Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

Originally posted by Hanslune
Welll....

That guy spoils the presentation by saying the stone is granite

Granite is igneous rock - lava. So nobody was stepping in while it was hot.

Presuming this guy was clueless and it isn't granite - it looked more like a sedimentary rock to me - which is more plausible......however it look more like a random erosion effect.

Who is to say that the giant wasn't standing in hot lava?
Or even trying to RUN from it and got his ass BBQ'd in the process.
Animals would have taken off with his cooked body parts (especially birds) and this is what is left.
Too many religions support giant people among with mythologies to ignore the possibility!

reply to post by Risqman
Thats why i said this a few pages back...

Just curious,this giant footprint,if thats what it is,what kind of substance or stone is it imprinted into? was it made by stepping into cooling down but still very hot volcanic magma? thats what it looks like to me.That would really hurt and even giants would avoid stepping into molten rock,unless they were surrounded by lava while trying to escape the pyroclastic flows from a nearby erupting volcano, perhaps one of the ways they were eliminated from the earth?...

And whos to say what kind of pain tolerance giant humans had way back then? and i read that this foot print is 4 times as big as an average sized humans and the giant would have been about 24ft tall.Well it looks more like 5 or 6 times as big to me,which would make the supposed giant about 36ft tall,not 24...

reply to post by Risqman


"The guy" - Michael Tellinger is also an author, so I'm presuming he knows the difference between a sedimentary or granite rock formation.

This footprint was found in 1912 so it's a bit off to say this could have been faked. Why would someone have done this in such a remote area, without trying to drum up some publiciity? Would they have had the tools in 1912 to have carved it in the stone in anycase?

I'm inclined to think that there are only a couple of realistic explanations - either this is naturally formed and coincidentally resembles a footprint or it's real.

The only other explanation is this was faked in ancient times by a means we don't understand.

There are a few scientists putting forth the notion that ancient civilisations could make stone concrete and then mold it as they wanted, or that in some way they knew how to soften stone to mold and carve it. It's a controversial theory but the more I research ancient artifacts, the more I'm inclined to agree.

This could explain how a Giant's footprint was imbeded in Granite if indeed it's real or an ancient fake.

I posted this on another thread in the last few days - Ancient Stone Technology

Making Cement from Plant Extracts - Geopolymer Institute

Originally posted by Risqman

Who is to say that the giant wasn't standing in hot lava?

Reality - go step in lava and see if you leave a nice footprint

Too many religions support giant people among with mythologies to ignore the possibility!

Religions make up and support lots of silly stuff - doesn't mean it true; they also have myths about talking animals.....etc

reply to post by Hanslune
This supposed giant wouldnt make a footprint by stepping into molten lava,for one thing it would melt the foot right off and even if the giant could put its foot into the lava and pull it out,there still would be no footprint because the lava would fill the space in right away...

The giant would have and could have stepped into "cooling down" lava that was beginning to solidify,but still hot, thats how a footprint could have been made and preserved...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Hanslune

 

This supposed giant wouldnt make a footprint by stepping into molten lava,for one thing it would melt the foot right off and even if the giant could put its foot into the lava and pull it out,there still would be no footprint because the lava would fill the space in right away...

The giant would have and could have stepped into "cooling down" lava that was beginning to solidify,but still hot, thats how a footprint could have been made and preserved...

edit on 15-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

lol, well if he timed it just right when it wasn't completely solidified - but solidified enough where it wouldn't refill then he could do it.........but just thinking about THAT scenario is hilarious - I can see a long line of giants puting their feet in lava and yelling out to the next in line

#1 giant 'still not solid enough, aaarrrrrhhhhhh'

#2 giant, damn still not solid enough, yahhoooow'

etc

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Hanslune

 

This supposed giant wouldnt make a footprint by stepping into molten lava,for one thing it would melt the foot right off and even if the giant could put its foot into the lava and pull it out,there still would be no footprint because the lava would fill the space in right away...

The giant would have and could have stepped into "cooling down" lava that was beginning to solidify,but still hot, thats how a footprint could have been made and preserved...

edit on 15-1-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

That sounds a bit like creationist logic you are using there

Originally posted by wmd_2008

That sounds a bit like creationist logic you are using there

It does leave a tinge of that scent doesn't it!?

reply to post by blocula


what happens if the giants foot was wet from wading across a river or something maybe it was raining that day,I watched one of the mythbusters Adam Savage I think it was plunge his wet fingers into molten lead and bring them out unscathed maybe wet foot in cooling lava would be ok maybe a bit sore but survivable,there are just too many unknows there are known knowns like the footprint is there for all to see and unknown knowns like maybe he was being chased by some hungry larger than himself predator and the only escape was across hot lava I guess it will remain a mystery until his skeleton turns up someday

Originally posted by cookiemonster32
reply to post by blocula

 

what happens if the giants foot was wet from wading across a river or something maybe it was raining that day,I watched one of the mythbusters Adam Savage I think it was plunge his wet fingers into molten lead and bring them out unscathed maybe wet foot in cooling lava would be ok maybe a bit sore but survivable,there are just too many unknows there are known knowns like the footprint is there for all to see and unknown knowns like maybe he was being chased by some hungry larger than himself predator and the only escape was across hot lava I guess it will remain a mystery until his skeleton turns up someday

Tell you what why don't you demostrate that to us lead is molten at 328 c lava somewhere between 700 -1200 c!

reply to post by wavemaker


I dont get it.. Granite is a rock formed in lava... So how can it have any fossils in it...?

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by wavemaker

 

I dont get it.. Granite is a rock formed in lava... So how can it have any fossils in it...?

Well the bible readers dont need that they just refer to giants mentioned in the book of fairy tales and thats the answer

updated video:



I will say first off that I am .. well disgusted actually.. that something so obviously not a giant's footprint is being presented as one. OK so they genuinely believe that it is, but I expected more from them. Micheal Tellinger, Klaus Dona and even James Hurtak have been mentioned as supporting it [although the last one is hearsay from the vid and cannot be confirmed so.. if he doesn't support it then hooray, one less alternative researcher that I have to lose all respect for].

I am not saying, I repeat not saying that giants did not exist. Homo floresiensis for example, a species found on the island of Flores is an insular dwarf and only measured a meter [3 feet] tall. Although there is no evidence to support the rumours of a race of giants which were reportedly 7-9 feet tall living in the Americas, it is not out of the question.

Homo heidelbergensis [700, 000 - 200, 000 years ago] was on average 6 feet tall and very muscular. And Homo neanderthalensis was bigger in girth to Homo sapiens, with big chests and very muscular frames but were only about 5'5" on average. Since the last ice age Homo sapiens have shrunk by about 10% as well, overall, in brain and skeleton size, due to climate and dietary change [there are other theories as well about why this occurred]. A population of people in which increased height was produced as a result of genetic drift or some other as yet unspecified selective agent is not at odds with the fossil record which proceeded it, and which is, mind you, totally solid. An average height of 7-9 feet as a supposition is what I am talking about.
However (and this isn't even the main reason why the giant footprint in Africa is obviously not a footprint).... this 'footprint' measures 1.2 meters tall. A foot is approx 15% the height of the body. This would make the owner of the foot 8 meters [26 feet] tall. A 9 foot hominin would have a 40cm foot.

An 8 meter [26 foot] hominin is just, quite obviously, out of the question [as in there is no possibility that the evolutionary lines of hominins created this kind of specimen, it is just not possible by a billion laws of f*ck off if you can't see that, I'm not going to waste my time exf*ckingplaining it to you]. However, if you want to just entertain for a minute that this kind of humanoid does in fact exist somewhere in the universe [which is not impossible, I suppose] and came down for some kind of visit then there is an even better reason why if they DID leave footprints, this example in Africa is not one of them.

Because of the NATURE of granite.

"Granite is formed when magma (molten rock) is forced between other rocks in the Earth's crust. It cools and crystallizes deep underground. As it cools slowly large crystals are formed. Granites often form large intrusions in the core of mountain ranges, and they are usually surrounded by zones of metamorphic rock (rock that has been altered by heat or pressure)."
encyclopedia.farlex.com...

The magma, would have been .. like.. 1000 degrees. It would have been under ground. And not in a cave type of underground - a covered by hundreds of meters and tons of rock type of underground. i.e. nothing is going to be walking on it. And the viscosity of it would not be such that it could form footprints by the action of a foot shaped thing pressing into it then being removed. Footprints are formed in mud or clay or ash, like the Laetoli footprints were formed. They are 3.6 million years old and are thought to be of Australopithecus Africanus.

humanorigins.si.edu...

Biological lifeforms are not going to be leaving footprints in granite. No matter how much you believe in giants. No matter how much giants may or may not have occurred on the Earth. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. What it has to do with is the facts. about the nature of granite. And the laws of how maths works in the universe: the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct. And yes there is also the counter argument that only the actual explanation is the correct one... however, when a thing can't exist due to this many laws of how things function in this Earth, in this galaxy, in this reality: it's not the explanation. Quite simply, sometimes it's not what you think it is and that's alright. It doesn't destroy your amazing understanding of the awesome universe, nor does it make all those extraerthly things untrue.. but believing things which are not REAL .. not paying attention to evidence... or how things really are - it's just not f*cking kosher business. The most important thing is THE TRUTH, no matter WHAT it is - even if its f*cking the most boring thing you've ever f*cking heard [like plain old erosion] or embarrassing [like thinking erosion is a giant's footprint].

[continued next post]

What I am seeing from this formation and the people perpetuating it as a giant's footprint... Seriously... It's delusion. religious delusion. And I can have no respect for the people who don't see it for what it is. I really can't. None of those people's work can be trusted because it is undermined by a mind, which they hold, that is so obviously flawed. When delusion is this obvious. f*ck ing hell. It's f*cking awesome. I AM awed. By the human delusion before me.


