Scientists say giants existed

[Astrid]

Why can't they be skulls from extinct primates?
As to interbreeding with humans, most primates are unable to interbreed with other primates which aren't close relatives.

"Could" be if they existed.

 

[Tuur]

Unknown species of rare deep ocean fish
are still being found.
The coelacanth was a surprise because
all of its known ancestry was fresh water,
and disappeared 65 000years ago.

Fossilizing a deep sea creature is all
but impossible.

The interest in it was not that it was a
"new" species but that it's related
to the crossopterygian ( cheating
is to check spelling) species ancestral
to amphibians and the rest of us.

And that, being largely unchanged from cretaceous
days, it revealed much about its extinct relatives.

Nevertheless it's always brought up by
the cryptid fans, as evidence for
Hippogryphs or whatever.


As for unusually tall people, the very tallest,
like Andre the Giant are rare, and, very
unhealthy, short lived.

I'm just a hair over 150 cm, so America is the
land if giants, to me.

The story of the coelacanth has been a favorite of mine ever since I learned of it as a child. A fish thought to be extinct yet was still living. In my life I've seen animals where their species wasn't supposed to be. It does make you wonder what else is around that isn't supposed to be, yet is.

That's not a blank check for cryptids. Some cryptid claims raise the question of how could relatively small ecosystems support a thriving population. Yet if there's not a reason like that, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of some claims.

 

[Tuur]

Link or it don't exist

Heh. Like the ocean, it will exist whether I link it or not.

Be that as it may, the story of Charles Byrne, billed as the Irish Giant, is a sad one. Dr. John Hunter wanted Byrne to leave him his body after death so that he could display his bones. Bryne refused and made plans to be buried at sea. But as his final wishes were carried out, robbers took his body. After four years had past, Hunter put Byrne's bones on display,

You can read about it here: Charles Byrne (giant) - Wikipedia

 

[Astrid]

The story of the coelacanth has been a favorite of mine ever since I learned of it as a child. A fish thought to be extinct yet was still living. In my life I've seen animals where their species wasn't supposed to be. It does make you wonder what else is around that isn't supposed to be, yet is.

That's not a blank check for cryptids. Some cryptid claims raise the question of how could relatively small ecosystems support a thriving population. Yet if there's not a reason like that, maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of some claims.

Well, to be more precise the coelacanth
was not believed extinct.
They caught an unknown and unimagined
creature whose nearest relatives disappeared
from the fossil record and were presumed
extinct.
A large terrestrial animal still unknown to
science is possible, but grows eve less probable -
which is kind of my point, probabilities.

Bigfoot, Congo Dinosaur, a giant bird etc
are so unlikely that reports get auto- dismissed
along with the latest discovery of Noah's ark.

Bring in actual evidence and things will
get lively, quick enough.


Reports of them naughty "mainstream"
scientists suppressing the discoveries is
too childish to discuss.

 

[Astrid]

Heh. Like the ocean, it will exist whether I link it or not.

Be that as it may, the story of Charles Byrne, billed as the Irish Giant, is a sad one. Dr. John Hunter wanted Byrne to leave him his body after death so that he could display his bones. Bryne refused and made plans to be buried at sea. But as his final wishes were carried out, robbers took his body. After four years had past, Hunter put Byrne's bones on display,

You can read about it here: Charles Byrne (giant) - Wikipedia

Ah OK, a human of large size.
Not a giant- giant of unknown lineage.

Tnx for link

 

[Tuur]

Well, to be more precise the coelacanth
was not believed extinct.
They caught an unknown and unimagined
creature whose nearest relatives disappeared
from the fossil record and were presumed
extinct.
A large terrestrial animal still unknown to
science is possible, but grows eve less probable -
which is kind of my point, probabilities.

Bigfoot, Congo Dinosaur, a giant bird etc
are so unlikely that reports get auto- dismissed
along with the latest discovery of Noah's ark.

Bring in actual evidence and things will
get lively, quick enough.


Reports of them naughty "mainstream"
scientists suppressing the discoveries is
too childish to discuss.

