Giant skeletons in North America/Grand Canyon

[danielost]

I dont see the use of MA and PA as very universal to be honest. THere are others here that understand this vast topic beter than I but i believe it is well established that while some modern languages have a common root from which they developed there are very clear groups that developed seperately. The basic structure of some languages is very very different and the evidence is that it evolved independantly in more than one culture.

maybe this will help.

http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm

a language breaks up or divideds, usually because people become isolated from others that speak the language.

sometimes such as english it is influenced by two root languages.

then you have american which is a marriage of every or almost every language on the planet. which is why american english is 1.5 times larger than the so called king's english.

another way to change a language is through jobs. every profession has it's own terms and language so that everyone in said profession knows what is going on, and those not part of said profession really don't know.

then sometimes a break away language can still understand most if not all of the parent language but not the other way around. such as portiguese and spanish.

[Abramelin]

Unless giantism is the result of some worldwide glandular disorder.. i'd say that ,perhaps, there are still some recessive Giant Genes swimming about in the gene pool? Below are images of Very large people from Afghanistan... Canada.. Mongolia.. and Russia

What is your point, exactly?

There are very small people, there are also very sick people, and very weird looking people. And all just because their genes got ****ed up.

Not all deviations are the result of recessive genes.

We are not the descendents of giants, but giants and dwarfs do occur because their genes got screwed up or their hormones went haywire.

[danielost]

What is your point, exactly?

There are very small people, there are also very sick people, and very weird looking people. And all just because their genes got ****ed up.

Not all deviations are the result of recessive genes.

We are not the descendents of giants, but giants and dwarfs do occur because their genes got screwed up or their hormones went haywire.

there was also the so called hobbit human. where many of our fairy tales may have come from.

the bible talks about the people of moab being giants.

[Abramelin]

there was also the so called hobbit human. where many of our fairy tales may have come from.

the bible talks about the people of moab being giants.

The Bible says a lot of things.

It's only up to you to believe what its says.

And that's all there is to it: BELIEF.

And the Bible didn't mention the 'hobbits', or Homo Floriensis.

Right?

[Gatofeo]

When citing old sources, especially magazines and newspapers of the 18th and 19th century, and up through the 1950s, you should always remember that unscrupulous writers, journalists and publishers printed all kinds of wild stories to increase readership.

Mark Twain admitted that when he was a reporter in Nevada, he wrote a number of "whoppers" because it was fun and increased readership.

And the story often built on itself, as papers and magazines tried to "scoop" each other by adding "facts" and details beyond what their competitor published.

In my files I have a 1903 newspaper that reports on the U.S. Army's new bolt-action rifle, later referred to as the 1903 Springfield. The article claims it will shoot more than twice farther than the German rifle and -- if you stood up a line of men -- its .30-caliber bullet would pierce more than 40 of them!

This is absolute nonsense, yet I'm sure readers in 1903 believed it. After all, it was in the newspaper, so it MUST be true!

The truth is, a .30-caliber bullet would probably pierce one man and lodge in the other, at most penetrate two and lodge in the third. And the German rifle shot bullets about the same distance as the American rifle.

Tall tales and wild exaggerations are, I believe, responsible for most if not all of the strange stories still quoted today: unknown airships, devils leaving footprints in the snow or mud, giant birds, lake monsters, the sighting of long-extinct animals, Bigfoot, and women drivers who grasp the concept of a 4-Way stop sign.

But seriously, look hard at the source before you cite it. In many instances, you'll find yourself quoting a whopper.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Gatofeo

[Vikturtle]

A natural formation:

The Giant's Causeway in Ireland.

And why is this site natural, cause someone told you it was? If it's natural why aren't the rest of the mountains in the same formations. Why are those formations so different than the rest of the land?

[Vikturtle]

Tut. I thought it was common knowledge that the giant Fionn mac Cumhaill built it to go get the Scots. Some people eh, they really aught to think before they post nonsensical 'theories' about natural formations and the like. Tut.

