Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Mothrayas wrote:
ars4326: While you've received a variety of responses to this topic, some more or less on-topic than others and some more or less civil than others, I note you've only selected specific posters to answer to (both of which were more in the negative direction) and left aside a few (imo) interesting, and rational/scientific discussion points like e.g this and this. Do you have any interest in discussing with posts like these? So far, I've seen you just post out links and decry a few people's posts, but for this topic to have any value, I think some actual discussion would be nice.
I can agree with that, Mothrayas. I, admittedly, haven't yet thought about addressing other's legit points in this thread. I just really wanted to set a precedent of being civil in this thread.
I'm a bit busy, atm, but I'll hopefully come back to this thread later on this evening and do my best to answer those points presented. I might not have a good rebuttal for some, but I'll do my best to answer them!
Warp wrote:
Ah, the 19th century New York Times, that bastion of trustworthy and reliable peer-reviewed science.
If it's printed on NYT, it must be true. If it was printed there over a century ago, it must be doubly so.
Btw, I have a bridge to sell you, if you are interested. I can give you a New York Times article about it.
I know I stated that I wasn't going to reply to you further, but you seem intent on continuing to provoke a reaction out of me.
Do you have a personal issue with me? If so, send me a PM or log on to irc chat here in about 4-5 hours (or whenever it's convenient for you). Let's work this out like grown men.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
No, I don't have any kind of personal issue with you. I have no recollection of what you may or may not have done in the past, nor do I much care.
However, I do have an issue with the topic and how it's presented. (Not this topic in particular, but in general these types of topics.) I especially have a problem if these topics are presented in an echo chamber with no criticism welcomed.
I appreciate and advocate reason, skepticism and proper science. Hoaxes and conspiracy theories can be an interesting topic, but only in the sense of studying how the human mind works, and what can fool people into believing them. (They can also make for great fiction, but that's a different tangent altogether.)
Promoting hoaxes and conspiracy theories can be damaging. It misleads people into believing falsities, and I take that seriously. I hate people misleading other people, especially when it's done using all the logical and argumentative fallacies in the book. I value truth over fantasy, and I detest people who would try to convince other people of fantasies and hoaxes.
ars4326: While you've received a variety of responses to this topic, some more or less on-topic than others and some more or less civil than others, I note you've only selected specific posters to answer to (both of which were more in the negative direction) and left aside a few (imo) interesting, and rational/scientific discussion points like e.g this and this. Do you have any interest in discussing with posts like these? So far, I've seen you just post out links and decry a few people's posts, but for this topic to have any value, I think some actual discussion would be nice.
Mothrayas, it sounds like you're considering locking the thread. I'm actually going to jump in to ars4326's defense in this instance. While I've made it clear I think his third-hand, centuries old evidence is ridiculous, I don't see the point in locking this thread. TASVideos has done far worse in its discussions (please don't make me look up examples...) and I believe locking the thread only serves to stifle the mostly free speech enjoyed on the forum. The guy believes in giants, so let him publicly believe in giants as long as discussion is civil and not disrupting conversations elsewhere in the forum due to spamming. Maybe if we continue the current line of discussion between ars4326 and Warp back and forth for three vacuous pages it'll be time to put the thread to rest, but for now, I think it's just a little harmless fun on everyone's part.
Anyway, it's your call. I don't think the forum will suddenly fall to pieces if you lock the thread.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Bobo the King wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
ars4326: While you've received a variety of responses to this topic, some more or less on-topic than others and some more or less civil than others, I note you've only selected specific posters to answer to (both of which were more in the negative direction) and left aside a few (imo) interesting, and rational/scientific discussion points like e.g this and this. Do you have any interest in discussing with posts like these? So far, I've seen you just post out links and decry a few people's posts, but for this topic to have any value, I think some actual discussion would be nice.
Mothrayas, it sounds like you're considering locking the thread. I'm actually going to jump in to ars4326's defense in this instance. While I've made it clear I think his third-hand, centuries old evidence is ridiculous, I don't see the point in locking this thread. TASVideos has done far worse in its discussions (please don't make me look up examples...) and I believe locking the thread only serves to stifle the mostly free speech enjoyed on the forum. The guy believes in giants, so let him publicly believe in giants as long as discussion is civil and not disrupting conversations elsewhere in the forum due to spamming. Maybe if we continue the current line of discussion between ars4326 and Warp back and forth for three vacuous pages it'll be time to put the thread to rest, but for now, I think it's just a little harmless fun on everyone's part.
