Giant foot print 200 million yrs. old found in South Africa

[Denis]

Michael Tellinger shows off what could be One of the best pieces of evidence that there were giants on Earth a long, long time ago. Geologists have marvelled at this giant foot print in rough granite, about 4 feet long. It is located in South Africa, near the town of Mpaluzi, close to the Swaziland border. It is estimated to be between 200 million and 3 Billion years old because of our current understanding of the formation of granites in Earth's history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw

Nephilim?

 

[Cosmos]

I've seen this footprint before in one of Klaus Donas presentations.
seeing it up close is quite interesting. I don't know if I buy into the explanation that tectonic movements caused it to be vertical on the Wall.
If it is a real footprint of a giant (wich I would give a high probabillity) then the question is how old is it really? why is it vertical on the wall? what creature made it ?etc..

the Cs have told us about the hight of Nephilims but this description doesn't fit into the size of this footprint. the creature must have been much bigger then the Nephilims (when the data from the C's is true).
also the bones that Klaus Dona discovered wich are 5 times bigger then of a normal human indicate for me that there must have been another race of giants who were even bigger then the Nephilim.

 

[Laura]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

 

[Thomas Alan]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

Probably so. If the rock is really granite it would have been very hot, molten when the giant stepped in it. Granite is an igneous rock formed in great heat. Likely, some ancients thought it looked like a foot, so carved it out to complete the effect.

Mac

 

[Cosmos]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

I didn't thought of that but it certainly could be the case. when you look at the left toe you can see a line that goes almost the whole way down. this left part of the "Foot Print " seems to be higher then the right part. I don't know if it is possible that a human like creature would leave such a footprint unless he had a deformed foot.

so it could be that the left part of the footprint existed in the rock as a natural formation and then someone decided to form the right site artificially to make it look like a foot print.

 

[Denis]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

I didn't thought of that but it certainly could be the case. when you look at the left toe you can see a line that goes almost the whole way down. this left part of the "Foot Print " seems to be higher then the right part. I don't know if it is possible that a human like creature would leave such a footprint unless he had a deformed foot.

so it could be that the left part of the footprint existed in the rock as a natural formation and then someone decided to form the right site artificially to make it look like a foot print.

Yup, but even if it IS a natural formation in the rock it's shape is definitely interesting (and vice versa of course)!

 

[Laura]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

Probably so. If the rock is really granite it would have been very hot, molten when the giant stepped in it. Granite is an igneous rock formed in great heat. Likely, some ancients thought it looked like a foot, so carved it out to complete the effect.

Mac

Exactly.

 

[Denis]

I won't say definitively that it is not a footprint, but it could easily be a natural formation that has been enhanced in the past.

Probably so. If the rock is really granite it would have been very hot, molten when the giant stepped in it. Granite is an igneous rock formed in great heat. Likely, some ancients thought it looked like a foot, so carved it out to complete the effect.

Mac

Euhm... according to what Tellinger says in the video, geologists estimate this footprint is between 200 million and 3 billion years old. These ancients (if they indeed carved it out to complete the effect) are then REALLY ancient!

 

[mkrnhr]

Geologists may date the rock to a few milions of years, not the the shape. He doesn't present the evidence of analysis of the surface showing that it has been done at the same time of the formation of the rock.

 

[Denis]

Geologists may date the rock to a few milions of years, not the the shape. He doesn't present the evidence of analysis of the surface showing that it has been done at the same time of the formation of the rock.

True, I haven't thought about that before. Hmm... I'll try to find some studies that estimate this "footprint's" age.

 

[Laura]

Euhm... according to what Tellinger says in the video, geologists estimate this footprint is between 200 million and 3 billion years old. These ancients (if they indeed carved it out to complete the effect) are then REALLY ancient!

You can't estimate the age of the feature in the rock, only the age of the rock itself. I would suggest that, if it was a feature that was enhanced, it could have been done at any time.

 

[Denis]

Euhm... according to what Tellinger says in the video, geologists estimate this footprint is between 200 million and 3 billion years old. These ancients (if they indeed carved it out to complete the effect) are then REALLY ancient!

You can't estimate the age of the feature in the rock, only the age of the rock itself. I would suggest that, if it was a feature that was enhanced, it could have been done at any time.

I see. Well, that's a bummer- or better said: pity. So this "giant's" footprint could be a hoax, a mere sensationalism or whatcha call it yellow journalism/press (irrespective of the fact that it's posted in the video)?

 

[Laura]

I see. Well, that's a bummer- or better said: pity. So this "giant's" footprint could be a hoax, a mere sensationalism or whatcha call it yellow journalism/press (irrespective of the fact that it's posted in the video)?

Or just something that somebody did whenever, somebody else found it and thought "wow!" and wanted so desperately to believe... or any combination of factors.

The LEAST likely is that it is a real giant's footprint.

 

[Denis]

I couldn't find any scientific evidence or analysis that would confirm that this "giant footprint" is really old as the title of the video & thread I have posted here bombastically claims. This means that Mrs. Laura is telling the truth here, only the age of the granite itself can be estimated.

The only thing that I was able to "dig out" is that this "carved" footprint has been discovered in the year of 1912.

 

[caballero reyes]

it is curious that yesterday I was thinking in the prolongations of human body (hands and fingers)like fish fins(aletas in spanish) and now this "footprint" and inmediatly I observe that the size of the fingers is too smaller by comparison to the rest of the footprint. I think this is not a giant footprint.