Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

ancient fossil giant giants

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
288 replies to this topic

#256    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:10 PM

View PostDecoNoir, on 17 November 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

Exactly. I don't see how anyone with even basic knowledge of hominid anatomy can make that mistake.

Also I might add that the heel bone is a separate bone and is in no way attached to any of the bones on the leg. If this was so, your foot would be completely immobile and at the mercy of your leg, so what we are seeing here is two ball hip joints. The fact that the so called experts seem to think this is a heel goes to show how seriously they should be taken.

Who said that was a heel bone?  I heard them say it was a femur.  We are talking about the video that Davros posted, aren't we?


#257    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:22 PM

I'm guessing that you misunderstood and thought they were calling it a heel bone.  They actually said it was a part of a femur.  It's shape looks very close but slightly different than the comparison, but I am by no means an expert on bones so it very well may be a human femur.


#258    DecoNoir

DecoNoir

    The Entertainer

  • Member
  • 2,636 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Imaginaerum

  • ... The Aristocrats.

Posted 19 November 2013 - 10:28 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 19 November 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I'm guessing that you misunderstood and thought they were calling it a heel bone.  They actually said it was a part of a femur.  It's shape looks very close but slightly different than the comparison, but I am by no means an expert on bones so it very well may be a human femur.

Ditto. I certainly misheard, been running a raging fever for the past week. Anyway, its certainly the a ball hip joint, however its pretty hard to tell what from with just that to work with. Mammalian for certain, but that's all I can give you.

I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Mostly because yours is boring as hell.

#259    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:12 PM

Quote

I was suggesting that the granite covered the fossil and cooled to the shape of it.  So it would look as if the footprint was in granite but in reality the original was in some other type of rock.
You are suggesting that this is a cast. The problem there is that this cannot be a cast. Think about it.

This cannot possibly be a cast.


#260    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:15 PM

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

You are suggesting that this is a cast. The problem there is that this cannot be a cast. Think about it.

This cannot possibly be a cast.

is the reason because of the possible age of the rock or something else?

Edited by Dr_Acula, 19 November 2013 - 11:16 PM.


#261    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:17 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 16 November 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Let's evaluate this.

1) If the fluctuations in radioactive decay are real, does that throw off the dating methods?  I would say, yes because all radiometric dating is based on the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is constant.

2) Can a fossil survive in granite?  I would say, very rarely yes.  As we have already discussed, sedimentary rocks can survive in granite.

3) Is the fossil record strong enough and full enough to be used to discount the existence of an organism?  I would say, no because fossils are very rare.  The conditions that need to be met in order for an organism to turn into a fossil are very rare.  Out of all life forms that are known to science, less than 1% is from the fossil record.
The amount by which the dates are off is very small as in the third or fourth possibly 5th digit. So no, the dates are not off by much.

Can a fossil survive in granite? No. Granite is a deep intrusive and it causes consider contact metamorphism to the surrounding rock. Xenoliths swept into the melt are highly changed due to the heating and chemical changes. Can sedimentary rocks survive in granite. No. They become metamorphic rocks. Sometimes they melt and become igneous. Granite is a deep intrusive and does not come close to the surface till the overlying layers are eroded. The sort of phenocrysts we see in this rock indicate very clearly that this was a deep intrusive that cooled slowly.


#262    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:26 PM

Quote

If we assume that "slightly" is maybe 1% that would mean that dating something 65,000,000  years could actually be off by 650,000 years, which is very significant.
It's still 1% and a 1% error at one point in time would have been spot on. Dating is getting better. You'll notice that over time the dates of the Cambrian explosion have changed due to better dating methods. You'll notice that dates for other events such as the K-T boundary are changed as dating methods improve. My recollection is that the fluctuations are slight as in the 4th or 5th digit of precision.

Quote

I asked if sedimentary rock can survive in granite.
Not really. Even in near surface events such as the Monteregian Hills the aphanitic syenite alters the limestone into marble, a metamorphic. No fossils are found in the marble blocks which in the surrounding area are rich in bryozoans. A granite cools slowly and alters the surrounding rock. There is a considerable amount of metamorphism.


#263    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM

Quote

The fact that you can't figure this out yourself is astounding.  Earthquakes can cause rocks to break apart and move from their original locations.  Other natural disasters, such as avalanches and floods, can have the same effect.  If you fill a bucket with gravel and shake it up you will notice that many rocks from the top will move toward the bottom and vice versa.  It's a simple experiment that you can perform at home!  As for why the magma doesn't completely melt the sedimentary stone: read up on xenoliths.
Again you are quite mistaken. Rocks do not have to melt to become plastic. Xenoliths often show halos unless the xenolith has a higher melting point than the intrusive. Even then the rock undergoes metamorphic changes which include recrystallization under the ambient conditions. Chemical changes also occur.

Quote

I have brought up points that so far have not been debunked, such as: outside influences that cause variations in radioactive decay, xenoliths as an explanation as to how a print seems to be in granite, how drastically incomplete the fossil record is, scientific assumptions causing problems in dating methods, etc...
No one needs to debunk what we all know. Radioactive decay rates appears to change in a cyclical fashion. We know that happens. You on the other hand are pretending it is a great change. The rest of know it is not. You are also mistaken about xenoliths. You are mistaken about granite as a deep intrusive. You are mistaken in suggesting that the fossil is a cast. It cannot be. Your suggestion that the incompleteness of the fossil record allows a creature to exist which exceeds physical constraints is a nonsensical inference. Your arguments about dating methods are best described as arguments from personal ignorance. In other words, since you don't know then it must be possible. That's not a good argument.


#264    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 November 2013 - 11:46 PM

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

The amount by which the dates are off is very small as in the third or fourth possibly 5th digit. So no, the dates are not off by much.

Can a fossil survive in granite? No. Granite is a deep intrusive and it causes consider contact metamorphism to the surrounding rock. Xenoliths swept into the melt are highly changed due to the heating and chemical changes. Can sedimentary rocks survive in granite. No. They become metamorphic rocks. Sometimes they melt and become igneous. Granite is a deep intrusive and does not come close to the surface till the overlying layers are eroded. The sort of phenocrysts we see in this rock indicate very clearly that this was a deep intrusive that cooled slowly.

That is true, sedimentary rock would become metamorphic rock.  But if the original "footprint" was covered by a layer of granitic magma during the late stages of it's cooling process - I don't see why a cast of the print couldn't exist.


#265    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:09 AM

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Again you are quite mistaken. Rocks do not have to melt to become plastic. Xenoliths often show halos unless the xenolith has a higher melting point than the intrusive. Even then the rock undergoes metamorphic changes which include recrystallization under the ambient conditions. Chemical changes also occur.

I think I explained this in a confusing way and I apologize for that.  When I said that sedimentary may not always melt in granitic magma, by melt I meant be completely consumed without a trace by the magma.

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

No one needs to debunk what we all know.

What is it that you think you know?

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Radioactive decay rates appears to change in a cyclical fashion. We know that happens. You on the other hand are pretending it is a great change. The rest of know it is not.

I am not pretending anything of the sort.  I clearly agreed that there was a slight change and I am familiar with the change being associated with seasonal changes.  I think that a slight change becomes more significant the older the artifact though - which is obvious.  What I am trying to explain to you is that there is an outside influence on the rate of decay.  That means that if there was some event in the past (for example a large solar flare, maybe) it's possible that it could have affected the rate of decay.  It could have drastically thrown off the ability to reliably date anything using radiometric dating.

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Your suggestion that the incompleteness of the fossil record allows a creature to exist which exceeds physical constraints is a nonsensical inference.

You appear to be misinterpreting me here.  I said that the drastic incompleteness of the fossil record makes it a weak argument to the non-existence of an organism.  I never said that it is evidence of said organism's existence though.  The fossil record is overwhelmingly incomplete and I find it silly that people put so much faith in it in arguments like this.

View Poststereologist, on 19 November 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

Your arguments about dating methods are best described as arguments from personal ignorance. In other words, since you don't know then it must be possible. That's not a good argument.

You don't agree with my outlook on radiometric dating, and that's fine.  But don't accuse me of being ignorant on the subject because I assure you I am not.


#266    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:06 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 19 November 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

is the reason because of the possible age of the rock or something else?

No. It is much simpler than that. In fact,it is so simple that I am leaving this as an exercise to the reader.


#267    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:09 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 19 November 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

That is true, sedimentary rock would become metamorphic rock.  But if the original "footprint" was covered by a layer of granitic magma during the late stages of it's cooling process - I don't see why a cast of the print couldn't exist.

Please explain to yourself how a cast could be formed and you'll realize almost immediately why it can't be a cast.

How are you going to cover by a layer of granitic magma during the late stages of its cooling process? That makes no sense at all. Please explain how a sedimentary rock comes into contact with magma late in its cooling process.


#268    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:25 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 20 November 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

I think I explained this in a confusing way and I apologize for that.  When I said that sedimentary may not always melt in granitic magma, by melt I meant be completely consumed without a trace by the magma.

What is it that you think you know?

I am not pretending anything of the sort.  I clearly agreed that there was a slight change and I am familiar with the change being associated with seasonal changes.  I think that a slight change becomes more significant the older the artifact though - which is obvious.  What I am trying to explain to you is that there is an outside influence on the rate of decay.  That means that if there was some event in the past (for example a large solar flare, maybe) it's possible that it could have affected the rate of decay.  It could have drastically thrown off the ability to reliably date anything using radiometric dating.

You appear to be misinterpreting me here.  I said that the drastic incompleteness of the fossil record makes it a weak argument to the non-existence of an organism.  I never said that it is evidence of said organism's existence though.  The fossil record is overwhelmingly incomplete and I find it silly that people put so much faith in it in arguments like this.

You don't agree with my outlook on radiometric dating, and that's fine.  But don't accuse me of being ignorant on the subject because I assure you I am not.

We can usually see evidence for sedimentary rocks mixed into a melt. There would be trace minerals and contact minerals along the periphery of the melt. Isotope studies can differentiate between sources to indicate the positions of plate boundaries.

You need to go back to read the original post to see what we do not need to debunk.

Again, you make the mistake of confusing relative error with absolute error. All dates like all measurements have uncertainty. Your suggestion of a past event such as a solar flare doing what you suggest is nothing more than your speculation which is without merit. Do you have any evidence that the fluctuations are event related? I doubt you do and yet you continue in an illogical fashion to suggest that events can drastically do whatever.

You are introducing the fossil record into a discussion which does not require the fossil record. That is immaterial since the creature suggested by the footprint is impossible. It is illogical to introduce the fossil record in your argument. On the other hand the fossil record shows when hominids are introduced.

You claim to not be ignorant about radiometric dating. You are ignorant about the fluctuations. Your posts make that clear.


#269    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2013 - 10:55 PM

View Poststereologist, on 20 November 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

No. It is much simpler than that. In fact,it is so simple that I am leaving this as an exercise to the reader.

I'm sorry but if you have some information as to why this is impossible, either share it or drop your argument.  Your choice.

View Poststereologist, on 20 November 2013 - 04:25 AM, said:

We can usually see evidence for sedimentary rocks mixed into a melt. There would be trace minerals and contact minerals along the periphery of the melt. Isotope studies can differentiate between sources to indicate the positions of plate boundaries.

You need to go back to read the original post to see what we do not need to debunk.

Again, you make the mistake of confusing relative error with absolute error. All dates like all measurements have uncertainty. Your suggestion of a past event such as a solar flare doing what you suggest is nothing more than your speculation which is without merit. Do you have any evidence that the fluctuations are event related? I doubt you do and yet you continue in an illogical fashion to suggest that events can drastically do whatever.

You are introducing the fossil record into a discussion which does not require the fossil record. That is immaterial since the creature suggested by the footprint is impossible. It is illogical to introduce the fossil record in your argument. On the other hand the fossil record shows when hominids are introduced.

You claim to not be ignorant about radiometric dating. You are ignorant about the fluctuations. Your posts make that clear.

You need to stop being vague and explain please.  What is it that you think you know?

There has been evidence that suggests a major solar event in the past.  http://www.huffingto..._n_2206736.html

I'd like to remind you that I know I am speculating.  I have already said that in more than one of my comments.  I'd also like to let you know that I can speculate if I want to.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Give me something that debunks my speculative hypothesis if you don't like it.  Just pointing out that I am speculating after I have already told you I am speculating does absolutely nothing.

Yes, there is evidence that suggests that the fluctuations are event related.  http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

I did not introduce the fossil record into this discussion.  You have been misinformed.  Also, the fossil record suggests certain things, like when hominids may have been introduced.  However, because of its weak incompleteness and the extreme rarity for fossils to form, the fossil record cannot be reliably used in the way you are trying to use it.  Please leave the fossil record out of this discussion.

I am not ignorant about the fluctuations.  On the contrary, I believe that you are.


#270    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,607 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2013 - 02:36 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 20 November 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm sorry but if you have some information as to why this is impossible, either share it or drop your argument.  Your choice.

You need to stop being vague and explain please.  What is it that you think you know?

There has been evidence that suggests a major solar event in the past.  http://www.huffingto..._n_2206736.html

I'd like to remind you that I know I am speculating.  I have already said that in more than one of my comments.  I'd also like to let you know that I can speculate if I want to.  If you don't like it, too bad.  Give me something that debunks my speculative hypothesis if you don't like it.  Just pointing out that I am speculating after I have already told you I am speculating does absolutely nothing.

Yes, there is evidence that suggests that the fluctuations are event related.  http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

I did not introduce the fossil record into this discussion.  You have been misinformed.  Also, the fossil record suggests certain things, like when hominids may have been introduced.  However, because of its weak incompleteness and the extreme rarity for fossils to form, the fossil record cannot be reliably used in the way you are trying to use it.  Please leave the fossil record out of this discussion.

I am not ignorant about the fluctuations.  On the contrary, I believe that you are.

NO. I don't have to drop it. It is such a trivial argument that it is not a cast of a fossil that I see no reason to point out the extremely obvious.

You tend to be quite vague as in your vague claims of these fluctuations as being important. You suggest that there have been major solar events in the past. So what? What does that have to do with anything being discussed?

Your speculations in general are so off the wall that they are not worth being discussed. There is no need to discuss allof the wacko ideas that are tossed out that have no merit. If you don't like it that they are dismissed as easily as you spew them then too bad.

The fossil record is not as weak as you assert. That is just your wishful thinking.

You can believe all you want about the fluctuations, but your math shows us that your understanding of the issue is limited.

So whenever you take a minute or two to think about fossils and casts you will realize that this so-called footprint cannot be a cast of a fossil regardless of the size of the footprint, i.e. even if it were human sized.






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users