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.
Could this be the giants mentioned in ancient texts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRuxw-nZoJw)
The granite would have had to be molten or warm crust at the very best, plus this guy is less than reliable. Pardon me for forgetting all the geological specifics used to determine it's improbability. :)
I'd of liked more than anyone for this to be a preserved footprint, but don't think so.
DRAT....now I suppose I ought to go get that info an post it! [ headsmacking self ]
Could be nephilim.
Have anyone noticed that those strange footprints found in stone always look the same, as if the foot that made the print was used like a rubber stamp (no signs of movement), had a flat sole and appears only once?
It is certainly an unusual find... :o
Looks like a real footprint, but it would be hard to believe that it could be formed in granite and in a vertical position.
Must be the largest feet that I have come across and it would be tough for who ever the owner was to find a shop that sells shoes in his size ! Be a tricky job for any cobbler in his day. ??? :)
Caver78 -
Did you know it is considered very poor form to slag and run?
Oh wait, that's right, you DO know -
Quote from: Caver78 on October 25, 2012, 01:23:58 AM
...this guy is less than reliable. Pardon me for forgetting all the geological specifics used to determine it's improbability. :)
DRAT....now I suppose I ought to go get that info an post it! [ headsmacking self ]
Having a hard time finding the info?
Please educate us all.
Quote from: astr0144 on October 25, 2012, 02:22:20 AM
Looks like a real footprint, but it would be hard to believe that it could be formed in granite and in a vertical position.
the vertical position is no problem as granite rocks move... that is how mountains are formed :D
But caver is right. Granite is not a sedimentary rock that was soft when the print was made and later hardened. Granite is an igneous rock so it would have had to be molten at the time the print was made. That would be one heck of a hot foot :D
I am more interested in the claim that this guy is unreliable.
What is the history? Is he another Greer?
Sorry I've been busy and am not up on the latest members of the bogazeety clan.
Here's a rather big boy, laying on his back...
Known as "The Sleeping Giant" !
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_igYgSalUTYo/TAtYFyERmTI/AAAAAAAAACo/cVNl5U1gIHA/s400/Rongokako.jpg)
Interesting pictures. The sleeping giant reminds me of the "mummy range" here in the Rockies. I don't have picture unfortunately, but it can be seen from the Eses Park area.
Shasta
Shasta, Estes Park is one of my favorites, and how!
As for that rock Zorgon, is it possible that is Sandstone? I think the footprint was carved into it. Logic tells me we would find other evidence of these huge creatures, and not just one foot print... LOL!
Indeed this 'giant' would have gotten a 'hotfoot' from molton rock, IF he was alive at the time.
Do we know that for certain?
Perhaps he was already dead as a doornail and in a prone position.
And as for his footprint being stationary being considered a suspicous clue, why is it that fossil remains are not considered suspicous for the exact same reason?
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/fossil20shrimp.jpg)
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/bigspiderfossil.jpg)
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/bird_fossil.jpg)
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/dffossil.gif)
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/fishfossil.jpg)
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l595/A51Watcher/Fossil/sedimantary-fossil.jpg)
All of the above examples seemed to have gotten the hotfoot as well yet remained stationary now didn't they.
Out of hand dismissal just because you haven't seen something before is rather narrow minded now isn't it.
I have not been to south africa and exmained this for myself so I don't know either way.
Many seem to act as if they HAVE.
Statements that this is scientifically impossible seem to be ignoring our current fossil record and how those creatures get embedded without getting a hotfoot now don't they?
Personally I find this footprint improbable, but was hoping for a reasoned discussion at least from both viewpoints with supporting theories and evidence to back it up.
Not just slag and run.
Next time I find something unusual not seen before it would be better if I just kept it to myself yes?
With regards to the Giant Foot print,
I am no geologist...but I wonder if its a certain type of rock where the print was formed...it would be interesting to know...
Maybe Granite varies in its conditions back in history.
Although the print may have been made on a Flat floor...and time has upturned the rock into a vertical position...this would seem much more of unlikely situation, than finding a print on a flatter surface.
You would think that there would have been a chance of finding other prints in the area.
IF some how it has been created by someone in the rock... then one wonders when and how had they made it look so realistic...
or Has the weather and time eroded it down ?
There have been footprints of animals and dinosaurs and I think Man found in many places in the world...and preserved like fossils...
(http://www.redorbit.com/media/uploads/2008/02/b065d87895fd7d155f216c383e338ff61-436x300.jpg)
Geologists at the University of Leicester have solved a puzzle found in rocks half a billion years old.
