Giant Footprint




World Museum


Uploaded on Jan 5, 2012
     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, about 4 feet long. Some still say that it is a natural erosion pattern.
     Personally I find that suggestion highy improbable for various reasons that I will not go into here. Prof. Pieter Wagener from UPE, suggests that "there is a higher probability of little green men arriving from space and licking it out with their tongues, than being created by natural erosion".
     It is located in South Africa, near the town of Mpaluzi, close to the Swaziland border. It is estimated to be between 200 million and 3 Billion years old because of our current understanding of the formation of granites in Earth's history. This dating immediately causes great debate and argument - so I urge you to keep your mind open and focused on the evidence.
     This amazing footprint in granite was discovered in 1912 by a hunter called Stoffel Coetzee, while hunting in the remote area. At the time this was a deeply remote part of South Africa known as the Eastern Transvaal, teeming with wild life, including antelope and lions. It remains in the same condition as it was when first discovered and the possibility that this was a carved hoax is extremely low because of its remote location. Even today, it is difficult to find.
The real mystery is how this amazing phenomenon occured - I have no idea - but here it is and we cannot wish it away.
     YES - It is granite - it is a well recognised geological part of South Africa and recorded on all geological maps - that is why this footprint is such an incredible mystery. It can be desribed as a "phenocrystic" granite, OR coarse porphyritic granite, that underwent several different stages of cooling. The result being an interesting mixture of large and small granules. This is why granite companies are keen to mine this area for granite because it will look really "pretty" when polished. In the official Geology Of South Africa, this outcrop is called Mpuluzi Batholith (Granite) and the official dating of this rock produced dates of around 3,1 billion years.
     A real mystery that needs close scientific examination.








Cosmos vs. Creation

Q&A

What is wrong with the word "cosmos"?

My generation associates "cosmos" with Carol Sagan and Star Trek.  It implies this vast vast universe with billions and billions of stars of which our sun is only one of them.  It implies that God chose this solar system for man.  And that our solar system is revolving around the center of the universe, which is so far away it has not been discovered yet, and may even be some kind of a black hole.

This implication leads away from the truth that the earth was created first, before the sun, before the other stars.  Earth is the center of all the universe.  Whatever swirls around us out in space, guided by whatever natural laws, is secondary.

It is difficult enough for us to grasp the truth of earth-centerness.  Using the word "cosmos" reinforces the barrier we have in seeing our earth as the center instead of just a speck revolving around a sun in a universe. 

Somehow, Carol Sagan, made this idea of how small we are into a humbling religious experience.   [Marijuana smoking can do the same thing.]

We can maybe start to undo some of the subtle damage that is done to us by the modern world by using, as much as possible, the same vocabulary as our Holy Church Fathers.  The Church Fathers don't use the word "cosmos" – they say "creation" or "world".