Giants

[demoncase]

Hey, man.....they're....like....only giants from our perspective, man.
It could be, like....that WE are the dwarves and.....dude, THEY are normal.

(Best read in The Dude's voice from The Big Lebowski)

[Bodog]

Ta Prohm temple

[Bodog]

Why and how did people know about dinosaurs prior to the renaissance?

they didn't :confused:

"Later, in 1822, large teeth discovered in England by Mary Ann Mantell and her husband, Gideon, were thought to be the remains of a huge and extinct iguana. It wasn't until 1841 that British scientist Richard Owen came to realize that such fossils were distinct from the teeth or bones of any living creature."

We did. Whether they want to force themselves to disbelieve then sure, they can find a way to counter the argument. Scientists aren't stupid, but they are as biased in their beliefs as anyone else and can argue for or against something based on which side of the aisle they stand on.

[Sharp Guy]

I actually came in here thinking this was a thread about a sports team.

[James Y]

That is a big man.

That clip is taken from the very fictitious 2007 Japanese movie, Big Man Japan.

I remember hearing that Abraham Lincoln actually suffered from a form of gigantism. He was approximately 6'4", which was unusually large in the 1860s.

In the '90s there was a taller wrestler than Andre the Giant, called 'Giant Gonzales' who was around 7'6" to 7'8", but was billed as being 8' tall. He was taller but lighter than Andre, and wore a body suit with muscles painted on it. He also suffered from health problems and passed away. WWE commonly exaggerates the heights of its larger wrestlers. I've heard that The Big Show (billed at 7' tall) is actually around 6'10". Kane is often billed at 7' tall or slightly under, but I've heard is actually around 6'7" or 6'8"; still very tall, but definitely not 7'. If anyone thinks that's close enough, then I guess at 5'9" I can claim to be 6'1" to 6'2".

My paternal grandfather, who came from Japan (born in 1871) was around 6'1" tall and had a solid, stocky build. He did not have gigantism or anything like that, and by all accounts was physically very strong (laborer). Back in his day, due to nutritional deficiencies, the average Japanese male was around 5,5" to 5'6". My grandfather would have been considered fairly large for a European or American of that time as well.

Nowadays, Americans might be surprised to learn that there are many tall and/or large Asians due to dietary and lifestyle differences from past decades and centuries, and 6' or a good bit taller isn't all that uncommon today in Asia. I lived in Taiwan for many years and there were plenty of guys who were bigger and taller than me. I was only average there. I sorta wish I'd inherited some of my paternal grandfather's height.:)

Supposedly there were legendary Native North American accounts of giants with red hair, 6 digits on each hand and foot, and double rows of teeth, that were supposedly dangerous/cannibalistic, but fairly stupid. There were supposedly much taller than the typical 7' tall that today is thought of as a 'giant'. Not saying I believe or disbelieve, but I find it fascinating that there were legendary accounts of giants of virtually identical description by some South American natives.

Jim

[JD Spydo]

[

That is a big man.

That clip is taken from the very fictitious 2007 Japanese movie, Big Man Japan.

Supposedly there were legendary Native North American accounts of giants with red hair, 6 digits on each hand and foot, and double rows of teeth, that were supposedly dangerous/cannibalistic, but fairly stupid. There were supposedly much taller than the typical 7' tall that today is thought of as a 'giant'. Not saying I believe or disbelieve, but I find it fascinating that there were legendary accounts of giants of virtually identical description by some South American natives.

Jim
[/quote]
Thanks for putting all that up there Jim and most particularly the very last paragraph. I fervently believe those testimonies of the giants with all the characteristics you described in the final paragraph. The website www.stevequayle.com has lots of documentation of the historical accounts of the giants of North and South America that fit those descriptions. And with all the amazing discoveries that they have had down in Peru and Bolivia in the past 10 to 15 years are also all consistent with everything you said in that last paragraph.