That's what I'm saying - wow, some people - excuse me, some educated people are really gullible.

[Vikturtle]

hi questionmark, just using your post (thank you) to tack on this picture.

... there have been Giant skeletons found all over the earth.. Many in the U.S. ... and just to ramble for a minute.. i believe the Bible, being written by men at various times and containing nearly identical concepts from much earlier writings , actually contains some significant scientific statements.... things like (There were Giants in the Earth in those days) (And God DIVIDED the light)

(And all the Earth was of one tongue and of one speech) ... ever notice the similarities in the words for MA (mother) in languages around the Earth??? PA too for that matter.... like i say.. i'm just rambling ..not proposing anything , except maybe open minds. Thanks.

The lack of open minds here is really astounding - I mean - really astounding.

[Vikturtle]

Okay, I'm done here, I came to read this thread from another site and what I found was the most close minded - grasping their "religion" tighter than what Christians are accused of doing - group I people that I have seen in a very long time.

I thought being scientists as most of you claim to be it would lend to having an open mind - yet what I found is that it leads one to thinking very circular and having a brain that couldn't be open or expanded with a brick.

A new or in this case an old idea is so frightening that we can't even contemplate it without condemnation and insult. Interesting experience I've had. The arrogance of the supposedly educated is a frightening thing to behold.

[danielost]

The Bible says a lot of things.

It's only up to you to believe what its says.

And that's all there is to it: BELIEF.

And the Bible didn't mention the 'hobbits', or Homo Floriensis.

Right?

no but mythos do.

[jaylemurph]

Okay, I'm done here, I came to read this thread from another site and what I found was the most close minded - grasping their "religion" tighter than what Christians are accused of doing - group I people that I have seen in a very long time.

I thought being scientists as most of you claim to be it would lend to having an open mind - yet what I found is that it leads one to thinking very circular and having a brain that couldn't be open or expanded with a brick.

A new or in this case an old idea is so frightening that we can't even contemplate it without condemnation and insult. Interesting experience I've had. The arrogance of the supposedly educated is a frightening thing to behold.

If you understand science so poorly as to accuse its adherents of closed-minded-ness and doctrinalism, and don't understand how the Giant's Causeway is a perfectly natural phenomenon, you're not really in a position to make an informed, intelligent critique of the scientific method. You come across as quite immature, since your argument amounts to little more than "They must be wrong, 'cause they say stuff I don't like."

--Jaylemurph

[Oniomancer]

And why is this site natural, cause someone told you it was? If it's natural why aren't the rest of the mountains in the same formations. Why are those formations so different than the rest of the land?

It's called columnar jointing. It's surprisingly common, with examples found all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/facts/col_joint.html

Everything about them indicates they're formed from lava flows cooling under specific circumstances so they're as limited or extensive as the original flow. It's Not much different in principle from the mechanism that produces nice, neat, hexagonal mudcracks without outside agencies.

It's also not uncommon to find it overlaid by or immediately adjacent to layers of other rock, as appears to be the case here. In some cases, like Devil's Tower Wyoming (ooooweeeeooooo) you can actually see the flows coming up out of the surrounding rock. This tends to argue strongly against artifice.

Edit to add: Just found this, the process can even be duplicated under the simplest of laboratory conditions using common ingredients:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216104325.htm

Edited February 6, 2010 by Oniomancer

[Eldorado]

"Giant skeletons in North America"

Were they found hidden in "giant closets"?

[Swede]

Okay, I'm done here, I came to read this thread from another site and what I found was the most close minded - grasping their "religion" tighter than what Christians are accused of doing - group I people that I have seen in a very long time.

I thought being scientists as most of you claim to be it would lend to having an open mind - yet what I found is that it leads one to thinking very circular and having a brain that couldn't be open or expanded with a brick.

A new or in this case an old idea is so frightening that we can't even contemplate it without condemnation and insult. Interesting experience I've had. The arrogance of the supposedly educated is a frightening thing to behold.