The rock this footprint shaped indentation has formed in was once horizontal and rainwater pooling has formed the shape. The extrusion inbetween other rocks which were potentially softer and have now weathered away could have caused the shape above the toes... or wind erosion... or more water erosion.. lots of natural explanations really, because realistically, only natural erosive processes are available to explain it IN REALITY. "Granite contains many minerals, including feldspar. When acid reacts with feldspar, it can produce kaolin. Normal rainfall is naturally acidic, and water that percolates through the soil also picks up organic acids that help to dissolve the granite." [ref: encyclopedia.farlex.com... ]The rainwater pooling made the footprint shape.

I am actually quite shocked that just because this LOOKS like a footprint, these researchers [I don't know if I can still call them that actually] are willing to discard the basic laws of science. of rational thought. Of looking at the evidence and understanding what is and is not possible. It doesn't MEAN that giants did not exist. it just means that this is NOT evidence for them. For some reason they can't seem to separate these two things. If this footprint was in a substance that could realistically have ACTUALLY been walked in by a biological entity of that or of ANY size, it would not be such a closed case. AND if this footprint actually had the correct geometry for a footprint may I add too. Because it doesn't. You can also see inside the 'big toe' the geometry is not correct and the toe next to the big toe is the wrong proportion as well, then there's the geometric inconsistency pointed out by Claus in the footage. And that's just for starters because you can only see so much on film.
The most surprising thing about this case is the fact that it isn't even a hard one. I mean some things really are a mystery when you look at the evidence. but this one isn't even in the vicinity of mysterious. What is REALLY mysterious is why fully grown men and women are willing to believe it. Are so easily convinced of it. THAT is the real mystery here. Contrary to what it OBVIOUSLY is [rock erosion in the delightful shape of a foot] they see otherwise. Contrary to what, in reality, it is. Even though it's not difficult to see without a shadow of a doubt that it's not a preserved giant's footprint. It's not even a hard one. I am amazed by this case, but not by the footprint. And I wonder, seriously. What is wrong with these people that they cannot see things as they ARE? wtF.

lol omg still not finished:

Here is a picture of the formation from google maps:

hmmm sorry couldn't get the google link to work but you can find it by searching for Mpuluzi.
This was the picture I wanted to link to:

www.panoramio.com...

The patterns of erosion on the rest of the formation can be seen to be of the same kind as the footprint: depressions, overhangs, ridges.
So this guy that Micheal speaks of:

"Pieter Wagener from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth SA, and a PhD in applied maths, suggests that "there is a higher probability of little green men arriving from space and licking it out with their tongues, than it being created by natural erosion". www.ufodigest.com...

is basing this judgement about erosion not on the basis of the fact that erosion of this kind is occurring in this formation. Because clearly it is. of the same kind. depressions, overhangs, ridges. Because if he says that this formation could not have occurred by natural erosion then does he also say that the rest of the erosion in this formation must have occurred by unnatural means as well? what from? the giants ass [omg can you see the cellulite ripples!!!???] after he fell over? plus his dog and some bits of sh*t that fell out his pocket? There is nothing different about the foot erosion as opposed to the other erosion forms here.

So what exactly then does he mean by the statement that this formation alone could not have been formed by natural erosion?

Perhaps he is basing his on the judgement that the formation looks so fantastically like a foot that it could not possibly have occurred by chance? If that is the case, that is clearly not true. Of course it could have. easily. it's not that hard. And perfectly within the probability of occurrence. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell within it.
If this is the case then his statement that it could not have occurred by natural erosion is based purely on the decision that this looks like a foot. just because it looks like a foot print. not on any actual evidence.

If you stand in a room and flip a coin enough times, it will come out ten heads in a row. I watched a Derren brown episode once where he demonstrated that quite nicely. This is the erosion equivalent of ten heads in a row. That's all.

It doesn't even mean that you have to stand there that long, it is just as likely to occur in the first ten throws as any other position of ten as well, because each throw is independent of every other throw. There is a common misconception, a heuristic error that people have which suckers them into losing at roulette and other assorted gambling games, where they think that if there has been 4 heads in a row the chances of getting a tail for the 5th flip is greater than getting a head. This is incorrect. The chances of getting a head or a tail are exactly 50/50 no matter what came before it. This heuristic error is a particularly powerful one.


*Just because a person has a Ph.D in applied mathematics does not mean person knows anything about geology. Nor does it mean they are free of delusion.

This seems to corroborate the countless myths, legends and lore from all over the globe, crossing different faiths and cultures that claim giants once walked the earth. Amazing.

Haha perhaps it was one of the first yetti's . Who knows. Its kind of a sketchy topic because no one knows for sure exactly how old it is and how it was shaped. My judgement is reserved on this one. I will sit back and see what happens =p

reply to post by wavemaker


www.phils.com.au...
these people were described by boriska the russian starchild as up to 9 meters in height!
This civilisation allegedly inhabited earth alongside The Atlantean race, 700-800 000 years ago

reply to post by wavemaker


Thats pretty cool, good find.