The problem with cryptids is that all arguments for and against are hypotheticals unless you have the animal. Without the animal, we only have chances for or against that vary with the cryptid and information. Nessie is supposed to be a population of large aquatic animals living in a relatively small confined space, which already makes it unlikely, the unlikelihood increases with each failed attempt to find it. Bigfoot is mixed. Right now I'm thinking of an account from maybe the 19th Century in an area not associated with Bigfoot, where you don't usually find bones in the woods due to scavengers and acidic soil. If the account was accurate, what evidence would we have of it? That doesn't mean the account was accurate, only that it was possible.

Doesn't a large undiscovered hominid exist? Don't know. Only know that it's possible. Does a dinosaur exist in the Congo? Don't know.it seems more unlikely simply because there doesn't seem to be dinosaurs elsewhere. There are others cryptids that are more likely, such as a large species of wolf that's supposedly in northern North America. It's a possibility, nothing more.

Side note: In North America, trail cameras have become common. These are motion activated cameras used to record game animals. Will say that to the best of my knowledge, such cameras have photographed known animals, but not cryptids. Just saying.

 

[Astrid]

The problem with cryptids is that all arguments for and against are hypotheticals unless you have the animal. Without the animal, we only have chances for or against that vary with the cryptid and information. Nessie is supposed to be a population of large aquatic animals living in a relatively small confined space, which already makes it unlikely, the unlikelihood increases with each failed attempt to find it. Bigfoot is mixed. Right now I'm thinking of an account from maybe the 19th Century in an area not associated with Bigfoot, where you don't usually find bones in the woods due to scavengers and acidic soil. If the account was accurate, what evidence would we have of it? That doesn't mean the account was accurate, only that it was possible.

Doesn't a large undiscovered hominid exist? Don't know. Only know that it's possible. Does a dinosaur exist in the Congo? Don't know.it seems more unlikely simply because there doesn't seem to be dinosaurs elsewhere. There are others cryptids that are more likely, such as a large species of wolf that's supposedly in northern North America. It's a possibility, nothing more.

Side note: In North America, trail cameras have become common. These are motion activated cameras used to record game animals. Will say that to the best of my knowledge, such cameras have photographed known animals, but not cryptids. Just saying.

There's a chance that I will win the mega lottery and
be voted Ms Hong Kong. On the same day.

 

[Tuur]

There's a chance that I will win the mega lottery and
be voted Ms Hong Kong. On the same day.

Yes, there is. There's a non-zero chance for many things. I don't know if any of us can give an accurate chance of the existence of most cryptids. The easiest are cryptids due to a known hoax. Next are cryptids where the chance is vanishingly small due to environmental constraints (Nessie). Others have different chances. Just what those are would vary.

 

[Paul4JC]

A 6ft plus guy in ancient times would have been seen as a giant. Anything else is pure fantasy...

How tall do you think normal antediluvians were? Yeah, they lived about 15 times our lifespans! Ignorance is bliss.

[Gen 5:5, 8, 10, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27 NASB20] 5 So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. ... . 8 So all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died. ... . ... 14 So all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died. ... 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died. ... 20 So all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died. ... 23 So all the days of Enoch were 365 years. ... 27 So all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.

 

[Lost4words]

How tall do you think normal antediluvians were? Yeah, they lived about 15 times our lifespans! Ignorance is bliss.

[Gen 5:5, 8, 10, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27 NASB20] 5 So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. ... . 8 So all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died. ... . ... 14 So all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died. ... 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died. ... 20 So all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died. ... 23 So all the days of Enoch were 365 years. ... 27 So all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.

How short do you think they were?

Age does not equal size!

 

[JacksBratt]

It's the usual.
The "mainstream" won't touch it because
( plug in the conspiracy)

You are correct.
The "mainstream" have a set "truth" of what our history contains.
It's rather ironic however because true science continues to search for new evidence and new facts that can then correct any fault in the beliefs already held to be true.
Science is forever changing.. until it starts showing that biblical events, history, nations and prophesies... are true.

People like Graham Hancock are continually ridiculed for the facts that they find.

Modern scientist of many disciplines are hypocrites for the simple fact that they will not follow the truth.. they follow what they want to be true.

 

[JacksBratt]

Its a mystery why they call it the "History" channel.

