Is that a shoe print in my Triassic rock?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xabora

Junior Member
#1
86 Year old article... doubt anyone has read it here.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/nevada.htm
A number of strict creationists and "ancient anomaly" enthusiasts have claimed that a "shoe print" was found in Triassic rock near Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada. (Brenner, 2006; Cremo and Thompson, 1993; Jochmans, 1979; Tanner, 1975; von Fange, 1981; Wenlong, 2006). Although most of these authors state that the print was found by John Reid in 1922 (or 1927 according to some), evidently it was actually found by Albert E. Knapp, an employee of Nevada Mining Company, on or before January 15th, 1917 (Hubbard, 1927).

Two early reports about the specimen include a March 19, 1922 story in the New York Times, and an October 8, 1922 article by W. H. Ballou in the American Weekly section of the New York Sunday American. The latter article, entitled "Mystery of the Petrified Shoe Sole" stated:

"Some time ago, while he was prospecting for fossils in Nevada, John T. Reid, a distinguished mining engineer and geologist, stopped suddenly and looked down in utter bewilderment and amazement at a rock near his feet. For there, a part of the rock itself, was what seemed to be a human footprint! Closer inspection showed that it was not a mark of a naked foot, but was, apparently, a shoe sole which had been turned into stone. The forepart was missing. But there was the outline of at least two-thirds of it, and around this outline ran a well-defined sewn thread which had, it appeared, attached the welt to the sole. Further on was another line of sewing, and in the center, where the foot would have rested had the object really been a shoe sole, there was an indentation, exactly such as would have been made by the bone of the heel rubbing upon and wearing down the material of which the sole had been made. Thus was found a fossil which is the foremost mystery of science today. For the rock in which it was found is at least 5 million years old."(Ballou, 1922).
 
#3
Paleolithic Nikes? I guess cavemen were into basketball, too. I wonder if they had the three point line back then, or if they had to get three the hard way like Bill Russel.
 

MrToughPants

Brian Burke punched my mom
#8
Looks like it's not the only prehistoric shoe print...

http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/index.php?news=2979

The retired schoolteacher determined that it was a left shoe print based on the distribution of its weight on the slate rock. Scientists determined the age of the prehistoric codfish fossil to be 200 millions years of age. This means that men wore shoes at least 200 million years ago.
This isn't the first time that people have found fossils with shoe prints next to them. It is known that the trilobite existed between 280 million and 320 million years ago. A local rock hound in Antelope Springs named William J. Meister was hunting for trilobites along a hillside near Antelope Springs, Utah in 1968 when he broke open a slab and discovered something curious: an oblong shape that he took for a human sandal print. This was quite shocking since the rock at this locality is identified as the middle Cambrian Wheeler Formation--over 500 million years old. The supposed sandal print measured approximately 10 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches, and occurred on both sides of the slab (with opposite relief). The specimen included what Meister took as a heel demarcation, as well as several small trilobites. Dr. Melvin. A. Cook, a renowned chemist at the University of Utah has confirmed the authenticity of the sandal print, "Quite obviously this footprint could not be the result of any carving, since, until found by Meister, it was covered by the strata above."
This part is really interesting which talks about a 1927 case.

"It is a layer from the heel of a shoe which had been pulled up from the balance of the heel by suction, the rock being in a plastic state at the time." The shoe print was in a marvelous state of preservation - the edges of the heel were smooth and rounded off as if cut, and its right side appeared more worn than the left - suggesting it had been worn on the right foot. But what Knapp found really amazing was that the rock in which the heel mark was made, was Triassic limestone - 225 million years old - which runs in a belt through the canyon hills he had been exploring. The rock was later examined by an expert geologist at the Rockefeller Foundation, who confirmed Knapp's analysis. The presence of minute crystals of sulphide of mercury throughout spaces in the fossil also testified to it being of great antiquity.

....


The real surprise about the age-old heel imprint, however, did not come until microphotographs revealed that the leather had been stitched by a double row of stitches, the twists of the threads is very discernable. One line followed along the heel's outer edge, and the second line paralleled the first precisely, inwards by one-third of an inch. What baffled investigators was the fact that this double-stitching had been done with thread much smaller, and more refined in workmanship, than that used by shoe-makers in 1927, when the fossil print was discovered

The fossils with shoe prints are a direct challenge to Darwin's theory of evolution. They indicate that there was at least one period of civilization before our civilization.
.
 

Xabora

Junior Member
#13
Darklord said:
My theory that we were influenced by aliens gets another plus.

*puts on tinfoil hat*
I have 2 more articles I do wish to post... but I may go with the AGI one today.

Cianalas said:
Proof that someone will eventually event a time machine and go back to the Triassic?
Ehh... dunno...
 
#14
Immortal_Daemon said:
I can see how that looks like a shoe print, but it could also be something else.
Yeah, calling it a definitive "foot print" seems like a stretch. Wouldn't there be more?

Cianalas said:
Proof that someone will eventually event a time machine and go back to the Triassic?
I don't think time travel works that way... at least, not our present understanding/theorizing of it.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
#16
There is no reason why humans back then could not have made basic clothing. Considering the environmental changes that occur since then, and considering how long ago it was, it's normal that we would find practically no traces of whatever they made, including more advance structures like villages, etc.
 
#22
Ether_Snake said:
There is no reason why humans back then could not have made basic clothing. Considering the environmental changes that occur since then, and considering how long ago it was, it's normal that we would find practically no traces of whatever they made, including more advance structures like villages, etc.

This is the Triassic were talking about, Mammals had just suffered a major blow as their Protomammal Reptilian mothers had just died out, and there were a niche critter at best, Dinosaurs had barely started to crawl out of their own sludge to take control, and the World was stilkl controlled by primitive reptiles, there were no humans at this point Scientifically.
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
#24
But wasn't there a footprint once found in the same layer as one of a dinosaur?
 

Grizzlyjin

Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
#26
Karakand said:
Haha, yeah it is. And what a terrible movie! The special effects were laughable, even for a shitty sci-fi movie. It isn't even enjoyable on the "Haha! Look how cheesy this is level." Mainly because they are actually trying to create some sort of sci-fi time travel epic out of dung.

I'm shocked it was actually released in theaters.
 

Xabora

Junior Member
#28
Grizzlyjin said:
Haha, yeah it is. And what a terrible movie! The special effects were laughable, even for a shitty sci-fi movie. It isn't even enjoyable on the "Haha! Look how cheesy this is level." Mainly because they are actually trying to create some sort of sci-fi time travel epic out of dung.

I'm shocked it was actually released in theaters.


:lol That face expression is priceless!
 
#29


"sorry guys"

Can't believe that not only am I the first one to post this, but that I didn't post this in my first post here! That episode kicked ass btw!
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
#33
But seriously those tribes could have found dinosaur fossils and just depicted what they thought they looked like on stone, but whatever the case they look like a hoax. I mean

 
Status
Not open for further replies.