Some of the most important fossil beds in the world are the Burgess Shales in the Canadian Rockies. Once an ancient sea bed, they were formed shortly after life suddenly became more complex and diverse "" the so-called Cambrian explosion "" and are of immense scientific interest.
Normally, only hard parts of ancient animals became fossilized; the bones, teeth or shells. Soft parts were rarely preserved: many plants and invertebrate animals evolved, lived for millions of years and became extinct, but left no trace in the fossil record. The Burgess Shales preserved soft tissue in exquisite detail, and the question of how this came to happen has troubled scientists since the discovery of the fossils in 1909.
Now, painstaking work by Sarah Gabbott and Jan Zalasiewicz of the University of Leicester, with Desmond Collins of the Royal Ontario Museum, has provided an answer. The research has been published in the Journal of the Geological Society.
They analyzed the shales millimeter by millimeter, and found that unlike most rocks of this type, they weren't slowly deposited, mud flake by mud flake. Instead, a thick slurry powered down a steep slope and instantly buried the animals to a depth where normal decay couldn't occur.
Dr Gabbott said, "Not a nice way to go, perhaps, but a swift one- and one that guaranteed immortality (of a sort) for these strange creatures."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1260432/ancient_fossil_mystery_solved/ (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1260432/ancient_fossil_mystery_solved/)
What chowderheads at that university right? They couldn't possibly be correct, COULD they?
That would of course leave the door open for dead bipeds lying on the ground to leave trace marks, and we all know for certain that could never happen right?
::)
Quote from: The Matrix Traveller on November 01, 2012, 08:07:26 AM
Here's a rather big boy, laying on his back...
Known as "The Sleeping Giant" !
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_igYgSalUTYo/TAtYFyERmTI/AAAAAAAAACo/cVNl5U1gIHA/s400/Rongokako.jpg)
By the way the "
Material" that makes up this terrain (Body) is totally different than the surrounding hills.
It's
NOT far from where I live !
So perhaps I should get a sample of this Giant, and have it tested, esp. for Hydrocarbons or
DNA etc. ?
Quotethey were formed shortly after life suddenly became more complex and diverse "" the so-called Cambrian explosion "" and are of immense scientific interest.
So I wonder what brought about this Sudden and Complex change in species on Earth ?
Just for the record.
We had in our past History in NZ a "Giant Eagle" with a wingspan of more than 9 feet.
And we have the bones to prove it in NZ.
Also recorded in "
The Book of E'NOCH"...
Chapter 6 Verse
6 onward; Quote;
Quote06.
And they were in all two hundred;
who descended in the days of Jared on the summit
of Mount Hermon,
and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn
and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it.
07.
And these are the names of their leaders:
Semiazaz, their leader, Arakiba, Rameel, Kokabiel, Tamiel, Ramiel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal,
Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqiel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomael, Sariel.
08.
These are their chiefs of tens.
Chapter 7.
01.
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives,
and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them
and defile themselves with them,
and they taught them charms and enchantments,
and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants.
02.
And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants
whose height was Three Thousand Ells
03.
Who consumed all the acquisitions of men.
And when men could no longer sustain them,
04.
The giants turned against them and devoured mankind.
Damn giants, damn them all to helllllllllll! ;D
Quote from: A51Watcher on November 02, 2012, 01:05:58 AM
Statements that this is scientifically impossible seem to be ignoring our current fossil record and how those creatures get embedded without getting a hotfoot now don't they?
No, because fossils are found in sedimentary rocks, rocks that are formed by the deposition of small particles (of clay in the case of shale, for example) that cover the object being fossilized, similar to what happened in Pompeii with the ashes from Vesuvio.
The video's description (I haven't seen the video) says that the rock is granite, and granite is a igneous rock that is made mostly of quartz, mica, and feldspar that resulted from the crystallization of cooling magma. The size of the crystals is an indication of how fast the magma cooled down. That's why it's not possible to have fossils in granite.
Edit: I think fossils sometimes appear also in marble (at least some shells are relatively common in some marbles), although marble is a metamorphic rock, meaning that it was originally a sedimentary rock that was somewhat transformed by heat, pressure or both.
PS: my explanation may have some errors in it, as I am not a geologist (although I like geology) and it's been a long time since I learned this. :)
Armap -
And don't forget, this guy is unreliable.
My first thought regarding the footprint is that it looked like whatever made it, slipped in mud. It looks very similar to prints I've seen, some of them mine, of a foot that's been set down too quickly on a less than stable surface. We won't discuss what my friend and I did to the newly poured neighborhood sidewalk when we were nine years old.
Shasta
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on November 02, 2012, 04:17:13 AM
Damn giants, damn them all to helllllllllll! ;D
LOL
If a certain rouge Monk is right they did it to themselves mate :D
AS will WE 8)
ArMap was entirely correct, an posted what I remembered about ''granite fossils'' they are virtually impossible.
http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showthread.php?8445-Giant-Foot-Print-200-Million-Yrs-Old-South-Africa
Volcanoclastic sediments (such as ashfalls) are in the borderland between
igneous and sedimentary rocks. Yes, they are derived directly from a melt,
and by that definition are igneous. On the other hand, they are deposited
in Earth surface conditions, temperatures, and pressures, and hence are also
sedimentary. Such is life... er, rock.
As for fossils in granite: extraordinarily unlikely, at least as geologists
use the term "granite" (there is an industrial definition of the term, which
is any hard rock (where almost every soft rock is "marble"), but that is
beside the point). Granites cool from molten masses which were entirely
underneath the surface of the Earth; they form under temperature conditions
which would obliterate organic tissue, and are molten for up to millions of
years (extreme cases: more generally ten-to-hundreds of thousands). Hence
they do not form in environments where living things are present.
(One possibility, though, is that the native rock into which the granitic
magma intruded was a sedimentary rock possessing fossils. A section of the
native rock could break off and be suspended in the magma as a xenolith.
That way you could have a fossil in a sedimentary rock in a granite).
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland College Park Scholars
College Park, MD 20742
http://dml.cmnh.org/2002Apr/msg00216.html
Original source
and than there is this...it quantifies the uplift series in the rock sheets making it pretty improbable the track was left in situ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaapvaal_craton
The 3.1 Ga Mpuluzi batholith in the Barberton granite–gneiss terrane is made up of granite sheets. The structurally higher parts are underlain by an anastomosing network of steeply dipping, variably deformed dikes and sheets. According to a study done by Westraat et al. (2005): "Multiple intrusive relationships and geochronological evidence suggests that granite sheeting and the assembly of the pluton occurred over a period of 3–13 million years. The spatial and temporal relationship between deformation and magma emplacement reflects episodes of incremental dilation related to deformation along the bounding shear zones and granite sheeting. The transition to the mainly subhorizontal granite sheets at higher structural levels of the tabular Mpuluzi batholith indicates the intrusion of the granites during subhorizontal regional shortening, where the reorientation of the minimum normal stress to vertical attitudes at the shallow levels of emplacement allowed for vertical dilation and subhorizontal emplacement of the granite sheets."
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/content/162/2/373.short
Michael Tellinger is apparently a good musician, but he is NOT a geologist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tellinger
Background: Musician and Author
Michael Tellinger graduated from Wits University in 1983 with a B.Pharm degree. While studying he spent most of his time moving within entertainment circles. He started his career on stage in Nick Taylor's musical "Christian" at His Majesty's theatre in 1980. Following this he played the part of "Joseph" at the opening of the State Theatre and toured with the hit show for two years. At this time he launched his solo career and released his first single called "Hazel" in 1981, which was nominated for a SARIE award. Shortly after this Michael teamed up with Russell Stirling and formed the duo "Stirling & Tellinger". The two played together for four years and had music hits with "Call Me" and "What's a Nice Girl Like You, Doing In a Place Like This". Their videos took the market by storm and laid the foundation for many of the SA music videos of the early 80's. The "Call Me" video was voted among the top two most popular videos at MIDEM in Cannes 1983.[citation needed]
...and as to him as a questionable source of scientific discoveries
http://01universe.blogspot.com/2012/05/south-african-crank-of-week-michael.html
Quote from: ArMaP on November 02, 2012, 01:53:37 PM
PS: my explanation may have some errors in it, as I am not a geologist (although I like geology) and it's been a long time since I learned this. :)
It's pretty good... for a non geologist :D
But why let reality spoil a good story :P
Quote from: ArMaP on November 02, 2012, 01:53:37 PM
Thanks Armap, that's more along the lines of what I was hoping for.
Quote from: Caver78 on November 02, 2012, 09:36:21 PM
Thanks Caver, sorry to hear you were battening the hatches for the storm, I apologize, but glad you made it through ok.
And thanks for the link, looks like the bogazeety clan's ranks continue to grow. :(