Guest WesT Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) WesT I counted three arrows up which indicates AaronD's post. If you were referring to my post, I say thank you very much. My profile pic is that of a skinned and plastinated gorilla showing skeletal muscle anatomy, the same method responsible for the Body Worlds exhibition. Anatomy and biomechanics are topics I like to lightly dabble in. Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up! Yes, I was referring to your avatar and you're welcome! Gorilla... I'll tell you how I found out if you tell me how you found out Biomachanics... we need to talk. I have a mystery on my hands and you may be able to give me some insight. Is it ok to PM you? This thread is giving me the willies..... the descriptions of the skeletons sound just like a sighting report I'm investigating now. Edited July 17, 2012 by WesT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 No problem. Go ahead and PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I think museums are adverse to displaying Native American remains because they will be reclaimed and reburied with no further sight of them, and this is supported by the law. Since most giant remains are assumed to be Native American this applies to them too. And perhaps many have been reclaimed and buried in this way, quietly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Vilnoori, your answer as to the why? gives me the most peace of mind, but I have to watch and not assume it because it is "nice" I'd like to know where they might bury them tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I guess the issue I have is with the lumping together of all native americans into one overarching group without respect for the subtle and non-subtle differences between sub-groups. The giants here are native americans no doubt, but of which there are no apparent living descendants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 ^Which won't stop the existing NA nations from trying, such as with Kinnewick Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 One of the pics linked to above is OF one of the skulls, and in one of the linked articles, the writer themselves went to the museum and asked about and was shown the skulls. They aren't hidden per se, the museum just doesn't display them. I have to wonder why such a trophy wouldn't be on display. Certainly the newspapers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries weren't the most reliable. Scientists have no problem whatsoever with anomalous artifacts and would almost certainly be interested in a giant skull with related artifacts. This suggests to me that the skull is quite plausibly a fake. The pictures you posted didn't suggest an enormous size to me except perhaps for the jaw-bone. But there are giants today without any suggestion of anything mysterious. Acromegaly is a common disorder found in most populations around the world. I've always wondered about those giant skeletons and if they were real. If so, why aren't they taught about in school? Maybe it means they have to rewrite the books and prefer to keep things just the way they are. Truth is truth and that's what should be taught. Lloyd Pye has some interesting concepts about pre humans showing that our ancestors looked nothing like us. Everything You Know Is Wrong.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctcEsyDlq3o A science testbook would be an east thing to rewrite. Science frequently changes the statements it makes when new data comes along. There is every possibilty that these mysterious giants are nothing unusual at all. Anthropologists would certainly examine any relevent material and make the necessary adjustments to the text books. Any anthropologist who examined giant human bones and wrote about them would be quite famous and possibly have a more lucrative career to boot. There is no reason for science to cover up such a find. I'm with ya there, thermalman, but from what I've been able to gather about DNA, they have to first have a species and/or body to base the profile on, err something like that; otherwise, results are inconclusive...... The denisovans were identified with only a pinky bone and some teeth so I see no difficulty with identifying bigfoot with nothing more than a bone. These bones are not likely to be bigfoot however. Bigfoot has only rarely been documented with tools and most the those stories that I have heard are suspect. I might think the way you do if the artifacts weren't popping up in other countries, and having known of a find near my own home where giant skeletons were discovered, then dissappeared soon after the property owner reported them to "authorities". There are many other facets of our wonderful world of science that has ignored certain discoveries and substituted them with propaganda; usually in the interest of control or profit. A hoaxed skeleton could very easily vanish as soon as the authorites find out about it. Perhaps more easily than a real one. Did you bother to read from any of the links I provided? MODERN sources ranging from the mid-late 1920s up through the 60s. On the side issue of conspiracies and who might be behind them, it doesn't have to be a "top down" conspiracy wherein some central authority actively seeks to cover up a fact or activity. Sometimes, the weight of social pressure causes what amounts to a "conspiracy of silence" whereby no one within the community wants to engage the controversy in order to protect themselves from the blowback. It's sad but true. Very few scientists are unduly pressured to keep their mouths shut. A scientist can make his or her career by finding and describing evidence that disproves the status quo. A+ JDL, for once again posting that very cool information. I recall reading it from the "Conspiracy Theory and Bigfoot" thread....so I have two, IMO, very repsectable posters here (JDL and Mulder) with extensive information on this subject that seems to all point to factual findings. With this in mind, why can we not see these specimens SOMEwhere? I understand, museums have to switch things up and all, but geeesh! Don't control history by eliminating important elements. If a museum has such material and they have not brought them to the attention of anthropologists then they have only themselves to blame. They would be the ones controlloing anything at all. The probability that the material would not stand up to examination has to be considered. If it was real then there wouldn't be any reason to hide it now would there? Thanks AaronD. Indeed, for academia to talk openly about the issue would be a game changer. Amongst other things, it would force a rethink on human genetics and migration theory. Science has not shied away from changing the theories as required by the evidence of human interbreeding with neanderthals and denisovans so why would they have a problem with giants if the bones are available for examination? You're right about the improperly handled part, though what I find even more ridiculous is the absence of academic discussion on the matter. Possibly if the material were made available to the anthropologists it would be discussed. I did a search and couldn't find a single scientific analysis of these remains. It's entirely possible that these remains are not what they are cracked up to be. I did find mentions of the Gaia hypothesis as well as ufo references but nothing that suggested an actual scientist examined the remains. Oh, agreed! Fishing stories are synonymous with such phenomenon We're just amazed at the selective hearing and vision science has had. Science is not a single entity. There are thousands of scientists out there and you are suggesting they are all in on this? Selective hearing is usually discovered by scientists. They all have their own agendas and would very willingly blow apart someone elses work if they had the material to do it. More often than not the ones with the selective hearing or vision are the nonscientists who flock to far-out ideas. Accurate. Though the mummies had a significant amount of body hair where their skin was exposed, they were also wearing coarse clothing. The archeological report also records a wide variety of artifacts. I have to ask for this report. This is sort of description is new to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Here is a very interesting podcast concerning "giants" and gives an excellent counter argument to this phenomenon. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/01/13/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 antfoot you state that few scientists have been unduly pressured into keeping their mouths shut - so you acknowledge it DOES happen. and how many do you feel have been DULY pressured? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Darrell, that prof in your link, after I sat through the repititious and annoying introduction, should just get a job as a stand-up in some trashy back street dive bar. His mouth is fowl for someone who's supposed to be educated. But to each his own..... antfoot, you're entitled to your opinions and interpretations of info out there I suppose...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) ^Seemed to make a pretty good argument. Did you listen to the entire program? Guess I didnt think the language was that bad comparred to what I heard during my 24 yrs in the Army. Edited July 18, 2012 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 His arguement was good to anyone who already agrees with his ideation, but unconvincing to anyone else. While stating that the "facts" support this or that, he really didn't produce anything factual IMO. But that's the beauty of most things in this world, facts are what you make of them...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 ^or the lack of fact. But this is the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Darrell, do you have a brother named Darrell? and another brother, named Darrell? LOL Sorry, every time I see someone named Darrell I think of that old sitcom and sadly I don't recall the name of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Actually it was Larry and his brother Daryl and his other brother Daryl. But I'm sure that Newhart was probably on before you were born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts