Now I know this is really random, but I did a google search for my old school tonight and this is what I got. Now are they footsteps or not ?

Yep;

If that is the whole grounds, I guess the groundsman got bored one day and planted a slightly different breed of grass in the "footsteps" - good find

They are in one corner of the school, not the whole grounds.Another view from further out

Its called the royal something and something, it's a boarding school set into what appears to be acres of parkland and seems to have its own lake/river....not your average one size fails all comprehensive!

I wasn't having a go, I wish i'd had the chance to go to a decent school!

As in Royal.. Air Force?

Thanks for that tack'ho, It actually has 3 lakes and the big one you can see you can sail on! (though it's not that big)

English Dave It is state maintaned but still costs a heck of a lot to go to. I was lucky my father was in the forces so they payed for me to go, and it was great I really enjoyed the school and my time there.

Just out of interest I looked up the fees for my old school. £8200 per term! Luckily, due to a fleeting acquaintance with academic excellence (long since passed), I was there on a scholarship. Equally fortunately, I have settled in "Norn Iron" where the state education system is excellent. Oh and my daughter is only three so not an issue just yet.

I wonder if the footprints are some sort of photographic error/anomaly. Each footprint seems to be exactly the same shape as the next, which would be hard enough to do with your basic "crop-circle" hoax. But these are not regular, easily copy-able shapes. And one of the footprints crosses a track or fence.

I know that in aerial photography (the detailed stuff in Google Earth isn't from satelites) the plane flies "strips", taking repeated photos with a GPS tag that a computer then glues together and flattens out. It's possible that the footprints are a mark on the lens seen several times. Just an idea.

There's definitely something fishy going on there: if you look at the same place with Local Live, it comes as the worst piece of aerial photo they can produce. All patched up together with sticky tape.

No footprints and no giant there, but surely something to hide.

We should ask Carshalton to investigate; after all, he works 5 minutes away from there!

well if it was a giant he actually did have 2 left feet

Ohh time to be technical.

The orginal google pic has very litle slant angle (ie it was taken from almost over head)  and judging by the lack increase in slant angle as you move across the image it would have had to be an extremly high flying ac to get it, therefore most likely to be a commercial sat image.  Also the photo has no seams/joins suggesting a single image, at least across portion we are interested in.  All this suggests that there is not a smudge on the lens, gotta be Giants!

Also if you look at the composite picture you'll see that the portion where the Giants footprints are was taken earlier than the google shot, notice the lack of path!