The pic provided underneath that quote was also eye-catching.
I really can't understand why you are so eager to believe in fiction, when there is so much marvel and awe in the actual real world.
Are you even able to see your own bias?
Has there actually been any non-speculative attempt at researching the absolute upper and lower sustainable size limits of bipedal mammals? Square-cube law, when applied to actually existing species, has a great deal of caveats and cannot be referred to as a generic (let alone final) answer to a particular question. In practice, it dictates the relationship between size and mass, it doesn't dictate specific limits and doesn't take various evolutionary adaptation paths into account (it would be obvious that if there were such thing as a giant human, it wouldn't have the exact same skeletal structure and muscle tissue/bone ratio as us). Like if you take a dachshund and straight-up magnify it to the size of a horse, it would break its spine on day 1, but you don't really see horses having that problem.
Warp wrote:
I really can't understand why you are so eager to believe in fiction, when there is so much marvel and awe in the actual real world.
Are you even able to see your own bias?
Warp, you aren't exactly in the right here. A person is free, and should be free, to pursue and research subjects that interest them, however detached they may be from the scientific consensus or everyday norm. If you were intelligent about it you would contribute something meaningful to that research instead of repeatedly and intrusively saying the equivalent of "what you're interested in is stupid, you're wrong, and I insist that you're the one biased. I will repeatedly confront you for appreciating something over/instead of the widely-approved matters".
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If you were intelligent about it you would contribute something meaningful to that research instead of repeatedly and intrusively saying the equivalent of "what you're interested in is stupid, you're wrong, and I insist that you're the one biased. I will repeatedly confront you for appreciating something over/instead of the widely-approved matters".
You mean like the links I provided in this post?
The internet is full of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. The world is not becoming better by making people believe in them. We do not become better as people by believing in woo.
What really grinds my gears is when people are so gullible as to actually believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of scientists and aficionados from all around the world, from different countries, cultures, ideologies and philosophical stances, are somehow in a huge world-wide conspiracy and have, somehow, all agreed on hiding something, or lying about something.
That kind of thinking is completely delusional. It is literally a physical impossibility. Even if you tried, you could not have the entire world-wide scientific and amateur community agree on the same lie, on keeping something hidden, with none of them starting open discussions about it.
All these conspiracy theorists and their believers are highly biased. They want to believe that, for example, some photographs are genuine, even after clearly showing to them that they are not. They are not interested in knowing the truth. They are only interested in bolstering their own beliefs.
And as I have already said twice, it's really sad, because the real world is already full of wonder and awe. The real world is interesting. There is a ton of things we can learn from the real world. There is no need to believe fantasy.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And when I see minds being wasted, it makes me angry.
Yes, exactly like that. And it would probably be better if you stuck to that (I think the constructive part of your post escaped ars's attention because the passive-aggressive part was included), or at least tried to steer the discussion from "did giant humans exist?" to "could giant humans exist?". That remains an interesting subject in my opinion (see the first part of my previous post). At least if you want to be scientific, because theorizing is scientific, but dismissal and aggression aren't. A good part of scientific breakthroughs began with a "what if"; no discovery ever began with a "this won't work, so I won't even bother".
Warp wrote:
And as I have already said twice, it's really sad, because the real world is already full of wonder and awe. The real world is interesting. There is a ton of things we can learn from the real world. There is no need to believe fantasy.
How's that world treating you, eh? It's so wondrous and awesome you become angry at a person on the other side of the globe for being interested in giant people hoaxes. If you're trying to make a point at least be convincing about it.
In fact, every time I see quotes like that (the ones that specifically include both "the real world is interesting" and "no need to believe fantasy" angles), they almost always come from noticeably sad, bitter, or otherwise discontent individuals. Every single time. Not even once have I heard it from somebody who radiates cheerfulness and charisma. It always have to be someone who is very persistent, sometimes to the point of obsession, in attempting to make another person think the same way they do. Because that is "right", and probably expected to make someone's life better, somehow. Which is no less delusional than believing in a conspiracy theory.
