How could anything leave a footprint in intrusive igneous rock (which is hot rock, deposited and cooled deep underground)? Especially a felsic rock that partially crystallizes due to heat (cooling magma) and pressure (from being deep underground)? Because that's what granite is. That's basic geology.
It's like a potato chip that happens to look like Elvis.
Oh come on, think outside the box for a sec. We have had high tech CIVs disappear in the past, and we are find things that date past millions of years ago. What happened back then that would cause huge extinction events in the past? If you read into the sand scripts from India, they calm we have had 6 type events, that wiped out the CIVs of each Era of time.
I seen some wild stuff, so who is to say we didn't have giants on this planet in the past?
I do, just not when it's related to... Erm... That kind of people. Totally debatable what I mean with that.
And extinction events?
That 200 million year sis in the range of the Permian Triassic extinction. 90% of marine life and 60% of terrestrial life was killed off... I think. I should have been in bed 2 hours ago and brain is kinda dead at the moment.
Main culprit is indicated to be change in sea levels, atmosphere going haywire the usual stuff, no?
And nothing to say against giants not existing. Except maybe that the planet most likely never could have supported such a thing. (biologically speaking)
For instance the bugs back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth were bigger because the oxygen level was higher.
And then we got gravity... Can't upscale things left and right.
If that print really did belong to a giant then man was that a sickly giant. The leg would have to have been huge. Or simply the feet was really really big. *wink wink* You know what they say. Men with huge feet got... Some kind of genetic disorder.
A. Person who photoshopped giant skeletons, then claimed they fell out of the airplane being shipped out of Ecuador and were lost
B. Person who's already been caught creating fake footprints
C. Footprint showing all the classic signs of B's past fakes (tool marks, no extrusion of material forced out of the cavity, no sign of bone structure or support in the foot) in a rock that could only have picked up footprints if the subject had been walking in molten lava.
Oh come on, think outside the box for a sec. We have had high tech CIVs disappear in the past, and we are find things that date past millions of years ago. What happened back then that would cause huge extinction events in the past? If you read into the sand scripts from India, they calm we have had 6 type events, that wiped out the CIVs of each Era of time.
I seen some wild stuff, so who is to say we didn't have giants on this planet in the past?
Am I expected to believe that extraterrestrials who may have had a hand in helping along evolution could step on molten rock (while it is still cooling in the bowels of the Earth) to leave a footprint? And that those same aliens didn't believe in footware for such hazardous conditions, and somehow had foot structures very very simliar to homo-sapiens?
Yes we all know about the fakes out there, and when we come across things like this, people say it's just another fake. Well maybe it it or maybe it isn't. Fact is it needs to be examined and tested, then you can label it as fake or not. But from what I can see it looks like a huge foot print, and it's set in granite. Acording to these two fellows. But since I am not there I can't say that is is or isn't.
The only thing I can do is look to history, and see if there are other mentions about giants over time, and guess what there are. Would people make it up as a story, or did they find things like this foot print to put meat behind their stories?
Same can be said about dragons and any other life form of question. People chould have seen the bones of something, or things that look strange at the time, and poof you have your story of leagend.
Think about it like this, lets say your write about the time you live in, and you seen something odd, how would you write about it, and how would others say 1000 years from now view it in there time? Even if you have say a disaster type event, and people get covered over quickly, and no one knows what really happened to them. How would they get remember or be view say 1 million years from now? Where's the report, the records to say what happened? You have only bones and prints leave behind. And lets also say maybe the people in million year are small then they are today or even larger. What would they think about the findings of that sight?
This is what we are faced with today, and all we can do is piece together the puzzle the best we can. It's even harder now a days with people making fakes almost everywhere you go, so when you see something like this, you don't know what to make o it. Someplace in the middle of no where in South Africa. Now why would someone fake this? What's the point of it? These are question you have to ask, then test what you find for answers, then you can get a better picture.
Now who to say we did have gaints here in the past? Who do you know there wasn't any? AND, how do you know they did just up and leave? Just because we don't see a thing today, doesn't mean it was here before. :rolleyes:
(Seriously, I think it's something similar to the old 'Face of Mars' situation. you have a geological formaition that appears somewhat similar to a footprint - and if you really want top believe it;s a footprint your subconscious makes it apprear moreso like that to you.)
As other have stated - that rockface would have had to have been molten at the time an imnprint was made, so unless there were some sort of giant humanoid that could walk through and survive monten lava in the distant past...
That's very true too. The earth moves over time, and this formation could have shaped out to look like a foot. One problem I have with this one print, where are the others?
That's very true too. The earth moves over time, and this formation could have shaped out to look like a foot. One problem I have with this one print, where are the others?
"Unfortunately, this finger is not housed in a museum in Egypt. The researcher that took the pictures reportedly had to pay an old man from a grave robber dynasty 300 dollars to see it and take pictures of it."
Yes we all know about the fakes out there, and when we come across things like this, people say it's just another fake. Well maybe it it or maybe it isn't. Fact is it needs to be examined and tested, then you can label it as fake or not. But from what I can see it looks like a huge foot print, and it's set in granite. Acording to these two fellows. But since I am not there I can't say that is is or isn't.
Fact is, it has been. That's why this is a "revisit" and not a "discovery." When Tellinger first "found" it it was looked at by a handful of experts with the budget and time on their hands to humor a crackpot known for resorting to personal attacks when accused of lying, and while none of them went so far to say he made the same way he was caught red handed making human and dinosaur footprints in the same shale formation, they did find that it had all the same traits as the previous fakes.
Like I said: Tool marks, first off, should seal it. Especially in a region once populated by peoples known for stone carving. But if not, it makes the classic fake footprint mistakes of making it appear that weight is evenly spread across every part of the foot. This is something not seen in any non-hoofed animal - you rarely get a fully formed footprint, but even when you do, you don't get a clean image of the foot because the points of greater pressure sink in farther - feet are designed to deform to carry weight, not to plop down flat. The footprint also has no rim, despite being over six inches deep. The material forced out of a footprint goes somewhere. But in this one, the material forced out simply disappeared.
Then of course there's the minor problem that it would have been created in molten lava that was encased inside of solid rock.
Tellinger claims he's been dismissed by legitimate science. He's right, but what he leaves out is that scientists don't dismiss anything out of hand. They dismiss things with a lot of very pedantic and very wordy rebuttal. Alan Wakefield is another classic "martyr of science," but his "out of hand dismissal" came in the form of so many rebuttals that the medical journal he'd published in had to print the following volume in three sections.
Only when he brought fellow forger Klaus Dona, suspected perpetrator of the photoshopped giant skeletons of Ecuador, did somebody even consider it was real, and even Dona wasn't convinced enough but told him to consult a geologist... which he's already done.
Comments
It's like a potato chip that happens to look like Elvis.
That explains everything! Seriously... It does explain it all.
I seen some wild stuff, so who is to say we didn't have giants on this planet in the past?
And extinction events?
That 200 million year sis in the range of the Permian Triassic extinction. 90% of marine life and 60% of terrestrial life was killed off... I think. I should have been in bed 2 hours ago and brain is kinda dead at the moment.
Main culprit is indicated to be change in sea levels, atmosphere going haywire the usual stuff, no?
And nothing to say against giants not existing. Except maybe that the planet most likely never could have supported such a thing. (biologically speaking)
For instance the bugs back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth were bigger because the oxygen level was higher.
And then we got gravity... Can't upscale things left and right.
If that print really did belong to a giant then man was that a sickly giant. The leg would have to have been huge. Or simply the feet was really really big. *wink wink* You know what they say. Men with huge feet got... Some kind of genetic disorder.
A. Person who photoshopped giant skeletons, then claimed they fell out of the airplane being shipped out of Ecuador and were lost
B. Person who's already been caught creating fake footprints
C. Footprint showing all the classic signs of B's past fakes (tool marks, no extrusion of material forced out of the cavity, no sign of bone structure or support in the foot) in a rock that could only have picked up footprints if the subject had been walking in molten lava.