Also in Arizona in the Grand Canyon in 1909 there was an explorer named Kincaid who apparently found a cave in one of the walls of the Grand Canyon and the artifacts he found in that cave were published by the Arizona Gazette and I was told by someone I really trust that the Arizona Gazette still stand by that story to this very day. The multiple accounts of giant mummies with red hair. 6 digits on their hands and feet as well as their cannibalistic nature have been made known all over the North & South American continents>> and from several different independent sources I might add.

There have been all kinds of inordinately large hand tools found in a lot of archaeological digs throughout North & South American continents. The Bible's accounts of the giants extend all the way from the 6th Chapter of Genesis to at least throughout King David's reign from what I can ascertain.

Again I thank you Jim for that most interesting information you shared with us.

[Doc Dan]

The thing about legends is that while there is a basis of truth, this truth gets exaggerated over time. Even Plutarch mentions this as the cause of people believing in gods and men of incredible abilities. Men of gigantic stature must have been, and even today, not all men (regardless of some misunderstanding) that are giants are victims of glandular problems and have life-long health issues. This is simply not the case. Some, yes, but many, no. It is not hard to think that a man who stands 8' to 9' would be thought to be a giant and later their size exaggerated. How many of you know fishermen who exaggerate the fish they caught or got away, or who exaggerate the size of the buck? This is even more true when dealing with humans of already large size, especially during a conflict. I think it reasonable that there were men of between 8' and 9' in height. I also think it reasonable that Goliath may have been around 7' as the LXX says. These things are possible, even likely.

[Evil D]

Well, Pier Donia was supposedly a mountain of a man who wielded a 7 foot long and nearly 15lb sword. Fish tales aside whoever swung this monster was not someone I'd want to face in battle. But, there's always the possibility that the sword is little more than a novelty built to support the legend.





Even so, it seems more fantastic (or less so) depending on the size of the man holding it.






The guy who carried this folder had to be like 200 feet tall based on the size of the knife, right? :rolleyes:

[MichaelScott]

Some American Plains Indian tribes had legends of talking buffalos that married Indian women too.

Are we really believing in the possibility of talking buffalos?

[Evil D]

Some American Plains Indian tribes had legends of talking buffalos that married Indian women too.

Are we really believing in the possibility of talking buffalos?

Depends on what your faith is I suppose. The difference is how many agree with you and which kingdom adopted your beliefs and which didn't. To those tribes a talking buffalo wasn't any more ridiculous than a man walking on water.

[MichaelScott]

Some American Plains Indian tribes had legends of talking buffalos that married Indian women too.

Are we really believing in the possibility of talking buffalos?

Depends on what your faith is I suppose. The difference is how many agree with you and which kingdom adopted your beliefs and which didn't. To those tribes a talking buffalo wasn't any more ridiculous than a man walking on water.

True. When belief is in the equation, any crazy idea will be adopted by some, even talking slip joints.

[Doc Dan]

Well, I do not agree, obviously, and we know for a fact that men occasionally get up to 9' tall. We also know that when the average male height is around 5'4" and weight around 100 lbs, a 7'5" 300 lb man is a giant. I simply assert that over time such men became taller with the re-telling. I assert that there is a basis of fact behind the legend. This is a more scientifically minded approach that merely dismissing the legends of giants out of hand or simply believing in 12 to 40 foot monsters.

[JD Spydo]

Well, I do not agree, obviously, and we know for a fact that men occasionally get up to 9' tall. We also know that when the average male height is around 5'4" and weight around 100 lbs, a 7'5" 300 lb man is a giant. I simply assert that over time such men became taller with the re-telling. I assert that there is a basis of fact behind the legend. This is a more scientifically minded approach that merely dismissing the legends of giants out of hand or simply believing in 12 to 40 foot monsters.

Doc I totally agree with you Doc Dan. This is a subject I've been dabbling in for some time now and I've lately been hearing about a lot discoveries that they have made in the past few years in Peru and Bolivia along with some things they've found in Brazil as well.