I really don't care what platform is used. If someone can post or present truth... it matters not if it's on Disney, YouTube, Ticktock, the History channel, CNN, Fox or even written in chalk on a sidewalk....
The medium is not the message... as was once stated. The medium is just the method that truth, lies and fiction are delivered to the people.

 

[JacksBratt]

Why can't they be skulls from extinct primates?
As to interbreeding with humans, most primates are unable to interbreed with other primates which aren't close relatives.

They can be from extinct primates... They can be from anything.

That is true... However finding out exactly what they really are from means doing DNA tests.

These DNA test have been done and the ones that they tested were not from extinct primates.

The Germans tried to inter breed primates with humans.... They may have succeed once or twice but it's not easy and had disastrous consequences.

 

[JacksBratt]

Like who would think they could ever catch a coelacanth?

The most famous photo of Nessie is an admitted fraud. Some of the Bigfoot "evidence" likely stems from such. When it comes to giants, we have to ask how big? There are peoples that are above average in height and families that are above average in height, and people afflicted with pituitary disorders that give them taller than average height. Those are the giants.

The disease that Andre the Giant had is called acromegaly.
It creates a lot of health issues.
These skulls and skeletons are not from humans with acromegaly.

 

[Astrid]

You are correct.
The "mainstream" have a set "truth" of what our history contains.
It's rather ironic however because true science continues to search for new evidence and new facts that can then correct any fault in the beliefs already held to be true.
Science is forever changing.. until it starts showing that biblical events, history, nations and prophesies... are true.

People like Graham Hancock are continually ridiculed for the facts that they find.

Modern scientist of many disciplines are hypocrites for the simple fact that they will not follow the truth.. they follow what they want to be true.

That's a parody, right?

 

[Tuur]

The disease that Andre the Giant had is called acromegaly.
It creates a lot of health issues.
These skulls and skeletons are not from humans with acromegaly.

Those skulls come from a documented process known as artificial cranial deformation. Normal sized people can and did walk with such deformities as balance depends on where the center of mass is in regards to the feet.

 

[Paul4JC]

From the video 5:23

"this is the Creole Mound and this mound was excavated by the Smithsonian Institution in November of 1883. the Smithsonian sank a circular shaft from the top of this mound down through the center to the bottom, wow and that's where they found an elaborate tomb this structure contained 11 burials 10 of these burials were arranged in a
semi-circular fashion around a central personage so you have 10 people around the central figure what was significant about this central figure according to AR signs who assisted in the excavation of dismount the central burial when measured in the tomb was six foot eight and three quarters now the skull had been pulverized by the excavation so a complete measurement wasn't possible so in all likelihood this individual was probably around seven feet tall that's a giant it's a gigantic humanoid so we're saying the Smithsonian came here in 1883 and discovered a giant that's correct in fact they discovered Giants and many of the Mounds here in Charleston there were originally 50 burial mounds in this Valley wow and I've actually got some documentation here to show you see this is the manuscript of the agent of the Smithsonian who excavated these mounds and this represents his day-to-day Journal of his excavations including the one that's mentioned on this page which is measured as seven foot six inches in length incredible so wait a minute this is a government worker who's out doing a job Excavating a mound and he discovers Giants, multiple gigantic skeletons, the ones in this Valley being between seven and eight feet tall. That is incredible so why don't we all know about it how come it's not in history books? Well, the policy of denial of the discovery of gigantic human skeletons actually wasn't enacted until about 1920. before that the time period the Smithsonian acknowledged these Giants in their own reports"

 

[JacksBratt]

That's a parody, right?

No, that is the truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

Those skulls come from a documented process known as artificial cranial deformation. Normal sized people can and did walk with such deformities as balance depends on where the center of mass is in regards to the feet.

You need to read post # 45.

 

[Astrid]

The disease that Andre the Giant had is called acromegaly.
It creates a lot of health issues.
These skulls and skeletons are not from humans with acromegaly.

True. There are no " giant" skulls.

The disease that Andre the Giant had is called acromegaly.
It creates a lot of health issues.
These skulls and skeletons are not from humans with acromegaly.

No, that is the truth.

Whatevs