Ancient Giants of America

Now now Aqueous, I know it's easy to get riled up when people can't be bothered to review their own sources, but just take a moment to take a breath and calm down. No need to start attacking the person now. Just do what you do best and just stick to the facts, k?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry to snip the quote Cap - just commenting on the picture... damn she doesn't exactly look to be healthy here - very thin for her height, I would almost say Gaunt, and her legs look incredibly slim like they have virtually no muscle at all... and maybe it's just the way those shoes (I've always despised high heels and the way they muck with posture and the alignment of the body) are screwing with her body, but her very stance just seems to scream that she's only upright by some sheer force of willpower...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A tall woman with skinny legs does not look attractive in a short dress and high heels.
She looks like a bean pole.
Not a good picture of her I'd imagine.
Women will only achieve parity with men when they feel no need to dress like this.

@River
Hey, River, where are you?
I'm agreeing with you.
There were giant American Indians.
Fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One almost gets the impression that the 19th century itself is some kind of magic wand which "giant skeptics" wave around for rendering these accounts invalid. But there actually are specific reasons for dismissing individual cases, as well as the broader reason of them being incongruous with the history uncovered by anthropology, archeology, and other sciences. Unfortunately, the gullible support far outnumbers the debunking material (though that's hardly surprising). Giving a misplaced confidence to the causal browser of the web that "little visible criticism of _X_ equals _X_ being legitimate fact".

When Giants Roamed the Earth

Mark Rose: White nonetheless recognized immediately that the giant was a hoax: it was obviously a statue, and not a very good one, and there was no reason for the two laborers to have been digging a well at the spot they found it. Even so, White overheard "a very excellent doctor of divinity, pastor of one of the largest churches in Syracuse" declare that, "Is it not strange that any human being, after seeing this wonderfully preserved figure, can deny the evidence of his senses, and refuse to believe, what is so evidently the fact, that we have here a fossilized human being, perhaps one of the giants mentioned in Scripture?"

"Therefore it was," recalled White, "that, in spite of all scientific reasons to the contrary, the work was very generally accepted as a petrified human being of colossal size, and became known as 'the Cardiff Giant.'"
[...]
For Josiah Priest, writing in his American Antiquities and Discoveries in the West, ancient North America had been crowded with Egyptians, Romans, Lost Tribes of Israel, "Hindoos," and others. And giants? Priest cites Scripture on giants and notes, "There are those who imagine that the first inhabitants of the globe, or the antediluvians, were much larger than our race at the present time." And he reports discoveries such as one in Indiana of "several sculls, legs and thigh bones, which plainly show that their possessors were persons of gigantic stature." Laughable today, American Antiquities was a bestseller when it appeared in 1835, going through five editions and 22,000 copies.

 

The evidence is quite extensive for these giants

Regardless of the time in which they were found

An inch , is an inch , is an inch , regardless whether is was now or 200yrs ago

The fact remains that these giants remains were found

Twist it around all you like , but this twisting doesn't change the evidence found

 

Your 'evidence' are sensational tabloid articles from the 1800s and faked photos.

You'll believe anything.

 

Its not a matter of belief , its a matter of evidence

And the evidence is obviously supplied

 

Of course

 

Ah ...I see what your getting at , its about belief

Then no its not about belief

It is about real evidence , real physical evidence

The evidence is all there and there is many , many findings of

 

I don't know about that. Do you "believe" in evolution?

But it is fair to say river is exhibiting a belief, however, because he doesn't actually have evidence. What he has are a bunch of doctored photos, fables, and legends, that he chooses to accept instead of the actual historical and scientific record.

 

Sure

But has this got to do with this topic ?

What actually is not evidence ?

What photos are doctored

The historical and scientific record is all there

 

It wasn't addressed to you.

Anything you've presented to this point.

I dunno, the ones where the guys are digging out gigantic human skeletons?

No, it isn't. You don't seem to care where your information comes from. I could tell you that I have personally seen a 35-foot-tall human skeleton, and you'd believe me, and later cite my story as evidence. You're far too credulous.

 

From National Geographic:

 

The thing is that , I'm talking about the giants of Ancient America

Which has nothing to do with this , lone photo

A quote from Arthur Schopenhauer , and I Quote

" All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second, it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. "

Right now we are at stage 1

 

In my post #18 , I said FACT , if you care to take the time , its about an hour , about the mounds and giant skeletons found ( about the last 20-25 minutes of the video )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-4sI34aIZ0