Concerns raised over hunt for NZ 'giants'

[Windowpane]

On 2/18/2020 at 8:36 PM, OverSword said:

Genesis 6:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

This apparently comes from Source J.

(Apparently, the deity wasn't best pleased by the sons of God and the daughters of men getting together in this fashion, and shortened human lifespans as a result ... )

[Jon the frog]

20 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Probably anyone over 6 foot was a 'giant'.

And after numerous translation and romanticizing of the bible in multiple centuries ... it could be some pedophiles... you know,  mighty men which were of old, men of renown that came into daughters of others...and Epstein didn't kill himself

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Jon the frog

[jaylemurph]

2 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

And after numerous translation and romanticizing of the bible in multiple centuries ... it could be some pedophiles... you know,  mighty men which were of old, men of renown that came into daughters of others...and Epstein didn't kill himself

 

 

Oh, keep your conspiracy nonsense in the conspiridiotcy section...

--Jaylemurph 

[Swede]

23 hours ago, OverSword said:

Evidence that this qualifies as an archaeological site?  And every inch of the planet is paleontologicaly viable but that does not mean rare or valuable.

You can go to the top of a hill separating Kirkland from Redmond (two suburbs of Seattle) and kick rocks around and find fossilized sea shells.  There are millions of them.  They are not valuable.

1) As yet, am not aware of any. However, as noted in the article, there are reasons to be concerned that the area in question may contain culturally sensitive data. Thus, qualified investigation of the area is in order. Hardly an uncommon situation. Though, as previously noted, one does cringe at the loss of critical information.

2) Do not confuse an exposed sedimentary formation with a site locus. That said, exposed sedimentary formations can and do yield a range of informative specimens (ammonites, bryozoans, bivalves, etc.). On occasion this does lead to the identification of a new species. Therefore, of scientific value.

In the case of the area in question, the recovery of the moa femur already indicates a paleontological site locus. However, due to the abysmal level of recovery, such valuable information as soils structure/stratigraphy has been severely compromised. It appears unlikely that the guilty parties are even screening the soils. The moa femur and any associated remains could also potentially contribute to archaeological understandings. Should they bear butchering scars, etc., that alone would indicate human activity and thus be a site. And then we have such aspects as contributing to the paleoenvironmental data base.

One does wonder why you would appear to be attempting to defend criminal, irresponsible, and unethical behavior.

.

[Varelse]

For their sake they better hope they're digging on these guys' property and not

these guys'

Edited February 20, 2020 by Varelse
punct