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

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already posted the link.

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

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?

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Well thats rather curious as wiki lists 21 living people with heights ranging from 7' 1" to 8' 5.5". 35', or anywhere close is out of the question for homosapiens, and I would suggest any biped.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

What you have presented are historical "accounts" and not "records", as the latter implies that they are historical fact recorded somewhere. They're not. And what I've been saying from the start is that just because they are written down somewhere, whether its newspapers or history books does not on its own make them a fact. Physical evidence makes them a fact.

Do such persons occassionally exist, certainly. But they've also left physical evidence of their existance and not merely some mention in a book.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have presented are historical "accounts" and not "records", as the latter implies that they are historical fact recorded somewhere. They're not. And what I've been saying from the start is that just because they are written down somewhere, whether its newspapers or history books does not on its own make them a fact. Physical evidence makes them a fact.

Does not being a fact mean we should never talk about them?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have presented are historical "accounts" and not "records", as the latter implies that they are historical fact recorded somewhere. They're not. And what I've been saying from the start is that just because they are written down somewhere, whether its newspapers or history books does not on its own make them a fact. Physical evidence makes them a fact.

Do such persons occassionally exist, certainly. But they've also left physical evidence of their existance and not merely some mention in a book.

cormac

They are recorded in history books of the time and therefore they are records. Whether they are fact or not has yet to be seen, I'm not arguing that. What you fail to realize is that IF these skeletons were uncovered (as the records in over 10 history books I have read so far suggest, each with different accounts at different locations) then the evidence HAS been found. In many of the accounts the bones crumble apart while trying to remove them from the ground. That isn't a rare thing, it happens a lot when bones aren't preserved well due to various different conditions. Bones don't always survive and there have to be certain conditions in place for them to actually fossilize. So mostly all that is left are the records in these history books. I'm still researching and will post what I find as I find it.

I would understand this amount of resistance toward the idea if we were talking about lizard men or something, but this is a scientific possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are recorded in history books of the time and therefore they are records. Whether they are fact or not has yet to be seen, I'm not arguing that. What you fail to realize is that IF these skeletons were uncovered (as the records in over 10 history books I have read so far suggest, each with different accounts at different locations) then the evidence HAS been found. In many of the accounts the bones crumble apart while trying to remove them from the ground. That isn't a rare thing, it happens a lot when bones aren't preserved well due to various different conditions. Bones don't always survive and there have to be certain conditions in place for them to actually fossilize. So mostly all that is left are the records in these history books. I'm still researching and will post what I find as I find it.

I would understand this amount of resistance toward the idea if we were talking about lizard men or something, but this is a scientific possibility.

The key word there is "IF". Show me something substantially more than "IF" and you'll have something worth talking about. Otherwise it's just another of many claims.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key word there is "IF". Show me something substantially more than "IF" and you'll have something worth talking about. Otherwise it's just another of many claims.

I understand that completely. What I don't understand is why I am getting attacked for speculating a scientifically and realistically plausible idea. Why do you post on this site if you aren't willing to speculate about unexplained mysteries?

ALSO:

I just found that a man named John Wesley Powell was one of the people who did first-hand explorations of the mounds and wrote of unusually tall skeletons. I'm going to do more research on him, if anyone else is interested: you have his name.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key word there is "IF". Show me something substantially more than "IF" and you'll have something worth talking about.

I understand that you don't think it's worth talking about at this point; what I don't understand is why you're so hostile toward someone else talking about it. What harm is their conversation doing to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not being a fact mean we should never talk about them?

One can talk about what's possible all day long and never really get anywhere. Theoretical physicists do it all the time. But being possible does not necessarily make something probable nor likely, even if it's mentioned in print. And we're not really talking about what's possible, since these claims are in print and are not outside the scope of modern understanding, we're talking about what's probably or possibly likely. But without any actual evidence to support same then there's no reason to suggest the latter are indeed true. Which leaves us back at square one with nothing but a claim.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can talk about what's possible all day long and never really get anywhere....But without any actual evidence to support same then there's no reason to suggest the latter are indeed true. Which leaves us back at square one with nothing but a claim.

And if others happen to enjoy talking about mere claims, what is it to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if others happen to enjoy talking about mere claims, what is it to you?

I could throw the opposite to you: If others happen to appreciate actual evidence of something being true over merely a claim of same, what is it to you?

Solely because something is mentioned in a book isn't a mystery. If that something was indeed true but unexpected, then that would be a mystery. I guess I just prefer my mysteries with a little more meat to them.

cormac

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.