Yep, sounds legit.
Also, there's rainbows in my sprinkler.
That's a lot of qualifiers.
The only thing I can do is look to history, and see if there are other mentions about giants over time, and guess what there are. Would people make it up as a story, or did they find things like this foot print to put meat behind their stories?
Same can be said about dragons and any other life form of question. People chould have seen the bones of something, or things that look strange at the time, and poof you have your story of leagend.
Think about it like this, lets say your write about the time you live in, and you seen something odd, how would you write about it, and how would others say 1000 years from now view it in there time? Even if you have say a disaster type event, and people get covered over quickly, and no one knows what really happened to them. How would they get remember or be view say 1 million years from now? Where's the report, the records to say what happened? You have only bones and prints leave behind. And lets also say maybe the people in million year are small then they are today or even larger. What would they think about the findings of that sight?
This is what we are faced with today, and all we can do is piece together the puzzle the best we can. It's even harder now a days with people making fakes almost everywhere you go, so when you see something like this, you don't know what to make o it. Someplace in the middle of no where in South Africa. Now why would someone fake this? What's the point of it? These are question you have to ask, then test what you find for answers, then you can get a better picture.
Now who to say we did have gaints here in the past? Who do you know there wasn't any? AND, how do you know they did just up and leave? Just because we don't see a thing today, doesn't mean it was here before. :rolleyes:
At least they didn't see an image of Jesus.
(Seriously, I think it's something similar to the old 'Face of Mars' situation. you have a geological formaition that appears somewhat similar to a footprint - and if you really want top believe it;s a footprint your subconscious makes it apprear moreso like that to you.)
As other have stated - that rockface would have had to have been molten at the time an imnprint was made, so unless there were some sort of giant humanoid that could walk through and survive monten lava in the distant past...
Oh BTw here another cool item.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ_Nq0OowaE
http://s3.amazonaws.com/readers/2008/12/14/pb170069_1.jpg
"Unfortunately, this finger is not housed in a museum in Egypt. The researcher that took the pictures reportedly had to pay an old man from a grave robber dynasty 300 dollars to see it and take pictures of it."
http://www.weirdworldnews.org/2012/03/13/finger-of-a-giant-found-in-egypt
He paid "an old man" $300 just to see it?... Sounds like BS.
Fact is, it has been. That's why this is a "revisit" and not a "discovery." When Tellinger first "found" it it was looked at by a handful of experts with the budget and time on their hands to humor a crackpot known for resorting to personal attacks when accused of lying, and while none of them went so far to say he made the same way he was caught red handed making human and dinosaur footprints in the same shale formation, they did find that it had all the same traits as the previous fakes.
Like I said: Tool marks, first off, should seal it. Especially in a region once populated by peoples known for stone carving. But if not, it makes the classic fake footprint mistakes of making it appear that weight is evenly spread across every part of the foot. This is something not seen in any non-hoofed animal - you rarely get a fully formed footprint, but even when you do, you don't get a clean image of the foot because the points of greater pressure sink in farther - feet are designed to deform to carry weight, not to plop down flat. The footprint also has no rim, despite being over six inches deep. The material forced out of a footprint goes somewhere. But in this one, the material forced out simply disappeared.
Then of course there's the minor problem that it would have been created in molten lava that was encased inside of solid rock.
Tellinger claims he's been dismissed by legitimate science. He's right, but what he leaves out is that scientists don't dismiss anything out of hand. They dismiss things with a lot of very pedantic and very wordy rebuttal. Alan Wakefield is another classic "martyr of science," but his "out of hand dismissal" came in the form of so many rebuttals that the medical journal he'd published in had to print the following volume in three sections.
Only when he brought fellow forger Klaus Dona, suspected perpetrator of the photoshopped giant skeletons of Ecuador, did somebody even consider it was real, and even Dona wasn't convinced enough but told him to consult a geologist... which he's already done.