Anyway, it's your call. I don't think the forum will suddenly fall to pieces if you lock the thread.
I haven't really considered locking the thread yet. Only if it becomes clear that there is no room for discussion and that the topic is merely used as an one-sided soapbox - but I don't believe the thread has reached that point (yet).
I was just trying to rerail the thread to get some actual discussion going, because so far it has just been a shout-fest that wasn't looking to go anywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Warp wrote:
No, I don't have any kind of personal issue with you. I have no recollection of what you may or may not have done in the past, nor do I much care.
That is good to hear. I didn't know whether or not you took exception to something I may have posted in the past.
Warp wrote:
However, I do have an issue with the topic and how it's presented. (Not this topic in particular, but in general these types of topics.) I especially have a problem if these topics are presented in an echo chamber with no criticism welcomed.
Criticism is certainly welcome in this thread. What I take exception to is what you have been doing to me, in making ridiculing remarks, such as these:
Warp wrote:
Are we seriously going through yet another silly conspiracy theory? *sigh*
Warp wrote:
...Silly conspiracy theories of this caliber deserve nothing but ridicule...
Warp wrote:
...Btw, I have a bridge to sell you, if you are interested. I can give you a New York Times article about it.
^All of that above, Warp, isn't criticism. Do I also have to also remind you that you kept making these responses to me -- after I stated that I wasn't going to respond to you anymore?
How am I supposed to take that? Anyhow, as I stated: Criticism is welcome. Criticize the New York Times for publishing the articles. Just please leave me, personally, out of it.
Warp wrote:
I appreciate and advocate reason, skepticism and proper science. Hoaxes and conspiracy theories can be an interesting topic, but only in the sense of studying how the human mind works, and what can fool people into believing them. (They can also make for great fiction, but that's a different tangent altogether.)
Good to know. I'm a bit skeptical myself about the articles; mainly due to there being no apparent follow up to those alleged finds which were published over the years. I noticed a few of them mentioned the Smithsonian Institute, for example. Perhaps the next logical order of business for me will be to research their archives?
Warp wrote:
Promoting hoaxes and conspiracy theories can be damaging. It misleads people into believing falsities, and I take that seriously. I hate people misleading other people, especially when it's done using all the logical and argumentative fallacies in the book. I value truth over fantasy, and I detest people who would try to convince other people of fantasies and hoaxes.
So me posting archived New York Times articles is me trying to "convince" people of fantasies and hoaxes? Come on, Warp. I've even stated that the published articles were "alleged" finds. As I've stated: I find the topic to be interesting and intend to research it further. If it eventually leads to a 'dead end' or whatever, cool. I just found it interesting enough to share as a topic, and intend to continue with it to see whatever I may happen to uncover.
Anyhow, as I stated to Mothrayas earlier, I'm now going to be in the process of answering everyone else's points and objections brought up, so far in the thread. Give me about an hour or so to reply :)
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
jlun2 wrote:
Probably because, assuming they exist, their body would've been in pain for the knees along with heart problems. A search gives these quotes for Robert:
Wadlow's size began to take its toll: he required leg braces to walk and had little feeling in his legs and feet. Despite these difficulties, he never used a wheelchair.
Instead of a blessing, extreme height can be a curse. Lanky people have to stoop through doorways and struggle to fit in cars. Taller folks are more prone to certain maladies as well, such as joint and cardiovascular problems.
In response to this, I do find myself agreeing with moozooh that, perhaps, these alleged giants would have had sturdier, proportional bodies. I mean, if there were an entire tribe or race of them (and not just rare anomalies like Wadlow), then they would have certainly established a village or society that would have accommodated their larger sizes, I'd imagine?
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Hum... this does sound like a hoax, but there seems to be some reasonable amount of evidence supporting this. Well, evolutionarily, it wouldn't be that nonsense if a specie similar to the human beings, but much bigger, had existed in the past. The problem is that they should probably have been already identified and cataloged, shouldn't them? If modern archaeology has managed to find really old and rare fossils, why wouldn't they find those? Since they are big mammals, they are definitely newer than dinosaurs, for example. And if they were extremely rare so that even modern archaeology wouldn't be able to find them, how would them be found in the 1800s?...
That is a very good question, Bruno. If all of these alleged finds, way back when, were legit, then what happened to them? As I responded to Warp, I recall that a few of the articles I came across mentioned the Smithsonian Institute. I believe that would be one of the next natural steps to take in this project: Researching through their archives.
Bobo the King wrote:
I've actually heard a little of the Piltdown Man hoax. So they, apparently, tried to get away with combining an orangutan jawbone with a human cranium? Wow. Crazy how long that went without being refuted.
And the 'Cardiff Giant' was quite the hoax also, apparently...
Finally, don't get me wrong: I'm not blindly believing what's being claimed in the articles that I've posted. What I do find interesting about them, though, is that I didn't recall coming across a published report that officially refuted any of them (although I'll check the archives again and do my due diligence, to be sure).
Ferret Warlord wrote:
I would say that newspaper publishers were desperate for every last bit of sensational news they could get, leading to not a whole lot of fact checking, so a bunch of hoaxes could easily get through.
Possibly. A lot of these articles do state, however, that the finds were sent to other places to be examined (e.g. the Historical Society, the American Indian Museum, etc.). Surely, these places have archives of their own which can confirm or deny these reports?
Aqfaq wrote:
Every question is interesting.
With so much information these days, it is sometimes difficult to tell how trustworthy some claim is. No worries! Philosophy of science gives us some tools for evaluating information more accurately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Everyone of us can very easily be mistaken, but luckily we have a checklist for that, so just see through the list whether you have succumbed to a cognitive bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Also recommended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
This is tool-assisted thinking. Use all the tools to overcome human limitations. This way your model of reality becomes more accurate. After you have acquired a model of reality that explains many phenomena with good accuracy, you can easily see whether giants fit into reality or not.
Those are a LOT of cognitive biases, lol. Not sure exactly which ones I'd fall under. I am, however, willing to objectively research this topic further and see where the "money trail" goes. Perhaps it'll reveal that the alleged finds were all hoaxes...or perhaps a "conspiracy theory" or two will pop up, instead. However it comes up, I will strive to be objective about things, while keeping things in balanced perspective (i.e. tool-assisted thinking).
----
So anyhow, I hope I adequately addressed the points brought up in this thread, so far. It seems evident that the next order of business is to research the facilities where all of these alleged finds were sent to. If anything comes up, I'll update finds at the top of the thread!
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
I've actually heard a little of the Piltdown Man hoax. So they, apparently, tried to get away with combining an orangutan jawbone with a human cranium? Wow. Crazy how long that went without being refuted.
The actual story is a bit different from the "headlines" version (especially the one promoted by creationists.)
Especially creationists love to paint a picture of that incident such that scientists were all excited by this new "missing link", and were boasting how it proved human evolution from apes, and then 40 years later they were put to shame when it was discovered to be a hoax.
Reality is a bit different. In fact, quite many biologists doubted the veracity of the alleged fossil from the very beginning. And one of the major reasons was that it did not fit any of the predicted human evolutionary patterns. The "Piltdown Man" skull was an oddity that didn't fit.
But the technology of the time wasn't sufficient to verify whether it was a genuine fossil or a forgery. For this reason it was kept most of the time locked in storage rather than displayed. Many doubted its veracity, and most biologists wanted for technology to develop sufficiently to test the alleged fossil.
And then, about 40 years later, they finally could test it. The result surprised almost no biologist.
I've talked about giants several times before on this forum and I also think it's an interesting topic. Check out this page for reports of skeletons that have been found: http://davidpratt.info/ape2.htm#a2 (scroll down to section "Giant humans")
There have also been found giant skulls which have double rows of teeth [1], and giants with six fingers. The Bible mentions "a huge man" who had six fingers and toes in 2 Samuel 21:20. The giant races have various names in the Bible, like nephilim, rephaim, anak and anakim. Giants are also mentioned in many other religions and mythologies.
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)
Because of this interbreeding, there have been born giants thousands of years after that, because it takes time for the giant genes to get evenly distributed, so that people are born with the same height. Even today the size difference among humans is still more diverse than between animals.
The giant genes weren't the only ones that were passed on, because they were "sons of God", which means that they were descendants of God (like Jesus), and had supernatural powers, which were also passed on. What the sons of God did to humanity is that they sacrificed their divinity, so that we could evolve faster, because we would get their genetics. Because of this sacrifice, they had to be reborn to earth into human bodies again, instead of "going to heaven".
Because of this ancient sacrifice (which according to theosophy happened hundreds of thousands of years ago), there are still very rarely born people who have all of the "divine DNA", and these are people like Jesus and Krishna for example. Many geniuses that have lived have also inherited parts of that DNA.
Another interesting and related topic is the elongated skulls that have been found all around the world: "The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening." [2]
(when people were no longer born with large elongated heads, the primitive people tried to imitate the "gods" by brutally and artificially elongating their heads, so that they also would also be respected as kings)
Among royalties, large hats have always been common, like in ancient Egypt for example. I believe that is because (like history/mythology tells us), kings in ancient times used to be "gods" or their descendants, and they had larger brains (and bodies too, sometimes), wisdom and powers than ordinary humans living at the same time, which is also why they got into positions of power ("the divine right to rule").
That's where the idea of "royal blood" also comes from, because the genetics and supernatural powers of the "divine" race of people were passed on. Today, the royalties are just normal people though, because parts of the DNA of the ancient races have been gradually evenly distributed into all people.
Without the sacrifice of the sons of God in Atlantis [3], we would have none of the technology we have today, because our mind would still not have been awakened to that degree.
[1] http://www.sott.net/article/256712-A-giant-mystery-18-strange-giant-skeletons-found-in-Wisconsin-Sons-of-god-Men-of-renown
[2] http://www.infowars.com/dna-results-for-the-nephilim-skulls-in-peru-are-in-and-the-results-are-absolutely-shocking/
[3] http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd2-1-12.htm
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnauhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/soa/soamap.htm
While I've made it clear I think his third-hand, centuries old evidence is ridiculous,
Because materialism and the theory of evolution has become so popular today, you nowadays may have to go back a few centuries to find reliable and serious information about giants, because many evolutionists consider giants as a threat to their belief in evolution, materialism and atheism, because it gives legitimacy to religions, mythologies and spirituality/God.
Still waiting for the day you start blabbering about spirit science.
I've seen movies on youtube about spirit science years ago, but I already knew about most of the things it talks about, because I've read about similar things. Spirit science is essentially just theosophy and various New Age ideas combined into one. That's why the things I talk about can sound similar to it. Theosophy is the origin of New Age and spirit science. Theosophy in turn is the synthesis of religions/esotericism/mythologies, philosophy and science (spiritual/occult science included).
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Because of the square-cube law, none of these skeletons could have possibly been viable humans. There's a reason why Robert Wadlow died young.
This is more than enough to disprove any purported evidence of giants.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
nfq wrote:
I've talked about giants several times before on this forum and I also think it's an interesting topic. Check out this page for reports of skeletons that have been found: http://davidpratt.info/ape2.htm#a2 (scroll down to section "Giant humans")
I checked out that link. Overall, they present an interesting argument in basically stating that prehistoric animals were large, so why not humans?
That quote concerning the Smithsonian Institute also caught my eye (underline emphasis mine):
During the exploration of North American mounds and other sites in the 19th and early 20th centuries, hundreds of bones were recovered, including remains of human giants, mostly 2.1 to 2.7 m (7 to 9 ft) tall, but sometimes as tall as 3.7 m (12 ft).2 The official view is that they were just isolated cases of gigantism among the Indians, but some of the skeletons seem to have belonged to an extinct, non-Indian race, and many Indian tribes have traditions of giants once occupying the land. In the case of some burials, the skeletal remains appeared to be uncommonly old and crumbled to dust when exposed to the atmosphere. Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution were involved in some of these finds; many of the bones were shipped off to its huge museum and have never been seen again. Only a small proportion of over a million artifacts in their collection are on public view – but no giants are among them.
Now I'm very curious in further researching their archives...
The pic provided underneath that quote was also eye-catching.
Fig. 4.11. According to a report in The World, 7 October 1895, a party of prospectors found the mummified remains of a very tall man in a cave near San Diego, California. Over his head were the remnants of a leather hood. An expert from the Smithsonian Institution inspected the remains; the mummified body was 2.5 m (8 ft 4 in) tall and the height of the man when alive was estimated to be 2.7 m (9 ft).3
nfq wrote:
There have also been found giant skulls which have double rows of teeth [1], and giants with six fingers. The Bible mentions "a huge man" who had six fingers and toes in 2 Samuel 21:20. The giant races have various names in the Bible, like nephilim, rephaim, anak and anakim. Giants are also mentioned in many other religions and mythologies.
"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)...
Going through the Old Testament, I've also noticed many passages which specifically refer to tribes of giants, as well as those those mentioned by name (e.g. Og, Goliath, Saph, etc.). Speaking of those recorded to have 6 fingers and toes: I heard somewhere that, allegedly, the reason why the Indians would greet each other with their palms out and hands extended is so that they could see whether or not the other person had only 5 fingers!
nfq wrote:
Another interesting and related topic is the elongated skulls that have been found all around the world: "The cranial volume is up to 25 percent larger and 60 percent heavier than conventional human skulls, meaning they could not have been intentionally deformed through head binding/flattening." [2]
(when people were no longer born with large elongated heads, the primitive people tried to imitate the "gods" by brutally and artificially elongating their heads, so that they also would also be respected as kings)
Among royalties, large hats have always been common, like in ancient Egypt for example. I believe that is because (like history/mythology tells us), kings in ancient times used to be "gods" or their descendants, and they had larger brains (and bodies too, sometimes), wisdom and powers than ordinary humans living at the same time, which is also why they got into positions of power ("the divine right to rule")...
That's another major element that interested me in researching giants: I've seen quite a few pics of those elongated heads that you're talking about, in certain documentaries. Those look out of this world! If enough compelling sources and research can be provided, that'll be something that I hope to also have included in this thread.
nfq wrote:
Nfq, could I use some of the links that you've provided as support sources? That 1st one, especially, references another New York Times article that I've yet to include, in my original post. Thanks for providing this additional information!
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Wait, does the article claims those giants were actual humans?
This would be absolutely impossible. As many people have pointed out, a human wouldn't survive in those conditions.
What I understood was that the fossils were from a different specie, some big kind of primate, anatomically different from human beings. Then, it would make some sense biologically, at least.
However, I can still see no way this is true. Why would all the fossils of that specie and of all the evolutionary lineage that finished up in the said specie just disappear? Would the contemporary science be hiding it? Why would they do that?
Every possible explanation I can think of is way too much conspiratorial.
Ah, and please tell me if there is some other explanation I overlooked, I think I didn't read every post.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Wait, does the article claims those giants were actual humans?
This would be absolutely impossible. As many people have pointed out, a human wouldn't survive in those conditions.
What I understood was that the fossils were from a different specie, some big kind of primate, anatomically different from human beings. Then, it would make some sense biologically, at least.
However, I can still see no way this is true. Why would all the fossils of that specie and of all the evolutionary lineage that finished up in the said specie just disappear? Would the contemporary science be hiding it? Why would they do that?
Every possible explanation I can think of is way too much conspiratorial.
Ah, and please tell me if there is some other explanation I overlooked, I think I didn't read every post.
Dude, I really don't want to be "that guy" and just come out and say "conspiracy". Regardless of my personal stance on giants, I actually want to research this thing until I reach a definitive stopping point.
The NY Times articles were eye-catching, even sensational in their claims. A lot of them, also, stated that the alleged finds were sent to other places to confirm, such as the Historical Society and the Smithsonian Institute. So surely, if these were all bogus, then these places would have archived records stating so?
Alright: I'm definitely headed to these places, next.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
I checked out that link. Overall, they present an interesting argument in basically stating that prehistoric animals were large, so why not humans?
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-humans-evolved-to-be-giants
tl;dr: Being bigger would be far from efficient in terms of cost/benefit
Dinosaurs could be big because they ate other slow dinosaurs, or they ate leaves on really tall trees. Giant humans, nor anything resembling a human, wouldn't nearly be tall enough to eat anything out of reach from other herbivores, and they'd be hard-pressed to catch any potential prey because they'd be freaking slow. There needs to be big and slow prey before big and slow predators can be efficient.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Anty-Lemon wrote:
https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-humans-evolved-to-be-giants
tl;dr: Being bigger would be far from efficient in terms of cost/benefit
Dinosaurs could be big because they ate other slow dinosaurs, or they ate leaves on really tall trees. Giant humans, nor anything resembling a human, wouldn't nearly be tall enough to eat anything out of reach from other herbivores, and they'd be hard-pressed to catch any potential prey because they'd be freaking slow. There needs to be big and slow prey before big and slow predators can be efficient.
I'd imagine they'd definitely be slower than, say, someone half their size; but I don't think this would be as big of a detriment as you may envision.
If we're speaking of sturdier and proportionally sized giants (and not anomalies like Wadlow), then I'd imagine that they'd possess formidable explosiveness and athleticism. Take your 6'4+, 285lb+ linebackers in football. They're big guys, but they can generate major power and speed on the gridiron in a relatively short period of time. Now take a giant-sized equivalent at, say, 12'6", 575 lbs. If giant humans could possess similar athletic qualities as standard ones, then I'd say they could reasonably close in on the speed gap.
This is also assuming that they'd still be just as intelligent. So even if they were too slow to close in on prey in close-quarters, I'd bet they could nonetheless adapt by making a mean long-ranged weapon with some vicious force behind it (slings, spears, bows, etc.).
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Big reason: The New York Times published archaeological reports were presented as actual findings, with detailed information and reported follow-ups. Unlike, for example, some of those Bigfoot articles you linked to, these included actual alleged evidence (e.g. the location of the dig site, descriptions of the finds, where they were sent to to confirm, etc.) where one could presumably research into further. That's what interests me.
And me being a Christian also has a part in me being interested in giants. As I replied to nfq (and as he also mentioned), the Bible has a remarkable number of accounts in the Old Testament where tribes of giants, and noteworthy individual ones, were recorded. I also got the opportunity to participate in an archaeological dig project in Israel back in 2012, which was simply a wonderful experience to be a part of.
So overall: Research (developed in college), religion (Christianity), and real-world experiences (archaeology work) have all contributed to this interest of mine :)
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
I'd imagine they'd definitely be slower than, say, someone half their size; but I don't think this would be as big of a detriment as you may envision.
If we're speaking of sturdier and proportionally sized giants (and not anomalies like Wadlow), then I'd imagine that they'd possess formidable explosiveness and athleticism. Take your 6'4+, 285lb+ linebackers in football. They're big guys, but they can generate major power and speed on the gridiron in a relatively short period of time. Now take a giant-sized equivalent at, say, 12'6", 575 lbs. If giant humans could possess similar athletic qualities as standard ones, then I'd say they could reasonably close in on the speed gap.
This is also assuming that they'd still be just as intelligent. So even if they were too slow to close in on prey in close-quarters, I'd bet they could nonetheless adapt by making a mean long-ranged weapon with some vicious force behind it (slings, spears, bows, etc.).
The problem is that speed is all they'd have to rely on. Hunting isn't about outrunning deer, it's about surprising them. I find it very hard to imagine a 12'6" man surprising anyone.
Unfortunately for our giants, humans quite simply don't have any speed in the first place. There are some really fast humans out there, but Usain Bolt can't even outrun a house cat. He could barely outrun an elephant. The average human can't get anywhere near his speed, and being any slower than that would be a severe disservice.
As for ranged weapons, they need to be invented before a species evolves to rely on them.
If we're speaking of sturdier and proportionally sized giants (and not anomalies like Wadlow), then I'd imagine that they'd possess formidable explosiveness and athleticism. Take your 6'4+, 285lb+ linebackers in football. They're big guys, but they can generate major power and speed on the gridiron in a relatively short period of time. Now take a giant-sized equivalent at, say, 12'6", 575 lbs.
A 12'6" 575 lbs giant would be more akin to a chronically malnourished human on his death bed than a linebacker — a 6'4" human with the same proportions would weigh just under 75 lbs[1].
If we were to assume (for just a brief moment) that a giant is just a proportionally bigger human in every way, the 12'6" giant equivalent of the 6'4" 285 lbs linebacker would weigh about 2191 lbs[2]. His athletics capabilities would be nowhere near those of the human linebacker because of cube-square law: muscle and bone strength is proportional to the cross-section of the muscle fibers and bones; since I am assuming he is proportional to the human linebacker in every way, the cross section of his muscle fibers and bones are about 3.9 times the human linebacker's[3]. Overall, this strength-to-weight ratio of the giant's bones and muscles is slightly more than half that of the human linebacker[4]. Moreover metabolic rate per unit mass decreases with size in real creatures; with an exponent of -0.75, in fact. This giant would have about 60% of the metabolic rate per unit mass[5] that the linebacker has. He just has less maximum power per unit mass available for his athletics endeavors than the linebacker does.
