It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: Harte
Well this is the point of the discussion is it not?
I mean, we have stories of unusually tall specimens being found, legends of such beings existing and yet we lack modern investigation of mound skeletons due to many factors.
Until the hobbit skull was found stories of tiny people were just considered myths/legends.
Refresh my memory. Is Flores in Ireland?
Harte
So smug....
IRELAND: ARCHAEOLOGISTS DISCOVER REMAINS OF NEW HUMANOID SPECIES
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
Wrong again... Island isolation can result in small species becoming larger as well, known as insular gigantism, it is the result of decreased predation and excess resources.
originally posted by: Wolfenz
a reply to: Byrd
WOW Enough of the Bone already ...
Bone Density Drop in Modern Humans Linked to Less Physical Activity
www.livescience.com...
Modern Human Bone Density Drop Tied to Lifestyle Shift
Dec 29, 2014 11:45 AM ET // by Charles Choi, LiveScience
news.discovery.com...
I would assume a higher Bone Density in some that large if it was remotely possible ..
but the photo is More Like Faked and the Bone Fabricated to make a what IF ?
for that bone to work it would have a high count of Density of Strength , let alone The Person would have to have a High increase quantity amount of Muscle Fiber's, say like Strong man Dennis Rodgers shown in Stan Lee's - Super humans. just my Ignorant guess ..
but one thing for sure is that a Neanderthal bone has a higher & thicker bone density and a modern Human pretty much similar to a Chimp ,
originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: Wolfenz
a reply to: Byrd
WOW Enough of the Bone already ...
Well, when you talk with someone who's a biologist, you get biology. So from me, you get biology (also paleontology because I work with dinosaurs.
Bone Density Drop in Modern Humans Linked to Less Physical Activity
www.livescience.com...
Modern Human Bone Density Drop Tied to Lifestyle Shift
Dec 29, 2014 11:45 AM ET // by Charles Choi, LiveScience
news.discovery.com...
Okay... first off:
That kind of loss of bone density leads to bones breaking more quickly in sedentary people - so a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off.
The "cheeto birdy-bones" of birds and giant animals is structurally different than human bone (and their joints are structurally different. Birds are also much lighter than mammals due to air sacs inside their bodies (this was true of the gigantic sauropods, by the way.)
I would assume a higher Bone Density in some that large if it was remotely possible ..
The problem with this is that you need a lot more muscle to pull around a heavy high density bone. This would change your overall body shape by quite a bit. Some adjustment to the angle of motion and the way they stand would also have to take place to allow the tendons to stay attached and not tear away from the bone.
but the photo is More Like Faked and the Bone Fabricated to make a what IF ?
for that bone to work it would have a high count of Density of Strength , let alone The Person would have to have a High increase quantity amount of Muscle Fiber's, say like Strong man Dennis Rodgers shown in Stan Lee's - Super humans. just my Ignorant guess ..
Very true. The people faking the picture wanted to support a belief and weren't interested in the real mechanics.
but one thing for sure is that a Neanderthal bone has a higher & thicker bone density and a modern Human pretty much similar to a Chimp ,
Yes, but the differences are actually very slight. You probably couldn't tell just looking at the bones... you'd have to measure them. On the other hand, with bird bones you can tell instantly that they're not at all like mammal bones.
The average adult male femur is 48 centimeters (18.9 in) in length and 2.34 cm (0.92 in) in diameter and can support up to 30 times the weight of an adult.[1] It forms part of the hip joint (at the acetabulum) and part of the knee joint, which is located above.
A cubic inch of bone can in principle bear a load of 19,000 lbs. (8,626 kg) or more — roughly the weight of five standard pickup trucks — making it about four times as strong as concrete. Still, whether or not bone actually withstands such loads depends heavily on how quickly force is delivered.Feb 3, 2010
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
a reply to: Byrd
All this bone density talk with no real data is pretty much pointless.
[snip]
That's 4,989 lbs...
When you say... " a giant wouldn't be able to stand up without shattering his or her hips off." I'm wondering where you get that data from.
originally posted by: Wolfenz
I knew just some of the small percentage , of Biology, of Dino's it all in the configuration, from the massive Bones of Large Dinos just to carry the Mass Weight, say like a Elephant or a Giraffe of Today, and Speaking of a Dino Like Bird a pterosaur the largest one known to have existed a Size of a Mythical Dragon, Quetzalcoatlus northropi
Immense Size yet its Bone are thin,
For MEGA - Fauna that existed from 20,000 to a Million years Way before the Last Ice Age Wouldn't the Earth , been a place Way Different then it is Now , with Different Formula of Air and a more Oxygen Content ,
let alone the the Shear a Smaller Earth ( if you Consider the expanding Earth Theory )
and a Short Time Rotation of the Earth another possibility , and a Closer Moon too , ?
Im talking about A Humanoid say at Least 8 to 10 foot tall ,
The Size Mass of Nords ( Scandinavian /Germanic Tribes ) in the Early 1st to 10th Century is Legendary
Just look at the Bone Mass of a Neanderthal to a Modern day Human
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Human vs Gorilla
files.abovetopsecret.com...
“They excelled every other nation which was flourished, either before or since, in all manner of cunning handicraft—were brave and warlike—ruling over the land they had wrested from its ancient possessors with a high and haughty hand. Compared with them the palefaces of the present day were pygmies, in both art and arms. …”
Link
A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:
Innumerable moons ago, a race of white men, ten feet high, and far more rich and powerful than any white people now living, here inhabited a large range of country, extending from the rising to the setting sun. Their fortifications crowned the summits of the mountains, protecting their populous cities situated in the intervening valleys.
They excelled every other nation which was flourished, either before or since, in all manner of cunning handicraft—were brave and warlike—ruling over the land they had wrested from its ancient possessors with a high and haughty hand. Compared with them the palefaces of the present day were pygmies, in both art and arms.
They drove the Indians from their homes, putting them to the sword, and occupying the valleys in which their fathers had dwelt before them since the world began. At length, in the height of their power and glory, when they remembered justice and mercy no more and became proud and lifted up, the Great Spirit descended from above, sweeping them with fire and deluge from the face of the earth.
The mounds we [i.e. the speaker Chief Rolling Thunder and his Spanish listener] had seen on the tablelands were the remnants of their fortresses, and the crumbling ruins that surrounded us all that remained of a mighty city.
Link
A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:
-Cushman
originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Harte
Yeah, you're right, it will be a little more difficult. I tend to come at these things from odd angles and backwards.
It looks like D. Yates lifted the thing entirely from Horatio Bardwell Cushman's “History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians” (1899).
So the key is going to be Cushman and the best I will be able to do is suggest that it is bull#, but I think I can make a very strong case for it being bull#, and whoknows, I might get lucky.
Hey, check it out: Three Years Among the Comanches: The Narrative of Nelson Lee was published in 1859. Cushman published 40 years later.
This is already looking very bad for Cushman.
A story was told by the Comanches in 1857:
-Cushman
Wow. It's already very clear to me what is going on here with Cushman; he took Nelson's popular tale as the truth and he ran with it as "history", he even took out the part about the volcano. If I can prove this to be true, this story is dead meat.
What do you think?
originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Bybyots
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that this tale is a lower hanging fruit than the Alexander story.
See, the Alexander shields story appears in NO classical literature at all. The source of the story is utterly unknown.
That fruit is already on the ground it's so low.
Harte
originally posted by: Marduk
originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Bybyots
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that this tale is a lower hanging fruit than the Alexander story.
See, the Alexander shields story appears in NO classical literature at all. The source of the story is utterly unknown.
That fruit is already on the ground it's so low.
Harte
David Hatcher Childress stole it from Frank Edwards’s Stranger than Science. He popularised it in "Technology of the Gods"
It was completely made up.
originally posted by: Marduk
originally posted by: Harte
Edwards made it up, you mean?
Harte
Yes
Stranger Than Science has more in common with Ripleys, than it does actual history
Difficult to prove, but why bother?
You've cast enough doubt - far more than any provenance the story itself provides.