That picture of that oversized sword is one that got my attention about 5 years ago. There have been discoveries here in the North American shelf of tools that no normal man would ever use. Tools like hammers that many modern men couldn't even pick up much less use. Not to mention oversized mining picks, axes ect.

There are also a lot of common denominators that you hear from many of these discoveries>> most of the mummies for instance all seem to have red hair>> or at least the ones you read about. I've heard so many accounts of the 6 digits on hands and feet ( toes and fingers)>> and I find that interesting because the Bible itself has accounts of the 6 digits ( II Samuel 21: 20-22). About 20 years ago the Discovery Channel of all sources had a show of mummies being found in China that all had red hair and none of them appeared to be Chinese either >> but those weren't said to be giants but mummies of people that were literally out of place.

So many legends depict the two rows of teeth for instance. And I'm talking about discoveries all over the place in North and South America that have so many things in common which I find puzzling. Many of the researchers I've read about like Richard Dewhurst, Timothy Alberino, Tom Horn, Steve Quayle and L. A. Marzulli just to name a few.

[James Y]

Hi, JD Spydo, thank you for your posts.

I've had kind of an interest in the subject for years, but haven't researched it really thoroughly. There have been reports that giant human remains have been found, only to be 'disappeared' by the Smithsonian and never seen again. Including some remains of humans (or humanoids) who would have been much taller than Robert Wadlow was. I say I neither believe nor disbelieve, but in truth I'm open to all possibilities.

IMO, a degree of healthy skepticism is necessary in virtually anything, but I won't say something CANNOT BE or is impossible, just because it isn't scientifically recognized or accepted by the mainstream. Or simply because it's something out of my experience or belief system. The world of science is wonderful, but there is a TON of confirmation bias within it. If something comes up that doesn't fit a particular scientist's belief system, or what he has learned and/or professed, they will move the goal posts and try to discredit any viewpoint or information that differs from their own.

There was some science(?) guy (forget his name) back in the 1890s who stated (I'm paraphrasing): "Everything that mankind can conceive of or requires has already been created."

I have heard that in ancient times in some battles, giants the size of the legendary Goliath were used in battles (probably on the front lines for intimidation), but that they were always quickly eliminated from the fighting due to being easy targets.

As far as an Indian tribe (or tribes; they weren't all the same) talking about speaking with buffalo, couldn't that perhaps originally be more to do with some perceived mutual understanding of respect a hunter has for his prey and what it provides for him (gratitude and only taking what is necessary), as opposed to meaning that a buffalo literally spoke a human language? I think we have to be careful with taking things like that literally.

Jim

[MichaelScott]

Literally, plains tribes, and their pedestrian ancestors would drive buffalo off cliffs often by setting the prairie on fire then take what they could carry and leave the rest to the scavengers and to rot. So much for gratitude and taking only what is necessary.

And your understanding of science and the scientific method seems to be rather weak.

Not picking on you, just your arguments.

[The Meat man]

Literally, plains tribes, and their pedestrian ancestors would drive buffalo off cliffs often by setting the prairie on fire then take what they could carry and leave the rest to the scavengers and to rot. So much for gratitude and taking only what is necessary.

And your understanding of science and the scientific method seems to be rather weak.

Not picking on you, just your arguments.

No scientist or thinker is without his own personal bias. We can't totally eradicate it. The best we can do is to try to take our bias into account when considering evidence.

I consider Doc Dan's position to be the most reasonable. He is not gullibly swallowing every story he hears about giants, nor is he dismissing the whole notion as compete nonsense. He is, at least, willing to seriously consider the evidence, which we all should do before coming to a decision.

I'm not sure what other position he should be taking?

Interesting discussion.

[James Y]

Literally, plains tribes, and their pedestrian ancestors would drive buffalo off cliffs often by setting the prairie on fire then take what they could carry and leave the rest to the scavengers and to rot. So much for gratitude and taking only what is necessary.

And your understanding of science and the scientific method seems to be rather weak.

