Giant Footprint - 200 Million Years Old

reply to post by Kemal


I've read into several religions and all of them have giants: A verse that I remember from King James Bible says, "They looked upon us as though we were grasshoppers and we were unto them grasshoppers." The Norse, who worshiped Odin, had a prayer that mentioned Odin as the giant killer. I've read about a tribe of giants in Peru, South America, but very little was said, only that Peruvians government had made the area a no-fly zone. I forget where I read that.

why was a giant walking up a vertical surface or was he doing the worlds smallest abseil. take a look at the indentations on the rocks around the alleged foot print. i would put it down to natural erosion. if you think footprints are good you should see some of the amazing arches that erosion created

Yeah, it does look like a foot, but I am wondering why a foot print would be on the side of a wall of rock like that, rather than on the ground.

I am wondering if it is not more of an odd natural formation. Unless this creature was laying on it's back and put it's foot into what was then mud and it fossilized or unless this thing could walk up walls, I think it is just a natural formation due to erosion etc...

There are many odd rock formations that do look like other things but are completely natural.

That is just my humble thought on the matter. Not saying I am right. But it is my line of thinking on this one.

reply to post by da pickles

The dude in the video said the rock was pushed up through tectonic plate movement. I have seen a fault line where the ground has been pushed up on one side, so maybe a big rock could be turned on its side.
I don't know about the footprint and then theres that weird formation thing up to the left of it.

Barring all the "the print is vertical?" questions etc...

The first thing that stuck out to me is the "from 200 million to 3 billion years old" tag line.

That is almost the entire history of the Earth.

Not to mention at 3 billion years we were just seeing the first Prokaryotic Cyanobacteria being produced around 3.4 billion years (blue-green algae), and the fact that the EARLIEST date ever given for the formation of Eukaryotic cells is 3 billion years ago (the more accepted date is 1.4 billion years ago).

So the timeline can be narrowed down just based off of the evolution of the cells we know of in bacterial and cellular evolution.

Seriously, are scientists that actually know about the field of study they happen to be in, in that short of number?

Or do these people grab a camcorder and play arm-chair scientist on the weekend?

reply to post by wavemaker


Granite is a volcanic rock, unless I've forgotten my geology lessons in school... that'd be more than a trifle painful I should think.

Interesting, though...

Originally posted by OnceReturned
"What's fascinating about this is, anybody that does a study of this will notice this piece sticking out, here. It's like when you put your foot it mud, and you pull it out. Your toes will lift up a little mud where your toes were. And that's exactly what seems to have happened here: this rough granite is just - psshh - pulled up, this overhang here. It's spectacular."

Granite is made from magma when it cools, not mud. Unless the "giant" was walking on molten rock as it was cooling (>1000 degrees C), barefoot, this isn't a real footprint.

That rock doesn't look like a granite. It looks more like a hardened mud.

Ow ow ow, hot hot hot

@#*%$@#$% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

footprints in granite...hmmmm. seems the narrator also gives this hoax away again at 59 sec.s

"This should be drawing 20million people to South Africa"...

Cant fault a guy for wanting to boost his nations economy.

reply to post by Kemal


Same in the bible and torah

Now that's wild.

As far as regular people throughout history telling stories of giants walking the earth, I'm more apt to believe them than the scientists who are paid to do and say certain things depending on where their grant money comes from. I don't like biased information. It's usually wrong.

What reason would people have 5,000 years ago to lie about such things? Can't think of one.

What reason would scientists have now to lie about such things? Job security.

Besides which, if that's just a natural formation due to erosion, that's one hell of a coincidence. You gotta admit.

And as far as that rock being molten lava at the time, don't automatically assume that the foot of that giant had the same type of skin that we do now. Our skin has softened over time because it doesn't have to be as tough as it used to be. Look at aboriginies around the world. I'll bet you any kind of money that their skin is a lot tougher than ours simply because it has to be if they don't have footwear. Also don't automatically assume that the giant was native to this planet. That's kind of like assuming that aliens have the same basic body structure that we do. 2 arms....2 legs....etc... In the box thinking like that doesn't really get you anywhere.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by Kemal
Well in Islam it's also said that there once were giants on Earth.

Yeah, the Bible also states that there were giants so big that regular humans felt like grasshoppers in their sight.

Ah, so you read those fairytales?

What do we know about Michael Tellinger? Is this the Contributionist guy?

Is it not caused by a highly oxygenated atmosphere. The more oxygen in the atmosphere the larger things grow.

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.

Actually, I was thinking granite or basalt looking at the columnar faulting. Too heavy grained for sandstone and I don't think it's limestone.

And how'd he get that date, anyway?

To move a rock into that position would basically require the entire rock layers in that area to be turned perpendicular to the rest of the area (which simply doesn't happen without a lot of geological activity.)

If Once Returned post still isn't enough to convince you that this is not an actual footprint then the length vs the width should. Human feet are never that narrow especially in the plantar pad behind the toes.
I have seen similar "tracks" near rivers where a rock is caught in a small depression and the force of the water carves out small holes. It is also just as likely that there were weak spots in the granite that were removed by eons of erosion. You will notice that there are other holes in the rock that also have high edges (what he calls dragout). lI did search and rescue mantracking for years and I would bet anything this in not an actual track on any animal.

Walking on magma
Wasn't that a song?

Carbon dating is only reliable up until a certain point, and it has been proven that other methods of dating rocks can be hampered by other factors, such as climate amongst other things.

There is a story about a hammer found fossilised in rock, almost turned to coal, which pre-dated known human history, until they realised other factors can drastically change how things age.

Just saying............

reply to post by Hanslune


What if these giants were made from lava? Liquid "Mag" "Ma" lol totally fake. so im supposed to believe these giants walked horizontally up rocks? pretty sure ive seen a mountain side that kinda looked like donald duck from years of erosion in Ca or Az but that doesnt mean billions of years ago he was marching around at about 60 ft tall hmm or does it

Perhaps a High School Earth Science level class in the basic properties of rock and weathering are in order for the fellow in the video Thanks for the laugh.

reply to post by wavemaker


Some stone mason thousands of years back started cutting and said to his buddies....
"Man someday somebody's gonna crap when they see this."