Warp wrote:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And when I see minds being wasted, it makes me angry.
Well, good thing we can engage in productive activities, such as repeatedly telling somebody we don't even know that they're wrong on a random internet forum dedicated to an incredibly time-wasting, inconsequential hobby. Right?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
Eh, why not, I'll jump into the fray.
Every question worth asking deserves the scientific process treatment, which is to say, postulate a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. It's clear ars4326 is willing to attempt to disprove these articles because he's following up on what sources are available, trying to determine the validity of various stories. This research could very well be useful for disproving hoaxes, assuming ars4326 is willing to accept what he finds (and I think he is). It could also unveil information lost in archives that's worth reviving in digital form for future scientific study, regardless of whether or not that evidence lends credence to the possibility of larger-than-what-we-would-now-consider-normal people.
At least with Robert Wadlow and several other tall people there are good scientific records to back up the existence of giants in at least some context. Clearly, there were some earlier articles from newspapers of various reliability that require additional research to see if the people they identify are as real as Robert Wadlow was. I see no reason why research in this area should be discouraged if said research is done with proper scientific rigor, transparency, and documentation, and with a healthy degree of skepticism against sensationalist journalism.
Warp wrote:
What really grinds my gears is when people are so gullible as to actually believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of scientists and aficionados from all around the world, from different countries, cultures, ideologies and philosophical stances, are somehow in a huge world-wide conspiracy and have, somehow, all agreed on hiding something, or lying about something.
Warp, curiosity does not make a conspiracy theorist. You've used the phrase conspiracy theory or similar phrases multiple times, but I just read through this entire discussion and I have yet to find a place where ars4326 made any claims that are even remotely conspiratorial in nature. He's gone out of his way to repeatedly highlight that additional research is required in several areas. Now, ars4326 has definitely referenced material you might not hold as a worthwhile source, but I see no intentional conspiracy. I also see no reason to believe that what he finds will necessarily be in disagreement with your purported hundreds of thousands of scientists (and I admit I'd be thrilled if his research results in increased discussion and debate in the scientific community).
While this subject might personally interest you less than other things, there is no sane reason I can come up with to discourage curiosity. Far from it, in fact - the most important thing I try to impart to children I mentor is the art of being excited to learn how to learn, being excited about learning something of interest. My son is interested in paleontology and I'm delighted when I see him discovering something that's new to him. I can only hope that he will eventually discover something that's a secret to everybody. (Yes, I totally just quoted the Legend of Zelda - this is TASVideos forums we're in now, after all, but I digress).
As an unrelated aside, I do consider myself to be a largely cheerful person, which does tend to grate on the nerves of others at times, but I'm willing to accept any stereotype this may make of me. :)
Not even once have I heard it from somebody who radiates cheerfulness and charisma.
Then perhaps you should watch some videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Well, good thing we can engage in productive activities, such as repeatedly telling somebody we don't even know that they're wrong on a random internet forum dedicated to an incredibly time-wasting, inconsequential hobby. Right?
Just because there are hoaxes doesn't mean there aren't real skeletons. There have been hoaxes about evolution too, like the Piltdown man, but that doesn't mean evolution is false.
"Claim: The Supreme Court ordered the Smithsonian Institute to disclose that it destroyed several giant skeletons in the early 1900s to preserve the mainstream narrative of evolution."
I don't think anybody has made this claim on the thread
Another hoax. If someone makes a hoax about a moon landing, it doesn't all moon landings are hoax.
The skull is ridiculously big in that video, so I doubt many people would fall for that. The giant would have been like 22 meters tall.
It is interesting to mention though, that the quran for example claims that Adam was 90 feet tall. Theosophy also says that the first spiritual proto-humans were over that tall, but their bodies hadn't materialized yet, which is why they could be so large: http://davidpratt.info/evo.htm
Buddhist cosmology says similar things, which is probably one source where theosophy got their information from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_%28Buddhism%29
That kind of thinking is completely delusional. It is literally a physical impossibility. Even if you tried, you could not have the entire world-wide scientific and amateur community agree on the same lie, on keeping something hidden, with none of them starting open discussions about it.
