ohiobill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSbP7yFAmoQ Thought this was kinda cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXRoMQH25SQ&x-yt-cl=84359240&x-yt-ts=1421782837 here's another one Aaron, did you watch the first video? Are you aware that the model involved used to be a man and while tall, certainly isn't a giant? I was honestly scared to watch the second one. Rather than arguing about whether on not there are tall humans how about we look for proof of giants? I won't try to speak for everyone but I'm certainly willing to stipulate that tall humans exist. ThePhaige, Heather appears to be 6'5". Do you consider that giant? Guys, I'm adding this...I feel most here are interested in the subject so it's probable someone is going to research the links you provide even if you don't. Rather than try to use humans well within the normal range as proof of 12', 20', or even 30' giants why not skip straight to the good stuff? Do you actually have any evidence of giants or is it all going to be ancient elephants, tall folks, and transgender models? Edited January 22, 2015 by ohiobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 "I am 6'5" in bare feet"" so Blondi isn't ''Giant'',just a big girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yeah im aware she is 6' 5 "..Right on par with say a Patty. I actually would consider her to be somewhat well outside the norms of average female height. I would also say that I dont think Ssq were particularly the largest of the so called giants either. I think in today's atmosphere and environment it is very difficult to support such a large frame without difficulties, but I also believe these are latent genetic leftovers (if you will) that rears itself in rare cases and probably rarer and rarer cases as we move forward. I believe it makes a solid case for the possibility, which is what I have always maintained. I would say that as far as the evidences to support such populations we can look to many resources such as myths, fables and biblical accounts that show the probability is high. However the key phrase here is "believe" as we cannot observe scientifically these evidences. There is much speculation as seemingly credible evidence to show there have been cover ups, and facts that show there are even hoaxes that have been previously disproved that are still within and still taught in high school and College level as science fact which are lies. Thats my position in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Wouldn't it be just as easy for a myth to be started due to a lie or tall tale or misidentification? A population of pygmies could have started such a myth while observing 6' 5" individuals which most nowadays would consider completely within the normal range? Is that as "possible" to you as 20' or 30' humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Yeah it would be Bill if that is where the information leads, however it doesn't in my very limited observational capabilities. Nor does it seem to in the eyes and study of multitudes of others. It just doesn't. Its ok though if you believe it not the case. It really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Where are you trying to lead me? I've been trying to follow the evidence you and Aaron have been putting forth. I believe there were ancient elephants on Crete and that there are tall humans and transgender models. Do you feel what you've provided should lead a neutral party to the conclusion that giant humans existed or do you feel that only those who already believe giants existed can see the evidence? Edited January 22, 2015 by ohiobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Ohiobill, what exactly are you looking for? We show pictures and you say fake, we give links and you say they're babbling blogs or whatever. I can only apologize that we don't have a 12' + skeleton that you could come see for yourself....I spose that'd be nuff to satisfy you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The only irony I see is the willful parroting of what is believed from others to be facts and then calling that advocating for science. The hubris here is staggering. What have you observed personally antfoot? As easily as you say a certain position is opinion and belief or conspiracy , I can easily show the same of yours or any for that matter. Indeed what I observe myself on this forum. Skepticism is the show me the evidence stance. It should be used with EVERY statement mine included. Mine however do have plenty of evidence to back them up. When I am wrong, I change my stance. Someone who reserves skepticism for the scientific evidence is being skeptical of skepticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Not sure what your point is here but I'll guess--you're saying that all the animals you mentioned (camels, horses, deer, etc) existed in giant form at one time? If you can believe that, and I'd certainly love to see the evidence, then maybe we can agree that giant humans were here as well(??) oi ve where to begin? Fossil evidence of giant versions of all of the animals I listed is freely available via google or a trip to your nearest natural history museum: http://mentalfloss.com/article/19318/bigger-they-are-10-ice-age-giants While I have no difficulty with the notion of a giant race of humans. I DO have difficulty with the lack of available evidence of such people. If camels or horses can have giant species then I have no problem with the idea that a human tribe could have evolved that way. They would most likely have to be a different species at that point however. (Just judging from my understanding of the 30 or so different definitions of species that science uses. ) The lack of fossil evidence is quite loud