a hill. Or could be strewn down the slope.

reply to post by Essan


And San Francisco too my friend. But you know what they say, " Don't drop your keys in San Francisco " !

DGF
You're right about that for sure and I have done a lot of pounding rocks together as a kid. The stone always chips very unprecisely as I remember. That is more my point. You don't see the chipping here.

I admit this is hard to put forward whole haertedly as any kind of evidence for giants. Tho very close to the dimensions called for wouldn't the stone have to have been very hot for this to happen ?

reply to post by randyvs


No you won't see chipping in that type of work. Think about it. You are pounding a rock inside a relief. You are not pounding on edges where you will get shards. You are pounding on a smoother surface inside. No shards. Try it. I know this to be a fact.

I know I'm just postulating on this but I think the shape was more or less there to begin with. Man just improved upon it as he saw fit. May have been minimal and that would explain the lack of piles of debris you think should be there.

reply to post by DGF476



Well I'm gonna take your word for it. I was wondering if this stone would have to have been very hot/melted for this to happen ? Seems to me. Making it very unlikely for someone even a dumbass giant to step in. You know ?

But then giants are known not to have the best vision either,

reply to post by randyvs


No not hot or melted. Erosion. Wind and water do amazing things to stone. We're talking millions if not billions of years to do the job.

I will find out more of the geology of that area to understand better what may have occurred. Some nice upclose pictures would be of much help. Then we could see the marks if any on the inside surface to help our understanding of this.

i have a really really old rock that looks just like a malformed skull. however, it's just a rock that probably sat in a riverbed.

it's like seeing jesus in your toast.

it looks like a footprint but that doesn't mean it's a footprint.

reply to post by DGF476


Even massive rock such as Granite has tell tale indicators to give a hint as to it's identity. In this case if you look at the rock as he approaches you will see classic indications it is first Igneous and second either Granite or Basalt. You will notice the dome topped remnants of weathering or pillows / pillowing. Even though cleavage and fracture in massive rock is not as clear, it's still a good indicator.

You are correct about that being over simplified in that there are many iterations of Granite and Basalt.

One thing that I think you can say with confidence is that the rock is not Sedimentary, therefore that cannot be a footprint. It's simply not possible in Igneous rock just as it is impossible that is Sedimentary rock.

The general shape is also very normal weathering and the footprint shape is random chance. It appears to me it may have had a river running over it at one time. There is actually no need for human intervention for that kind of weathering to occur. You see shapes like that in Granite exposed to eddies and waterfalls. The swirls in the water cause the shapes. Water is a very powerful erosive force. It is slowly flattening the surface of the entire Earth.

reply to post by DGF476


Yep Some close ups would go far indeed I agree and hope you come back with something.
The only way this could be confirmed as a footprint is thru dermaridges and that isn't likely with age.
God I love ATS.

Perhaps these creatures built the pyramids etc????
the question is, where did they all go?
perhaps they left earth on spaceships millions of years ago?
very interesting, but as always, raises more questions than answers.

reply to post by Blaine91555


I can't argue with anything you've said. The only thing I could add is I think that man may have helped it become what it is today. It's a natural inclination of ours (mankind) to make or 'improve' on things.

reply to post by Corrupted Data


Perhaps God turn them to stone ? My point is with God in the picture no one can say anything for sure and that isn't a joke.

Huffington Post posted a photo the other day of the North Koren Army procession at Kim Jong II's funeral and there's an extremely tall person shown on the photo.

North Korea's Giant Man Spotted At Kim Jong Il Funeral Procession

This man could have been Ri Myung Hun, who is one of the world's tallest men at 2.75m

Ri Myung Hun

Originally posted by gunshooter

Originally posted by Equidae

Originally posted by gunshooter

Originally posted by Tybrus
I dont know why I do this to myself. I start to read a thread like this and 3 pages in I regret it. Im so sick and tired of you people constantly calling hoax without putting forth any real legitimate argument other than opinion. Someone has presented something that should be discussed in a constructive manner, not entirely dismissed.

For now on Im simply looking at the initial post only. Id rather look at something and have an open mind myself than to have it slammed shut by others.

Geesh

couldnt agree with you more. I believe people should be skeptical, but most on here are ridiculous and start dismissing things right away with their own personal beliefs, instead of searching for all the facts they can find to make an educated answer. The crowd who is so closed minded that they would rather dismiss this sort of thing immediately than have their reality possibly crushed..

It's not skepticism to point out that granite is formed miles underground my cooling lava, which makes the idea of a giant stomping around leaving footprints in it unlikely at best.. That's common sense.

common sense if you don't keep an open mind and think outside the box, but since you know all the mysteries of the world, I guess nothing gets past you then does it?

Again: granite forms miles underground from cooling magma. It solidifies long before it ever reaches the earth's crust. A footprint would only be plausible from sedimentary rock, or basalt (which is formed from cooling lava on the surface of the Earth.) So unless a population of giant hominids inexplicably existed 200 million years ago, and had magic vehicles that cut through dense rock, survived the crippling heat and pressure, and could also swim through magma plumes then common sense would dictate this is a hoax. Similarly, unless giant hominids had Wolverine skeletons and penchants for kicking granite blocks then, again, common sense would dictate this is a hoax.

I never claimed to have all the answers, but I do possess a little bit of critical thinking which quickly shows the implausibility of what the original poster claimed.

Again: granite forms miles underground from cooling magma. It solidifies long before it ever reaches the earth's crust. A footprint would only be plausible from sedimentary rock, or basalt (which is formed from cooling lava on the surface of the Earth.) So unless a population of giant hominids inexplicably existed 200 million years ago, and had magic vehicles that cut through dense rock, survived the crippling heat and pressure, and could also swim through magma plumes then common sense would dictate this is a hoax. Similarly, unless giant hominids had Wolverine skeletons and penchants for kicking granite blocks then, again, common sense would dictate this is a hoax.

reply to post by Equidae


I knew you were capable of a decent post. STAAAR !
Exactly my uneducated point.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

My whole point is giants aren't that unbelievable when it's obvious they do exist. Everyone say it with me, giants do exist..

Credit the Bible.

edit on 9-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Equidae

And yet it remains the best rendition of how life and existence came to be to this very day. Unless you have a better one. You forgot to ridicule it for talking about giants in fairytales.

edit on 9-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

No it doesn't, and not by a longshot. Nobody has ever reached that conclusion independently. People only claim the Bible is the answer for anything scientific when they start out wanting to prove the Bible as accurate. Nobody independently decides to research all the alternatives, and ends up at The Bible. The Genesis tale, while a beautiful piece of literature, would require God to be completely unaware at how he engineered his own creation to work. The Genesis tale IS a masterful example at how someone with a Bronze Age understanding of the universe would expect it to be engineered.

I do have a better rendition: it's called science. Science requires all theories to be falsifiable, and in order for them to be such they must offer proof. The only proof The Bible (or any religious text) offers is itself.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Corrupted Data

 

Perhaps God turn them to stone ? My point is with God in the picture no one can say anything for sure and that isn't a joke.

edit on 9-1-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Except that god is the joke!!