Ancient Giants of America

[Trippy]

It wouldn't "completely" change anything. It would simply be a new wrinkle in the story. Understanding of history changes all the time; this would be no different.

Seconded...

 

[Trippy]

You, sir, win the internets.

 

[Balerion]

And 1900s

Very early 1900s. But mostly the 1800s.

Point being, it's a lot of rumor, and zero evidence.

You missed the point

These people lived thousands of yrs. Ago and are not genetically related to the modern Native American

How do you know that?

Now that puts us in a whole new mind set of what was going on 7500-5000yrs ago in the Americas

How so?

 

[river]

Because overturning existing hypotheses with new evidence based hypotheses is how reputations, careers and money are generally made.

Exactly

So truth and bringing that truth to the public is not a priority , but it should be

Its also about politics and religion , ego and manipulation of the facts

Lets face it , true science , the evidence , being objective , telling the way it actually is , hasn't happened

And thats a tragedy really

 

[AlexG]

It's all a hoax. And National Geographic admit it.

"Skeleton of Giant" Is Internet Photo Hoax
James Owen
for National Geographic News
December 14, 2007
The National Geographic Society has not discovered ancient giant humans, despite rampant reports and pictures.

The hoax began with a doctored photo and later found a receptive online audience—thanks perhaps to the image's unintended religious connotations.

By 2004 the "discovery" was being blogged and emailed all over the world—"Giant Skeleton Unearthed!"—and it's been enjoying a revival in 2007.

The photo fakery might be obvious to most people. But the tall tale refuses to lie down even five years later, if a continuing flow of emails to National Geographic News are any indication. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)

The messages come from around the globe—Portugal, India, El Salvador, Malaysia, Africa, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Egypt, South Africa, Kenya. But they all ask the same question: Is it true?

Perpetuating the Myth

Helping to fuel the story's recent resurgence are a smattering of media outlets that have reported the find as fact.

An often cited March 2007 article in India's Hindu Voice monthly, for example, claimed that a National Geographic Society team, in collaboration with the Indian Army, had dug up a giant human skeleton in India.

"Recent exploration activity in the northern region of India uncovered a skeletal remains of a human of phenomenal size," the report read.

The story went on to say the discovery was made by a "National Geographic Team (India Division) with support from the Indian Army since the area comes under jurisdiction of the Army."


The account added that the team also found tablets with inscriptions that suggest the giant belonged to a race of superhumans that are mentioned in the Mahabharata, a Hindu epic poem from about 200 B.C.

"They were very tall, big and very powerful, such that they could put their arms around a tree trunk and uproot it," the report said, repeating claims that initially appeared in 2004.

Voice editor P. Deivamuthu admitted to National Geographic News that his publication was taken in by the fake reports.

The monthly, which is based in Mumbai (Bombay), published a retraction after readers alerted Deivamuthu to the hoax, he said.

It's a hoax in India, a hoax in Arabia, a hoax in Africa and a hoax in the US.

 

[river]

It's all a hoax. And National Geographic admit it.
It's a hoax in India, a hoax in Arabia, a hoax in Africa and a hoax in the US.

Ah..so the evidence of Giants in America , and there is much of , physical evidence , is superseded by National Geographic opinion

Interesting....

 

[AlexG]

There is no physical evidence, and plenty of evidence of a hoax.

The 'evidence' was attributed to the National Geographic, who denied it and labeled it a hoax. That was not an opinion. That was a statement by the supposed founders of the 'evidence' saying that the evidence doesn't exist and is a fake.

 

[river]

There is no physical evidence, and plenty of evidence of a hoax.

The 'evidence' was attributed to the National Geographic, who denied it and labeled it a hoax. That was not an opinion. That was a statement by the supposed founders of the 'evidence' saying that the evidence doesn't exist and is a fake.

Now here in inlies the problem

Your taking the National Geographic as an authority .....absolute authority .....

 

[Trippy]

Exactly

So truth and bringing that truth to the public is not a priority , but it should be

Its also about politics and religion , ego and manipulation of the facts

Lets face it , true science , the evidence , being objective , telling the way it actually is , hasn't happened

And thats a tragedy really

No.
this is the OPPOSITE of what I was saying.

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
Exactly

So truth and bringing that truth to the public is not a priority , but it should be

Its also about politics and religion , ego and manipulation of the facts

Lets face it , true science , the evidence , being objective , telling the way it actually is , hasn't happened

And thats a tragedy really

No.
this is the OPPOSITE of what I was saying.

So what are you saying , be clear

 

[AlexG]

Now here in inlies the problem

Your taking the National Geographic as an authority .....absolute authority .....

The claim was that the National Geographic were the ones who found and photographed the 'giants'. They deny this and say it was a hoax.

Whereas you are taking newspaper articles from 1880 as an authority.

 

[Trippy]

So what are you saying , be clear

You asked if they would gain from such discoveries, I am answering yes, and making the point that there is more to be made from making this public than keeping it quiet.

There is simply no good reason for a conspiracy.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

From points given

1) the area was inhospitable to growing anything

2) food rots in this room , done by researchers

3) no evidence of doors

4) no shelving

If the area is poor for growing food, it would not be a good place for giants I think.
Giants have healthy appetites in the main.
Why would physically superior people live in an area where resources are lacking?
Why wouldn't they go somewhere better and kick out the little people?

You say that you don't think they were American Indians.
1. Why not? I have already given you information about a tall tribe that would satisfy the description of "giant".
2. Who else would they be?

Are the bones available for people to see?
If so, why not carbon date them?

 

[river]

You asked if they would gain from such discoveries, I am answering yes, and making the point that there is more to be made from making this public than keeping it quiet.

There is simply no good reason for a conspiracy.

What though is the gain ? Specifically

 

[Balerion]

What though is the gain ? Specifically

Income. Attendance, grant funds, etc.. Notariety, fame.

 

[river]

Income. Attendance, grant funds, etc.. Notariety, fame.

But the discovery of Ancient Giants in America , which are factual , has none of this , why ?

 

[AlexG]

But the discovery of Ancient Giants in America , which are factual , has none of this , why ?

If it's factual, where are the skeletons? The photos have already been demonstrated to be fakes, your 'evidence' are newspaper articles from the 1880, so by factual, you mean 'I like to believe this'.

 

[Balerion]

But the discovery of Ancient Giants in America , which are factual , has none of this , why ?

This should tell you that it isn't factual, riv.

 

[river]

This should tell you that it isn't factual, riv.

Yet the facts are the facts , which of course tells me that these numerous discoveries are factual

 

[Balerion]

Yet the facts are the facts , which of course tells me that these numerous discoveries are factual

Circular logic, river. How about you tell us why you believe them to be facts?