Not picking on you, just your arguments.

No offense taken.

I was only suggesting a possible interpretation behind the "talking to buffalo" statement beyond literally speaking a human language with a buffalo.

As for my 'weak' understanding of science, I never claimed to be a scientist. But anybody should be aware that there are many in the field of science who carry their personal biases into their work.

Jim

[James Y]

Oops, double post

[Doc Dan]

About the Smithsonian...there have been many cases where new species were discovered in storage in large museums like the Smithsonian. I do not believe that the Smithsonian would deliberately hide evidence of giants. One major reason is that scientists love to be the one who upset the theories of their competitors (colleagues). If someone from the Smithsonian actually did have giant remains, the bones could have gotten lost simply waiting on cataloging that never happened (it is not a rare occurrence). Also, the expert from the Smithsonian might have been a fraud and been someone who planned to take the giant bones on the road for profit. They might be sitting in someone's basement awaiting new discovery, if they indeed ever existed. There does not have to be a huge conspiracy about all of this.

Six fingers and toes I get. There is an advantage, sort of, for this and it pops up in people and even families all the time (just like tails). But two rows of teeth? This would be a serious design flaw, unless it were something like I have seen in some asians where the jaw was malformed from birth and some of the upper or lower teeth were crowded back by the other teeth to make room. Such things can run in families and if in a large person and large height family, etc. it could get exaggerated over time. I won't say it is impossible, but trying to take things seriously, I think this, or something like it, is a more likely scenario.

[JD Spydo]

My problem with the Smithsonian or any other government funded entities all tend to not rock the boat so to speak>> they all tend to go along with the government narrative. Also I've found that anything to do with the Bible I find that most government people and people in the science community by and large go out of their way to either discredit or go as far as to outright deny the claims made by the Bible with no solid evidence to refute it with. And this is coming from a guy ( myself) who is fascinated with science for the most part and I thank God for all the great scientific discoveries brought forth in the past century that has made all of our lives better. But historically when it comes to the Bible that's one they most usually want to sweep under the rug so to speak.

With that said I do believe the Biblical accounts of giants>>The Giants before Noah's flood and the accounts of Giants after the flood. I'll admit that I'm not sure when the Biblical giants disappeared from the face of the earth because that is one mystery that I've yet to find any answers to. With many Native American tribal Chiefs nearly all have been told by their ancestors about the existence of giants on the North American shelf is something I can't ignore. Because Native Americans are well known for very accurate accounts of their tribal history and the overall history of the North American continent before It was ever inhabited by Europeans and other immigrants I know it's hard for the average person to grasp the accounts and testimonies not only of the giants but also of many other strange events that have been claimed throughout history. The megalithic structures around the world and especially those in parts of South America continue to intrigue me and baffle me as to how they built extremely high tech structures>> and the historians tell us that they did it with stone age brute force which I find to be outrageous and virtually impossible to believe.

There are so many books that are full of evidence of the Giants and ancient civilizations that many modern day scholars reject because it doesn't fit their own narrative. However authors like Joseph Lumpkin, Gary Wayne, Jim Vieira and Native American Tribal Chief Joseph Riverwind have all spent a good part of their lives researching the subject of Giants and they all have found evidence that is worth of a verdict IMO. I highly encourage all of you to view Chief Joseph Riverwind's Youtube video>> I just saw it for the first time today and I must say it's one of the better Native American accounts of giants. It's extremely interesting how his testimony coincides with descriptions found in the Bible as well. I found his testimony quite compelling. And those Native Americans are usually very reliable keeping accurate accounts of their own history. Those other guys I've mentioned all have some very interesting books on the subject of Giants as well as Richard Dewhurst and Steve Quayle who both tend to explore the Biblical aspects of Giant history. Not only Biblical giants but also accounts of them on other continents too.

I do again thank Doc Dan for bringing up this subject because I've been extremely interested in it for years. I"m hoping that more of you continue to contribute more detailed information of evidence of Giants having been on this planet.