Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Dr_Acula

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

289 posts in this topic

Hear is another angle, and it looks to me the heal was rounded out at a later time.

You may find this vid interesting though.

post-142153-0-82264700-1384702725_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear is another angle, and it looks to me the heal was rounded out at a later time.

You may find this vid interesting though.

[media=]

[/media]

That actually looks like almost the same exact angle and shape. Here is a photo to demonstrate:

2natbba.jpg

But that video was very interesting. Thanks for sharing it! I hope they do some professional examinations and dating of that bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear is another angle, and it looks to me the heal was rounded out at a later time.

You may find this vid interesting though.

I'll go on record saying that can easily by the ball of a femur. You know, ball socket hip joint that every primate has and you seem to be forgetting about. Doesn't help that the video is plastered with an add for a site dedicated to mixing science and spirituality, lost civilizations etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go on record saying that can easily by the ball of a femur. You know, ball socket hip joint that every primate has and you seem to be forgetting about. Doesn't help that the video is plastered with an add for a site dedicated to mixing science and spirituality, lost civilizations etc.

And I can also see a difference in shape compared to the modern example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can also see a difference in shape compared to the modern example.

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.

Edited by DecoNoir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

No one needs to debunk what we all know.

What is it that you think you 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.

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/ancient-solar-flare-radioactive-carbon_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.edu/news/2010/august/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Lol, well I see no reason to accept an argument that you see no reason to explain. I'll take your lack of explanation as you dropping it.

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?

I wasn't vague. I said that if there was, for example, a huge solar flare (which there is supporting evidence for - see my previous link), it may have affected the rate of radioactive decay. That is if the radioactive decay rate can be affected by an outside source (which there is supporting evidence for - see my previous link). What does that have to do with anything? The radiometric dating of the rock may have been off. Why else would we be talking about it?

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 problem with this statement is that you haven't dismissed anything besides bringing up that the fluctuations in radioactive decay are "slight", yet you didn't understand what it had to do with anyway, and the fact that sedimentary rock would leave trace evidence in granite. That dismisses nothing.

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

The fossil record IS as weak as I assert IF someone is trying to use it to say that an organism never existed.

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

My calculation was quick and simple and I didn't care to create a flawless mathematical equation. I just wanted to quickly demonstrate how a small percentage could grow over such a long period of time. Take it how you want to, I really don't care. Your understanding the issue of decay fluctuation must be limited or you wouldn't have challenged the fact that there is evidence that it is influenced by an outside event.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, it's not a cast of a fossil. The reason is so trivial that I know you have made no effort to figure out why. You really need to do this for yourself and you will be embarrassed now that you have spent more time balking that thinking about it. You might want to get out some clay and test the notion of it being a cast and you will almost immediately figure this out.

The notion that solar flares are the cause of the fluctuations comes from where? Have you looked up the fluctuations to see which digit of precision is affected? Until then please don't make a claim of drastic.

The idea that sedimentary rock would survive in a granitic melt for any length of time is ludicrous.

As far as the fossil record is concerned, you are confusing species with order. The evidence on orders is quite strong.

Your math is weak. No excuses for pointing out something which has no relevance to the issue. The issue is the uncertainty in the results. That is well known and posted in dating methods. Fluctuations are considered in that issue.

The big issue for you is to figure out why that so-called footprint cannot be a cast of a fossil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the reason I won't tell you why this cannot be a cast of a fossil is because you've spent so much time speculating that you've turned off your thinking process. I've seen you make some very good posts, but this geology and dating ideas are just full of unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and false ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, it's not a cast of a fossil. The reason is so trivial that I know you have made no effort to figure out why. You really need to do this for yourself and you will be embarrassed now that you have spent more time balking that thinking about it. You might want to get out some clay and test the notion of it being a cast and you will almost immediately figure this out.

If you are right and there is a flaw in my suggestion of the granite taking the form of some other rock that is within it, I won't be embarrassed. I will be wrong and I will accept that I am wrong, but so far I don't see what's so obviously wrong with the idea. It may not be true that that is what happened here, but I don't see how it is impossible.

The notion that solar flares are the cause of the fluctuations comes from where? Have you looked up the fluctuations to see which digit of precision is affected? Until then please don't make a claim of drastic.

I provided you a link earlier. But I think you are having trouble with understanding that I am not making a claim. I am speculating. I am not trying to say that any of this is fact; I am exploring the possibilities. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

As far as the fossil record is concerned, you are confusing species with order. The evidence on orders is quite strong.

I'm not confusing anything. The fossil record is nowhere near complete enough to be used as evidence of an organism's non-existence based on the fact that we haven't found the fossils. This is not only a result of the fossil record being incomplete but also because of how rare fossilization is.

The idea that sedimentary rock would survive in a granitic melt for any length of time is ludicrous.

That's fine. Fossils have been found in xenoliths in granite on rare occasions. It doesn't matter if the rock is sedimentary or not.

Your math is weak. No excuses for pointing out something which has no relevance to the issue. The issue is the uncertainty in the results. That is well known and posted in dating methods. Fluctuations are considered in that issue.

There's no need to be blatantly insulting. I know you enjoy it but last time a mod had to remind us of the forum rules. Let's try not to get carried away. Lol. Back to the topic:

The problem is that we assumed that radioactive decay was constant and unchanging. Then we found fluctuations. Now we are assuming that those fluctuations are constant and unchanging. We also used to believe that the universe was constant and unchanging but now we all pretty much agree that the universe is an expanding and ever changing phenomena. What have we ever observed in nature that is constant and unchanging? Nature isn't a mathematical equation. It changes, morphs, explodes, implodes, grows, shrinks, lives, dies, the list could go on forever. It is infinitely random and that randomness allows for unlimited possibilities. That randomness makes it real. You can tell me that the fluctuations are always and have always been constant and unchanging, but I think I understand nature and life enough to safely conclude that you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are right and there is a flaw in my suggestion of the granite taking the form of some other rock that is within it, I won't be embarrassed. I will be wrong and I will accept that I am wrong, but so far I don't see what's so obviously wrong with the idea. It may not be true that that is what happened here, but I don't see how it is impossible.

I provided you a link earlier. But I think you are having trouble with understanding that I am not making a claim. I am speculating. I am not trying to say that any of this is fact; I am exploring the possibilities. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

I'm not confusing anything. The fossil record is nowhere near complete enough to be used as evidence of an organism's non-existence based on the fact that we haven't found the fossils. This is not only a result of the fossil record being incomplete but also because of how rare fossilization is.

That's fine. Fossils have been found in xenoliths in granite on rare occasions. It doesn't matter if the rock is sedimentary or not.

There's no need to be blatantly insulting. I know you enjoy it but last time a mod had to remind us of the forum rules. Let's try not to get carried away. Lol. Back to the topic:

The problem is that we assumed that radioactive decay was constant and unchanging. Then we found fluctuations. Now we are assuming that those fluctuations are constant and unchanging. We also used to believe that the universe was constant and unchanging but now we all pretty much agree that the universe is an expanding and ever changing phenomena. What have we ever observed in nature that is constant and unchanging? Nature isn't a mathematical equation. It changes, morphs, explodes, implodes, grows, shrinks, lives, dies, the list could go on forever. It is infinitely random and that randomness allows for unlimited possibilities. That randomness makes it real. You can tell me that the fluctuations are always and have always been constant and unchanging, but I think I understand nature and life enough to safely conclude that you are wrong.

I see the problem with this not possibly being a cast of a fossil. You are looking in the wrong direction. To form a track the object it must have come into contact with was a cast of a cast, not a cast. Had the granite come into contact with the fossilized track as you suggested, then the granite would have been a cast. Do you see the problem with what you have claimed?

I know you are making unwarranted speculations. You should also understand by now how bad those speculations are.

You are mistaken about the fossil record.

Please tell us about these fossils in xenoliths in granite. I am calling your bluff. I know you are wrong, but you will just point out non-granitic rocks and say something dubious such as it shows it might be possible. Well that is simply wrong. You need to show a fossil in a xenolith in a granite filled with phenocrysts.

Your claim that fluctuations are constant and unchanging means they are not fluctuations. What are you talking about?

You ask what have we ever observed that is constant and unchanging?

1. Conservation of energy

2. Conservation of momentum

3. Gravitational constant

4. Electron charge

etc.

You are wrong that the universe is infinitely random. That is the sort of expression used by people that do not understand the term random. The inference about unlimited possibilities is a non sequitur. Your claims about "understand nature and life" are just your opinion and so far very few people here share your opinion.

Let's go over your very bad ideas on these fluctuations.

1. You speculate about solar flares. Had you read anything or understood anything about the fluctuations you would not have made this silly speculation.

2. The fluctuations affect the third digit or greater of precision. Thus your claims about the uncertainty of dates are rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.