Fascinating. Four posts within a documented 17 minutes. That involve absolutely no interaction. And you are capable of reaching such sweeping conclusions. And you perceive that you have had an "experience"? My, my, my...

[jaylemurph]

"Giant skeletons in North America"

Were they found hidden in "giant closets"?

Heh, heh. Sort of.

As pointed out before in this thread, the story first (and only) appeared in newspapers known to completely invent stories to increase readership, as was painfully common around the turn of the last century. But full marks to you for putting it in wittier terms than anyone else! <3

--Jaylemurph

[TheSearcher]

"Giant skeletons in North America"

Were they found hidden in "giant closets"?

The giant closets probably coming from Ikea, they will have desintegrated by now anyway.

[prairiechickin]

The giant closets probably coming from Ikea, they will have desintegrated by now anyway.

Into giant piles of Swedish sawdust.

[TheSearcher]

Into giant piles of Swedish sawdust.

Then the question is, how do you recognise huge piles of Swedish sawdust?

On a more serious note, fact remains that there have not been found any remains of the proverbial "giants". There have been finds big people, small people, deformed skulls, deliberatly deformed skulls, etc.

Read the date of the articles in question, that should put things in perspective.

[prairiechickin]

Then the question is, how do you recognise huge piles of Swedish sawdust?

DNA tests will usually reveal high levels of girly sweat in piles of Swedish sawdust, since the men wear out on the saw. My Norwegian Gandmother always told me, "Fifty Swedes, ran through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian", and I always believed that.

[TheSearcher]

DNA tests will usually reveal high levels of girly sweat in piles of Swedish sawdust, since the men wear out on the saw. My Norwegian Gandmother always told me, "Fifty Swedes, ran through the weeds, chased by one Norwegian", and I always believed that.

Well, I got some Norwegian mates, been to Norway a few times and to be honest, I believe it too.

[SlimJim22]

Then the question is, how do you recognise huge piles of Swedish sawdust?

On a more serious note, fact remains that there have not been found any remains of the proverbial "giants". There have been finds big people, small people, deformed skulls, deliberatly deformed skulls, etc.

Read the date of the articles in question, that should put things in perspective.

Archeologists are only able to interpret data from objects they uncover or come into their possession. Sometimes silence can explain more than the mainsream view. "If" giant remains were discovered would the information be released before it could have it's maximum impact? Admittedly we cannot discount possibilities of elaborate hoaxes but in some cases that assumption would seem more ridiculous than to believe the Bible or fringe theorists. When you talk about small people do ya mean hobbits, pygmies or pixies? Big people or giants? Please check out this link and let me know your thoughts.

http://s8int.com/phile/giants24.html

[sinewave]

<!--quoteo(post=1670971:date=May 12 2007, 02:09 AM:name=MoonPrincess)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MoonPrincess @ May 12 2007, 02:09 AM) 1670971[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Cool. Yes, there is an area in the Grand Canyon. That is completely & totally blocked off from the public. Makes you wonder what is really "there."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Grand Canyon Arisona. Parts of this canyon are allso not very clear in google earth ? does make you wonder ?

I can't find any low-res areas around the rim of the canyon. Can you provide the coordinates?

[Geoff1977]

Hey there.

Does anyone know where any of these giant skeletons can be seen? Universities, museums etc.

I'd love to get up close and see them, but have no idea where they are. I'm particularly interested in the North American giants.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Geoff

[sinewave]

Hey there.

Does anyone know where any of these giant skeletons can be seen? Universities, museums etc.

I'd love to get up close and see them, but have no idea where they are. I'm particularly interested in the North American giants.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Geoff

Welcome Geoff. I am guessing none exist to prove the case and are really just the stuff of myth.

Edited February 8, 2010 by sinewave

[+DieChecker]

As far as I know, none of the Giant Skeletons of North America are available for study. They may be in someones Private Collection, but nothing officially exists Publicly.

If they were real, they might be the proof of bigfoot, or of any of half a dozen other wild theorys, but since none are able to be studied we can consider those theorys to be speculation.