considering the numbers of giant fossils we have found of so many other species. These finds are reported and a giant human would be trumpeted in the press as every hoaxed photo is. No cover ups over those fake photos why would a real one be a problem? why would the real bones be confiscated? What does the government have to hide about extinct giant people? I have yet to hear a rational reason for keeping such knowledge secret. I come to this site because I love the idea of bigfoot and hope they are real. I will not accept anecdotes as actual evidence however. I prefer science because it is more useful and has shown excellent results over the last few centuries of its existence. Why people insist that I am out to disprove bigfoot or make fun of true believers is beyond me. I think I am usually rather respectful of others' thoughts on bigfoot. No one here KNOWS anything beyond what they think they have experienced or read and that goes for me no less or more than for anyone else here. I find giant lore fascinating too and though I do not believe any giant species of human actually existed I do wonder how the stories came to be. That is the only stance I came here with. If actual evidence can be shown to me then I might have to change my mind. I've done it before and will likely do so again sometime. I would LOVE to change my mind on this. THAT is the skeptical mindset. Ohiobill, what exactly are you looking for? We show pictures and you say fake, we give links and you say they're babbling blogs or whatever. I can only apologize that we don't have a 12' + skeleton that you could come see for yourself....I spose that'd be nuff to satisfy you Bill is explaining that these so-called evidences are not evidence for a giant human tribe or species. Without bones of a consistent nature, you will not have evidence of such. Bill has no difficulty with the concept of giants existing only with the lack of evidence that they as a species or tribe ever did and especially so the 20' or more types. There would be major structural and locomotion problems requiring major changes to the skeletal structure making them almost certainly a different kind of animal altogether. We have yet to see anything like that in the "evidences" you guys have been offering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Antfoot - +1 for a great post and overall summation of where we stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted January 22, 2015 Two or three people here have mentioned hoaxed late 1800 and early 1900's photos. The newspaper photos I have seen, in obscure newspapers like the New York Times, showed normal size humans and other objects in the pictures to produce size reference for the assembled giant skeletons. I had no idea that Photoshop existed as far back as the late 1800s but it must have to produce those pictures. Normal darkroom techniques that existed in the late 1800s were incapable of that sort of manipulation. You can learn a lot of stuff here from skeptics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Which photos are you talking about? Is there a specific incident you want to cover or are all claims of giants true including 15' cyclops in Crete? Horned skulls? Giant 6' 5" women? Transgender models? What post(s) are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Antfoot - +1 for a great post and overall summation of where we stand. another +1 Two or three people here have mentioned hoaxed late 1800 and early 1900's photos. The newspaper photos I have seen, in obscure newspapers like the New York Times, showed normal size humans and other objects in the pictures to produce size reference for the assembled giant skeletons. I had no idea that Photoshop existed as far back as the late 1800s but it must have to produce those pictures. Normal darkroom techniques that existed in the late 1800s were incapable of that sort of manipulation. You can learn a lot of stuff here from skeptics. Without seeing these pictures it's not easy to comment, but couldn't the skeletons be themselves be fake? I'm going to assume that a newspaper photo from the 1800's is also not crystal clear. We know that the field of archaeology was not immune to hoaxing. Edited January 22, 2015 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted January 22, 2015 another +1 Without seeing these pictures it's not easy to comment, but couldn't the skeletons be themselves be fake? I'm going to assume that a newspaper photo from the 1800's is also not crystal clear. We know that the field of archaeology was not immune to hoaxing. I would think that field workers from the Smithsonian in the 1800s would know real human bones from fakes and not go to the trouble to box up fakes to ship back to Washington. A human thigh bone is very distinctive and a giant human thigh bone would be well out of the human norm. Even a lay person could tell if a bone was real or fake by examining it, especially in the 1800s when composites were unknown. Articulation of a skeleton can cause the estimated height of a human skeleton to vary somewhat, but a thigh bone well out of the human norm would be pretty conclusive that the living person was gigantic in size. I cannot see that Smithsonian people would be fooled if they have examined the bones. Pictures do not say much other than the event happened as described and a skeleton of apparent large size was there. If the report did not mention the Smithsonian then of course the pictures could be of a plaster fake. But since they were, and thought the bones interesting, the reports seem authentic to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/how-david-childress-created-the-myth-of-a-smithsonian-archaeological-conspiracy alternate possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts