This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa

Topics Concerning Race and Ancient Man

Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa

Postby Hunter » Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:16 pm

I vaguely recall coming across a YouTube video of this "foot print" a couple of years or so ago - it could've been a different video or videographers.

I don't know what to think, yet. Could this formation really be an ancient footprint of a giant or is it merely a geological anomaly? It'd seem a hoax is impossible, being this is formed in granite. Why has it's existence remained (or been kept) relatively unknown, as to exclude any monetary benefits of notoriety, i.e., it has not been turned into a money-making, tourist attraction? This lends credence to the notion that it is neither fake nor just an anomaly, but that it is indeed an actual ancient footprint from a giant, not unlike those of which the Bible briefly mentions and The Book of Enoch elaborates in better detail.

One thing that I have my doubts about is how the age of this footprint (or the rock it is imbedded into) can be substantiated with any certainty. To my knowledge, rocks of any type cannot be carbon-dated. The man in the video says that geologists estimate that this footprint formation is between 200-million and 3-billion years old. I'm unqualified to say anything regarding the likely age of this formation, so does anyone else know how they could come up with this estimate (or any valid estimate for that matter) as to it's antiquity?

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

User avatar
Hunter
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Location: Canada (in the prairies)

Re: Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa

Postby Kentucky » Sun Jan 26, 2014 12:24 am

Granite is a type of igneous rock. Igneous rock is the one of the three rock types that is formed when magma or lava cools then solidifies into a rock. So the giant didn't step into mud. Unless ancient giants had asbestos feet, their little pinkies would have turned to ash in seconds. There's a rock formation in Washington state called the Lincoln Rock that looks just like Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps 'Honest Abe' was a time traveler and a giant sculptor chiseled his likeness in rock. Oh, and why was the giant's foot impression not upright; was he lying down at the time? Or did the rock move 90 degrees in a billion years? And one last question: if nobody knows about this place, why do people put coins in the heel area? How do we know the guy didn't put them there? Maybe it was the people who spray painted graffiti in the background.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa

Postby MikeTheAdamite » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:11 am

I find it hard to believe that these Giants were that big.The word Naphal which is were we get our Nephelim is defined by strongs (5303) as a bully or tyrant,not as gigantic.
This giant footprint suggests the giant to be maybe 20ft high!
I think the footprint is just an anomaly like you said Mark.It just looks a bit like a foot!
MikeTheAdamite
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:38 am
Location: Lancashire UK

Re: Giant Foot Print 200 Million Yrs Old - South Africa

Postby Hunter » Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:45 pm

Kentucky wrote:Granite is a type of igneous rock. Igneous rock is the one of the three rock types that is formed when magma or lava cools then solidifies into a rock. So the giant didn't step into mud. Unless ancient giants had asbestos feet, their little pinkies would have turned to ash in seconds. There's a rock formation in Washington state called the Lincoln Rock that looks just like Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps 'Honest Abe' was a time traveler and a giant sculptor chiseled his likeness in rock. Oh, and why was the giant's foot impression not upright; was he lying down at the time? Or did the rock move 90 degrees in a billion years? And one last question: if nobody knows about this place, why do people put coins in the heel area? How do we know the guy didn't put them there? Maybe it was the people who spray painted graffiti in the background.

Mark


No doubt, I posted in this haste, but it was so 'unbelievably' real looking that I wanted to quickly get other's thoughts/reactions on this. One must admit that it certainly resembles a giant human-like footprint.

Okay, so now that I've looked into things & thought about this for a while, logically, I can't say that this formation is anything more than a geological anomaly uncannily resembling a footprint made from a giant. Also, there doesn't appear to be any visible evidence that it was carved out. Suffice it to say, the ability to carve granite is said to be a late, 18th-century development (in spite of granite carvings I found dated centuries earlier), and this remote footprint was discovered by a hunter in 1912, leaving plenty of time for some "carving enhancement" by some early local inhabitants. But, experts of whatever needed type would have to examine the rock for this. Nonetheless, my reasons for believing this to be only an anomaly are below.

Firstly, there has been no other accompanying footprints (i.e. tracks) shown to be found at this site.

Secondly, in Geology, igneous rock is defined as the solidification of molten rock. There are two types: extrusive (found above the earth's surface), intrusive (found beneath the earth's surface). Granite is an intrusive form of igneous rock. The supposed "foot print" in the video is found in granite, so how could a giant (or anyone or anything alive) make a footprint in rock which is initially formed/cooled and found underground? Obviously, this is impossible.

Thirdly, this supposed giant - with a foot measuring 4 feet long - would likely stand at an estimated height of roughly 22' to 25' tall, if in the same proportions to the anatomy of modern man. The tallest person or humanoid that I'm aware of in the Bible was Og of Bashan. Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man. (KJV). This passage states his iron bed was 9 cubits. A cubit is 18 inches, therefore, his bed was 13 feet, 6 inches in length. So, he stood likely somewhere near to, but under this incredible height. Although, this still leaves me to wonder - Og being a remnant - if this doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of him having much taller ancestors. Nevertheless, the Bible doesn't detail to us anything further as to the specific size of these giants, other than for Goliath - who was shorter at approximately 9-feet tall.

Maybe, the Book of Giants or the Book of Enoch reveals the stature of some of these giants, but I haven't read through it for myself as of yet. As for any other apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books or ancient literature which might give as a clue to how big these giants could've been, I have no idea.

Fourthly, the physiology of a giant this big seems impossible. See below

http://creation.com/giant-footprint
Dubious ‘giant’ physiology

"The ‘footprint’ is roughly four times the size of an adult footprint. Applying that 4x to other linear dimensions would suggest a human some 7 metres (23 feet) tall. The Bible does mention that there were some giants in the pre-Flood world, but ‘giant’ is a relative term. To some people groups today, a US basketball ‘dream team’ would certainly qualify for that description. But there are limits to the degree to which one can speculate about the size of past members of the human race, and it is likely that the approximately 2.7-metre (9-foot) Goliath was at or very near the size limit. Scaling up the linear dimensions four times means that the human would have weighed around six tonnes (2D measurements like area would be increased 16 times, but mass as an approximation to the volume of a sphere (3D) would increase by some 64 times. Thus, though the mass would have increased 64 times, the cross sectional area of the leg bones would have only increased 16 times. So, in order to support the weight, the leg bone thickness would have to be increased dramatically. Many other aspects of this ‘scaling up’ issue would mean that the entire human body would have to have been totally ‘redesigned’, such that the person would look very, very strange indeed to our eyes, and not just because of the ‘giant’ aspect. Further, such a person could not have any genetic continuity with any humans on earth, for the same reason: i.e. so many aspects of their body would have to be totally different in order for them to be able to survive at that size in our gravity. Therefore, if this were a giant footprint, the creature that made it certainly would not qualify as ever having been part of the gene pool of the human race."
User avatar
Hunter
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:26 pm
Location: Canada (in the prairies)


Return to Anthropology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron