ThePhaige Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Proving nothing ... showing however that its possible and based on all the historical accounts going back 6 thousand years or so more than likely a truth. But then again what it really comes down to for the unobserved..a belief. Even evolution beyond Micro variation is a belief with many inherent lies, deceptions, leading arguments and unobservable hypothesis at its core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I agree with you assessment: It's a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Phaige - Why can't we just discuss these cases seriously and actually look for proof? Why do you keep throwing us bushels of chaff when just one good kernel will do? Pick one, look it over and bring it forward for discussion. You certainly aren't convincing anyone with piles of hoaxes that only take a few minutes to uncover. It would have to be more fun than scouring the web for pics of tall people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Brother Ohiobill, I can can assure you I have not scoured the internet for pics of giant folks in an effort to toss chaff into the scene. Let me sum this up in a nutshell for you. There are still a great many people who believe there is a Creator in this universe that engineered all of this. It is not a stretch for us to believe this for various reasons, experiences, documentation and observation. Many of us believe there was a world wide flood that engulfed the planet and every single civilization has a story to that effect, just as every civilization has stories and images of giants that are not related to "that book" that we arent allowed to discuss because of the rules. These stories are either fable, myth or reality ... you take your pick, I have selected mine. I believe the earth was a very different place before this flood with very much more oxygen and pressure in the atmosphere than we have today.. even gravitational considerations may have differed. I believe that in the obverse to evolution where the idea is that we get better with time, is actually the opposite in keeping with the laws (1 and 2) of thermal dynamics where matter can not come from nothing and all things decay over time, not improve respectfully (very simplified description). I think life spans were very much longer and as the atmosphere changed after this flood they began to shorten just as we did. This is variation not evolution. Ya ever wonder how a Brontosaurus could breath through nostrils no bigger that a horse in this atmosphere? Certainly with an atmosphere (pre flood) with more oxygen, more air pressure and a different gravitational reality would seem to allow someone very much larger size to maneuver with very little difficulty or hindrance. It is theorized that in a atmosphere like that we could run all day without even getting tired, hence the lack of need for transportation. I believe there were many types of giant peoples as well as many variations of hybrids. I believe SSq are a derivative of some hybrid mix of human beings and something else...so of course im not suggesting these very large people could be confused as SSq. What im saying is that they are very large and that its observable...nothing more. So to say I am on the dark side is a bit silly really. SSq are a bit unique to what we consider the general life form. I can point to just as many hoaxes that have been put forth by science in order to bolster or a support a theory, and I neither have the gumption or the energy to spend on it all. This is a discussion and I am here to enjoy it not get into some confrontational debate on a set of beliefs. I will say that I respect your belief, If you say the articles are all hoaxes then I will say I have not seen you offer any evidence to support your statement, but I also don't require it. If you wish to provide it , then so be it. I cannot prove they are true or hoax in the time I allow myself to study such things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Folks, not all of these people are frail and sick. Give me a few days to locate the article about one in particular who -- if memory serves me right--was 8'8" tall and was able to literally pick up an even ton. Not what I'd call frail. And if we can agree that there are places/cultures/races of people who are genetically large then why can't we accept that bones have been found? Though not as prevalent today, giant races of people did roam the earth. My personal belief is that SOME of the ones who survive today, that is certain tribes, still live in the wilderness and nature has clothed them with hair (adaptation) and there's your sasquatch. Hey if we can have amish living as people did 150 years ago why not a genetically separated race living as we did thousands of years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Phaige - I'm certainly not here to argue with you about your personal spiritual beliefs, this is not the place for it anyhow. I think it's unfair for you to say, "If you say the articles are all hoaxes then I will say I have not seen you offer any evidence to support your statement." I'm not saying that all the blurbs you offered are hoaxes, but at least the two I looked into are and I linked the pertinent info - which, you have to admit, is more than you did. All I ask is that if you are going to throw something out as proof be willing to defend it. If your idea of spirited debate is to throw out hoaxes you haven't taken the time to even investigate you only have yourself to blame if someone participating investigates and calls you on it. Fair enough? Feel free to take me to task if you feel it deserving, I think we all learn better when challenged. You have interesting ideas that I don't necessarily agree with but they make me think. Case in point, I understand your points about conservation of energy and entropy but how do you square that with an increased percentage of oxygen (a free radical) which should decrease lifespans? As far as how brontosaurs breathed I don't understand why negative pressure (like we use) wouldn't work. Two inlets (nostrils) feed one intake (trachea) on the way to the pump (lungs). Elephants and blue whales seem to have no problems with 21% oxygen. If you have a link I will be glad to take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I unfortunately cannot chase every rabbit and kick every dog, that is why info is posted in that we sometimes have to do our own research. Also though my point is that many reports have been ruled a hoax by certain groups or individuals and that also doesn't make it true. There are many things regarding science that have been shown to be a hoax, misinformation or just plain wrong that are still being taught in textbooks as hard scientific fact so It is very difficult to determine...Sometimes ya need to look at the body of reports and decide for yourself do you think there might be some validity to it. I believe there is and I have looked at lots over there years on both sides of the argument. I know the Pattersons film has been called a hoax and we even have people who have come forward claiming to be in the suit, and not just one mind you. Now who was in the suit? or was it a SSq...Neither of us can say with any degree of certainty except to say someone is lying and a truth does lie in there somewhere. I am leery of willful ignorance or hubris and find both to be foolish constructs. All I can ask is that we think, We may not agree but if we can think then I will take that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 "I unfortunately cannot chase every rabbit and kick every dog, that is why info is posted in that we sometimes have to do our own research." Then I hope you won't be offended if I treat any evidence you submit in this manner as worthless until proven otherwise? Will there be some sort of code word or special font if you have something you feel worthy of serious consideration or will it be more akin to an Easter egg hunt like the current system? Obviously if you don't feel it's worthy of supporting your position you could always refrain from posting it and save the forums some money rather than hosting useless drivel. Another option would be to provide a link to the website and say something along the line of "there may be something at this website that supports my theory but I haven't actually read it so enjoy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I am not offended in the least, your entitled to your opinions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I agree with you ohiobill, im having the same debate on another site and it gets frustrating when someone makes a claim with several dozen website examples and many they havnt even read or cherry pick information from it. As fun as the subject is I tend to find most of, if not all, the information debunked or strait out false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Thanks Frosty. It definitely irks me as well. We're obviously interested in the subject but folks act like we are anti-social misfits because we won't suspend our critical thinking and just agree with them about something they won't even seriously investigate. An example is ThePhaige saying, "Sometimes ya need to look at the body of reports and decide for yourself do you think there might be some validity to it" when he obviously hasn't even taken the time to read the reports he puts forward as "proof". I sometimes feel like the only folks actually looking for answers are skeptics while the rest are just blogging to each other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The only real problem I have is when they use a website or blog to justify their position and I dig into it and show why it doesn't hold water that they can't say those 4 little words "ok I was wrong." They just through out 50 more websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 My point is that I cannot substantiate each and every report or alleged find from the past, and I also don't offer it as proof so there is no burden on my part. I have in fact read them and unfortunately I do not always have the time for the sake of a forum for general discussion to vet the efficacy of a claim . If you can show me where I said that anything I have posted was proof or to be considered proof, I would humbly accommodate your concerns. I would also love to see where the listed infos were proven to be a hoax.. since you so evidently did your due diligence.Yes? That would help to eliminate those from the discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I would LOVE to be in the field digging! The only relatively close discovery occurred long before I was ever aware of it or believe me I would've been down there and at least got a few pics before the artifacts were carted away. When I hear a story such as the one I gave, I can only go on the credibility of the one telling me since the evidence is long gone. In this case it was the guy I regularly use for heating and AC service. Believe me, this guy would tell a 10' giant where the bear crapped in the buckwheat before he'd lie--he's just outspoken like that so I knew he wasn't lying. Why didn't he grab the evidence? IDK, he wasn't that interested nor did he know I'd be. Most people, when bizarre things come about, just look on and talk about it. Thing is, where do you dig?? Most all finds of any kind are usually lucky.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Phaige - I'm not claiming to be an expert on ANYTHING and I don't expect you to be either. I enjoy learning new things and this is a subject I've been interested in for over 30 years. While this is a subject I'm interested in, I don't learn anything from a blurb or a pic without context and meaningful data. I'm willing to discuss nearly anything but it has to be a two way street. Wanna talk giants, let's go. I'm willing to discuss sauropods, mesozoic atmospheric pressure, medicine, you name it but discussion is not blithely throwing out blurbs that aren't even true. For example, google Meganthropus and tell me how many specimens have been found and where? Any in Australia as in the blurb you offered up? Get my point? Aaron - I do owe you an apology for repeatedly pointing to the Apollo, PA site. I don't remember seeing anything about it prior to this and I didn't pick up on the fact that it was in the past and out of play. That's what makes anecdotal evidence like that so frustrating. Most of the alleged finds seem to be centered around burial mounds associated with the Mound Builders. There are still plenty left that haven't been touched (officially at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts