Ancient America’s Giants, Native Legends From Many Tribes

a reply to: SLAYER69

Slayer, you might find some support for your thread in my initial post of this one I did time ago :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: pronto
a reply to: SLAYER69

G,day mate
you spike my interest and memory with this thread
the smithsonian as reported earlier this year on ats lost a court case on this subject

That was a fake news story.

Harte

Why would some taller people within the 9 foot range go against evolution? We have pigmies which are smaller, and we have giganthropithicus which used to live and was an appropriately sized giant ape. Other animals have various different sized versions of them that they evolved due to environment.

A large human is not that amazing.

Look at dog breeds and their size variants all while being the same species.

The giants would disprove evolution theory is silly as hell, it has no effect on it. Is just another hominid that evolved in a different direction.

a reply to: PuppyloveAre you a scientist?

originally posted by: Puppylove
Why would some taller people within the 9 foot range go against evolution? We have pigmies which are smaller, and we have giganthropithicus which used to live and was an appropriately sized giant ape. Other animals have various different sized versions of them that they evolved due to environment.

A large human is not that amazing.

Look at dog breeds and their size variants all while being the same species.

The giants would disprove evolution theory is silly as hell, it has no effect on it. Is just another hominid that evolved in a different direction.

They would have to be extremely different. People who are considered giants in today's society are plagued by health problems (including severe skeletal issues.) None have ever made it to 9 feet tall.

Basically, you'd have to redesign h.sapiens so much that we would no longer be human (skeletal modifications, circulatory modifications, etc, etc.) With our modern technology, we might be able to support someone that tall with a lot of medical intervention but it'd be quite expensive and I couldn't say much about their quality of life.

I believe if Giant skeletons were really found in the past that they may have not been human but a hominid known as bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch).

I know of no tribes that claim giants in the past that also claim that bigfoot was different.
These tribes ether talk about giants or bigfoot but for the most part not both.

I've always wondered about this picture. Does anyone know the back story to it?

What if the atmosphere was different then so the earth could support giant creatures and plants

Just a thought

a reply to: MadRob



It was sculpted.

That means more Horse #.



Oh, P.S. Google Images is your friend.

And...

The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998. Its motto is: "Digging up the facts of God's Creation: One fossil at a time."

WikiPedia

Also...

"Joe Taylor, director of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton, Texas, was commissioned to sculpt this anatomically correct, and to scale, human femur."

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch; talk about a "conflict of interest".



LOLS

a reply to: LSU0408

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
What if the atmosphere was different then so the earth could support giant creatures and plants

Just a thought

back then being what, 3000 years ago, yeah the world was completely different then, there wasn't any internet...


just one giant skeleton, anyone ?

a reply to: Byrd

If they evolved to be that large, then they'd have made the evolutionary changes necessary. Besides, who says they're just taller humans. They could be hominids that are more closely related to giganthropithicus than apes.

Addendum: My main point is 9' hominids do not disprove evolution if real.

originally posted by: Marduk
just one giant skeleton, anyone ?

How can you ask that 'arrogant' question if your own avatar has any validity ?

Look at the height difference in the following Annunaki sculptures between Enki (Lucifer), Enlil (Yahweh) and human slaves....

originally posted by: Rapha
Look at the height difference in the following Annunaki sculptures between Enki (Lucifer), Enlil (Yahweh) and human slaves....

Um...wasn't it common to express the importance of individuals by portraying them larger? I don't think that's to be taken literally.

originally posted by: MadRob
I've always wondered about this picture. Does anyone know the back story to it?

Yes. If you read reallllly carefully (no snark intended there, it's buried in the text and almost unnoticeable) it's a sculpt of what the femur of a 9 or 10 foot tall person might be. Problem is, nobody that tall could actually stand with a femur like that (it'd break off under the stress of the body.)

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
Um...wasn't it common to express the importance of individuals by portraying them larger? I don't think that's to be taken literally.

Then paintings of the 'fat git' King Henry VIII should be so big that no other humans can be fitted into the painting.

However, there he is, exactly the same height as other people of all different classes.

You know, when the giants return though the portals when the veil collapses, its going to be so much fun shouting to the denialists; 'what giant, your seeing things'. Then the giant eats them alive. Munch, munch, munch.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Byrd

If they evolved to be that large, then they'd have made the evolutionary changes necessary. Besides, who says they're just taller humans. They could be hominids that are more closely related to giganthropithicus than apes.

Addendum: My main point is 9' hominids do not disprove evolution if real.

Let's look at what the claims are:
* it's a race
* they are found globally
* in each area they have culture and artifacts similar to the people who live there
* they speak the language of the people who live there no matter where these people live.
* they were alive at some early time during the history of that human culture.
* in some cases interbred with humans

In order for such a thing to be true, these Gigantes (to give them a neutral name) would have to be
* very large numbers (over 200,000 for example) to be a "race" - AND for them to be able to live in large numbers in many areas of the world.
* Have brains similar to h. sapiens and are capable of duplicating human culture and artifacts scaled to them.
* carry the FOXP2 gene and have a mouth and hyoid bone shaped like ours
* present on the earth within the past 2,000 years
* be a close branch on the tree of human lineage.

Now... looking at subspecies of various animals and humans (and body variants like pygmies and the Dinaric Alps (region with the tallest people in the world... no, not Africa...) the following needs to be true:

* In order for such a race to evolve, it needs a founding area (starting area) isolated from h. sapiens that is capable of eventually supporting a large population.
* has to breed and survive in large enough numbers to form a good gene pool
* has to have some sort of extraordinary tech to be able to travel around the world -- but then loses its tech to the level of the people where it settles again.
* (alternatively, it has to be such a common mutation that these giants arise spontaneously in large enough numbers to form a stable clan everywhere around the world.)

So in order to be real there should be within the past 2,000 years (but stretching back 4,000 years and more) in excess of 200,000 people worldwide who existed for centuries and were in contact with humans without losing their gigantism.

That means there would be a lot of evidence in terms of cities, farming areas, and bones.

Now... we find lots and lots of evidence for mammoths. Like these imaginary Gigantes, they had a global distribution, there were well over 200,000 of them at any time, they had a culture similar to elephants (as we know from the evidence of skeletons), and they diverged from a line of things-precursor-to-mammoths 5.5 million years ago. It's impossible for any one organization or any group to cover up this evidence because it bubbles out of the La Brea tar pits and many other places for people to see.

So there should be lots and lots of direct, UNhoaxed, UNsculpted evidence for giants. I'm asking where the bones are. Not reports of bones (which we can't check because they "mysteriously disappear" ) I mean the real bones and the real giant tools that they used.

(reference: en.wikipedia.org... )

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Rapha
Look at the height difference in the following Annunaki sculptures between Enki (Lucifer), Enlil (Yahweh) and human slaves....

Um...wasn't it common to express the importance of individuals by portraying them larger? I don't think that's to be taken literally.

Indeed. If you look at the same individuals in other contexts (Ramses the Great (whose mummy we have) for example) you will find that before they become king, they are drawn at the same size as other people of their rank.

Furthermore, in ancient art, the person for whom the art is made is always depicted as the largest one in the scene.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: MadRob
I've always wondered about this picture. Does anyone know the back story to it?

Yes. If you read reallllly carefully (no snark intended there, it's buried in the text and almost unnoticeable) it's a sculpt of what the femur of a 9 or 10 foot tall person might be. Problem is, nobody that tall could actually stand with a femur like that (it'd break off under the stress of the body.)

It's scaled up so why would it break?