In all likelihood, his bones and muscle would be unable to sustain his weight in vigorous physical activity and would crack and snap under the pressure; a giant would have to more slowly and carefully to avoid this fate (as large land animals do, in fact). Any fall would be crippling and likely fatal.
Using more realistic scaling laws based on animals, muscle mass grows with the cube of scale factor (same as weight) and skeletal mass would grow with the 3.25th power; so a larger fraction of the giant's weight would be bone compared to the human (this gives about 30 lbs more bone, while keeping the same total weight — organs tend to scale slower than total body mass anyway). This would slightly increase the relative bone cross section, meaning the giant's bones would be slightly more resilient relative to mass than what I said above. For reference, an exponent of 4 would be needed to keep strength-to-mass constant, so both muscle and bones grow with size (in real creatures) slower than needed to keep the same strength-to-weight ratio. So while the details differ when using more accurate scaling laws, the overall conclusion remains.
[1] human weight = (giant weight) / ((giant height)/(human height))^3.
[2] giant weight = (human weight) * ((giant height)/(human height))^3
[3] (giant cross section) / (human cross section) = ((giant height)/(human height))^2.
[4] The giant's strength-to-weight ratio relative to the human's is equal to (human height)/(giant height) when you put it all together.
[5] ((giant height)/(human height))^(-.75)
ars4326 wrote:
This is also assuming that they'd still be just as intelligent. So even if they were too slow to close in on prey in close-quarters, I'd bet they could nonetheless adapt by making a mean long-ranged weapon with some vicious force behind it (slings, spears, bows, etc.).
Because weapons also follow the cube-square law, giants would end up having to use tiny weapons: a proportional weapon (or any tool, for that matter) would be about 7.7 times heavier than a human equivalent, and relatively brittle in comparison. Many of them would be unwieldly as well because of longer lever arms and weight: a proportional spear might be usable for throwing (the giant might be able to throw this proportional speed about 40% farther than a human would throw his spear[6]), but fighting with it would a lot more work, and much more tiring. However, a proportional sling or bow would likely fall apart due to the strain during use. And the giant might not even be able to use them effectively anyway: the giant would likely not have the strength to draw a proportional bow in full (and it would likely snap in half if he could) unless he were using a relatively small bow, and the sling would combine a factor of ~2 for lever arm with a factor of ~7.7 for stone weight, for about 15.4 times the strain in the giant's bones and muscles to throw a proportional stone with a proportional speed in a proportional sling.
[6] This is complicated to compute exactly, but can be approximated in general by sqrt((giant height)/(human height))
Bottom line: real world giants would be nothing like the giants from fantasy and mythology. They would be slow (because of slower metabolism, as well as to avoid falling with its dire consequences) and cautious (because falling is dangerous), they would use undersized tools and weapons (both for effectiveness, as well as to avoid getting tired from lugging a proportionally higher load compared to their strength) and be extra careful with them (because they are relatively brittle).
Imagine a giant standing on its feet. Look at the tiny blood vessels at the bottom of its feet. See how the blood vessels would be squished by the giants weight. Blood flow would stop.
To be fair, this is a rather poor example because there's a lot of very heavy mammal and (previously) reptile species who didn't have this problem. Including naturally bipedal ones and ones able to put their entire weight on two feet at a time for whatever reason.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The problem is that speed is all they'd have to rely on. Hunting isn't about outrunning deer, it's about surprising them. I find it very hard to imagine a 12'6" man surprising anyone.
Actually, ancient humans were persistence hunters. We don't surprise deer, and we do outrun them over the course of several hours, until they overheat and die.
This is why we collectively are not very hairy and sweat over our full bodies. We are adapted for long distance running and thermoregulation. We run down our prey until they die of heat exhaustion or we catch them and kill them with our tools.
This is neither here nor there though. Because I can't imagine a 12'6" half ton giant running after antelope for 5 or 6 hours either.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Big reason: The New York Times published archaeological reports were presented as actual findings, with detailed information and reported follow-ups. Unlike, for example, some of those Bigfoot articles you linked to, these included actual alleged evidence (e.g. the location of the dig site, descriptions of the finds, where they were sent to to confirm, etc.) where one could presumably research into further. That's what interests me.
Ok, but why the New York Times. Surely peer reviewed anthropology journals existed in the late 1800s. The editors of the New York Times, unless I am very mistaken, were not experts in this field.
For instance, American Anthropologist was established in 1888: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anthropologist
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
