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

#76    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:45 PM

Quote

Websites talking about giants with horns aren't reporting any history I've read.  Source please.
I'm not automatically discrediting the records in these books because there is no reason to.  It's scientifically possible so why automatically assume its a lie?
I already posted the link.

I am not automatically discrediting them either. I've already stated that. There is no point in you misconstruing what I have stated. The only one claiming it is automatically a lie is you and no one else. So please stop misrepresenting others.

You seem to be willing to take the statements in the book without corroborating evidence. It is possible. I simply doubt that there would be so many tall people in one place as the book suggests.

Find the bones.


#77    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,356 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:49 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:



I think there is a lack of understanding here when the word evidence is used.  There's more than one type of evidence.  There's physical evidence, which is what everyone goes crazy about because it leaves little or no room for doubt, and there's non-physical evidence.  Primary source evidence is exactly what it sounds like: original source materials of first hand accounts.  Though it is not physical evidence, it is credible enough for historians to use in historical method.  When there is a lack of primary sources, historians WILL use secondary and even tertiary sources as "evidence" on which to base historical accuracy.

It might be important to note that (contrary to popular belief and what has been stated by some people here) a widely accepted and practiced method of historians is:
"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened."
- http://www.sources.c...Core_principles

Can you show us that the book is a report from those that made the discoveries?

My question is asking how close the book is to the discovery in terms of links to the people. The connection is not a temporal issue as in a comparison of dates.


#78    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,611 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:58 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:



I think there is a lack of understanding here when the word evidence is used.  There's more than one type of evidence.  There's physical evidence, which is what everyone goes crazy about because it leaves little or no room for doubt, and there's non-physical evidence.  Primary source evidence is exactly what it sounds like: original source materials of first hand accounts.  Though it is not physical evidence, it is credible enough for historians to use in historical method.  When there is a lack of primary sources, historians WILL use secondary and even tertiary sources as "evidence" on which to base historical accuracy.

It might be important to note that (contrary to popular belief and what has been stated by some people here) a widely accepted and practiced method of historians is:
"The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened."
- http://www.sources.c...Core_principles

Evidence that is not producible, as in your case, is not evidence.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#79    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:16 PM

View Poststereologist, on 28 September 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

I already posted the link.

The article you linked has absolutely no citations or even an explanation as to where it originated.

View Poststereologist, on 28 September 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

The only one claiming it is automatically a lie is you and no one else. So please stop misrepresenting others.

No, I have been stating that I believe that these records are possibly true...  So, who is misinterpreting who here?

View Poststereologist, on 28 September 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

You seem to be willing to take the statements in the book without corroborating evidence. It is possible. I simply doubt that there would be so many tall people in one place as the book suggests.

Find the bones.

The books actually only referenced a large number of unusually tall skeletons in a condensed area once that I can recall.  The rest recorded only two or three unusually tall skeletons among several regular sized skeletons.  The thing is, I never said that I believe this to be true and factual.  I believe it is possible because it is recorded in these historical books and it lies within the realm of science and the observable reality that people can be as tall as these alleged skeletons.  The reason I'm continuing to research this subject is because I am trying to find more evidence to support the idea that these records may be accurate, while everyone else is seeming to just push them aside.  If I am wrong in my allegation then tell me what research you have done on this in particular subject and what your conclusions were and why.  If you do that it wont look as though you are automatically discrediting it as I have stated in previous posts.

As for finding the bones, it's not as easy as that.  If they are in archaeological storage somewhere, which I assume they probably are, I can't simply walk in and start rummaging through everything trying to find them.

View Poststereologist, on 28 September 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Can you show us that the book is a report from those that made the discoveries?

My question is asking how close the book is to the discovery in terms of links to the people. The connection is not a temporal issue as in a comparison of dates.

I am still researching this.  I am having trouble pinpointing the names of the authors and dates.  If I do I will post the results here.


#80    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:18 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Evidence that is not producible, as in your case, is not evidence.

I have produced the written records as evidence.  See my links in previous posts.  Do you understand how this works?  I linked to a detailed article on historical method.


#81    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,611 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I have produced the written records as evidence.  See my links in previous posts.  Do you understand how this works?  I linked to a detailed article on historical method.
So Quasimodo is also real? Or Nessie? The invisible cloak?  Lots written about them too. In fact, every summer incompetent journalists make a new story about them.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#82    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:30 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

The rational thing to do is to accept things because there is evidence thereof, not because there is no evidence of its non-existence.

In a scientific or scholarly sense?  Absolutely.

In a speculative discussion outside of any official venue...?  Absolutely not.   What's the fun in that?


#83    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,611 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:35 PM

View PostAvallaine, on 28 September 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

In a scientific or scholarly sense?  Absolutely.

In a speculative discussion outside of any official venue...?  Absolutely not.   What's the fun in that?

The point of the matter is not that we discuss whether there is a possibility that giants, and even such with horns, existed. It is about whether evidence for their existence was found.

While I have no problem with the first the second requires at least a "little" piece of bone to be considered.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#84    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,627 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 September 2013 - 06:51 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

The rational thing to do is to accept things because there is evidence thereof, not because there is no evidence of its non-existence.

Exactly. One can't prove a negative.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#85    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:01 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

The point of the matter is not that we discuss whether there is a possibility that giants, and even such with horns, existed. It is about whether evidence for their existence was found.

While I have no problem with the first the second requires at least a "little" piece of bone to be considered.

I still don't see the issue.  "Giant" (somewhat tall) human remains may or may not have been found; there's some documentation, but no conclusive proof.  (If there were conclusive proof, it would stop being an "unexplained mystery" and become an "explained fact..."  and therefore fall outside the subject of this forum.)  As far as I can tell, no one's proposing writing a report for a peer-reviewed journal about it.  They're just speculating about the possibility...engaging creatively with the idea.  What's wrong with that?


#86    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:12 PM

Well I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point has already been made. Any landbound creature that tall will have serious hydraulic problems trying to pump blood around it's system. It's too tall to live with a ribcage the size shown in the reconstruction, it's too small for the very large heart it will need. These nonsense things often fall on these seemingly unimportant and overlooked facts of biology, mechanics and gravity. Then there is the geometry of it's hips and size of it's knees, to say nothing of.... Oh what's use, why ruin a fantasy.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik, 28 September 2013 - 07:15 PM.


#87    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:18 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

So Quasimodo is also real? Or Nessie? The invisible cloak?  Lots written about them too. In fact, every summer incompetent journalists make a new story about them.

I have two things to say about your comment:
1) Nessie and the invisible cloak are outside the realm of science.  7-8 Foot tall humans are not.  You can't even compare these things to one another so your statement is out of place and cannot be used.  Quasimodo, I believe, is supposed to be a hunchback - and they do exist.  I'm not quite sure where you're going with that one.
2) These things of which you speak are present in historical documents claiming them to be factual?  Source please.

View Postquestionmark, on 28 September 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

The point of the matter is not that we discuss whether there is a possibility that giants, and even such with horns, existed. It is about whether evidence for their existence was found.

While I have no problem with the first the second requires at least a "little" piece of bone to be considered.

Do you think the public knows about every single relic that was uncovered during the expansion of america?  Is it not possible that some may have been kept in an archive, overlooked and ultimately forgotten?  If there was credible documented proof that some of these skeletons were handled by the Bureau of Ethnology before being transferred to the Smithsonian Institute, would that change anything in your opinion?  Because as I said before, the public cant just walk into the archaeological archives and start rummaging around.  So it's almost impossible to provide proof unless a professional in the field decides to do it and I seriously doubt they will since they simply have bigger fish to fry.

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 28 September 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Well I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this point has already been made. Any landbound creature that tall will have serious hydraulic problems trying to pump blood around it's system. It's too tall to live with a ribcage the size shown in the reconstruction, it's too small for the very large heart it will need. These nonsense things often fall on these seemingly unimportant and overlooked facts of biology, mechanics and gravity. Then there is the geometry of it's hips and size of it's knees, to say nothing of.... Oh what's use, why ruin a fantasy.

Yes, we already talked about the anatomical problems with people that tall.  The discussion has evolved into one of skeletons 7-8 feet tall exhumed in the late 1800s and it seems that is also unbelievable.


#88    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:23 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 September 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Exactly. One can't prove a negative.

I have presented historical records as a form of non-physical evidence.  Prove those records to be false and I will agree with you.  If you can't do that then where exactly is your argument?


#89    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:25 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Yes, we already talked about the anatomical problems with people that tall.  The discussion has evolved into one of skeletons 7-8 feet tall exhumed in the late 1800s and it seems that is also unbelievable.
7 to 8 feet isn't unbelievable as there are people over 7 feet alive now. A giant at 7 times normal size is going to be around 35 feet tall or more. It would need a huge ribcage to contain the heart and lungs capable of keeping it alive. That means added weight which means a redesign of the entire pelvis and knees and ankles. That photo of a reconstruction is an unrealistic fantasy made either as a deliberate joke or without any biomechanical knowledge.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik, 28 September 2013 - 07:28 PM.


#90    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:29 PM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 28 September 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

7 to 8 feet isn't unbelievable as there are people over 7 feet alive now. A giant at 7 times normal size is going to be around 35 feet tall or more. It would need a huge ribcage to contain the heart and lungs capable of keeping it alive. That photo of a reconstruction is an unrealistic fantasy made either as a deliberate joke or without any biomechanical knowledge.

Yeah, like I said we went from talking about 35 foot tall giants to talking about 7-8 foot tall human skeletons exhumed in the late 1800s and almost everyone who has commented has been against the existence of either, regardless of public historical records from the time.

Edited by Dr_Acula, 28 September 2013 - 07:30 PM.






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users