Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Could" be if they existed.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.
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.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.
Heh. Like the ocean, it will exist whether I link it or not.Link or it don't exist
Well, to be more precise the coelacanthThe 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.
Ah OK, a human of large size.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
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.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.
There's a chance that I will win the mega lottery andThe 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.
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.There's a chance that I will win the mega lottery and
be voted Ms Hong Kong. On the same day.
How tall do you think normal antediluvians were? Yeah, they lived about 15 times our lifespans! Ignorance is bliss.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.
You are correct.It's the usual.
The "mainstream" won't touch it because
( plug in the conspiracy)
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....Its a mystery why they call it the "History" channel.
They can be from extinct primates... They can be from anything.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.
The disease that Andre the Giant had is called acromegaly.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.
That's a parody, right?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.
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.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.
You need to read post # 45.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.
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.
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.
WhatevsNo, that is the truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?