There are many conspiracy theories which have turned out to be true: http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/
But I agree some conspiracy theories stretch the limits of plausibility and seem to border on the ridiculous side, like the flat earth conspiracy (which is still growing on youtube). All conspiracy theories are not equally plausible/implausible.
And as I have already said twice, it's really sad, because the real world is already full of wonder and awe. The real world is interesting. There is a ton of things we can learn from the real world. There is no need to believe fantasy.
It's true that normal things are interesting, but paranormal things are also interesting.
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
Disclaimer: The F-words in this post are added purely for comedic value.
I want to contribute to the research. Surely we should know the type of the giants we are looking for, so I analyzed the possibility of jungle giants, city giants, desert giants, forest giants, ice giants, plain giants and pygmy giants.
JUNGLE GIANTS. There can't be jungle giants, because we have evidence for people who live in the jungles and they are FUCKING SMALL! If you want to survive in the jungle, you had better not be too big. If there ever were jungle giants, they obviously evolved into pygmy giants: Here's a photo of jungle giants that have evolved into pygmy giants.Here's another photo of the pygmy giants. There are plenty of these photos, because the pygmy giants are real.CITY GIANTS. There can't be city giants, because then their existence would be FUCKING OBVIOUS!
DESERT GIANTS. There can't be desert giants, because they would dehydrate and starve. Maybe they have humps like camels? Any real life that struggles in desert environments is in the form of tiny creatures. The further into the desert you go, the tinier the creatures get.
ICE GIANTS. There can't be ice giants, because THOR FUCKING KILLED THEM! Also, Inuits, the real ice people are -- once again -- FUCKING SMALL!
An ice giant walks on ice. *CRACK* *SPLASH* The ice giant is dead.This is the main reason why there are no other ice giants than Inuits.PLAIN GIANTS. These giants starved to death, because the prey saw and heard them from afar. They tried to use berries and mushrooms as food, but there just wasn't enough to sustain the large body size. A sad story, really. Smaller body size was once again an advantage that the giants failed to realize.
FOREST GIANTS. See: Jungle giants.
PYGMY GIANTS. These actually exist. It is not a coincidence that they are small. The bigger folk did not survive in the jungle as well as their smaller siblings. The slightly smaller man struggling in the jungle was able to fuck more and spread his smallnessness in the form of his offspring. He did it slightly more efficiently than his slightly larger brother until after many generations the genes that make the people small are prevalent in the gene-pool of the population.
Plot twist: The "normal-sized" man is the giant!PYGMY ICE GIANTS. These actually exist. They are called Inuits. Just like the pygmy giants in the jungle, over many generations, natural selection has made these giants small. It is not a coincidence that there are pygmy ice giants instead of giant ice giants. I recommend watching the astonishing documentary film about the Inuits. You can see how the life-style in the environment and the small body size fit together and you understand how a large humanoid would be less efficient at surviving (and thus less efficient at fucking) in the harsh cold environment: Nanook of the North (1922)
Judging from how the various human tribes in jungles, ice plains and other environments have evolved to be small, it seems that being small is an advantage and the genes for smallness would naturally preserve better than the genes for largeness in any population.
Conclusion: We are the giants. The reason why we are large is that due to modern life-style (beginning from the introduction of agriculture) there is less selection pressure for small body size. The opposite is true for hunter-gatherers. When you have fields and domesticated animals, natural selection no longer cares whether you are small or not, you are still able to survive and fuck efficiently under the city lights. You also fail to see that you are a giant, because your own size is the norm that you are used to.
Feel free to use these findings as your material, ars.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Been a while since I've updated this thread, but I'm now in the process of further looking into some of the leads I listed, back on my original post (as well as what nfq provided).
In particular, I'm researching Professor A.B. Skinner from the July 14, 1916 report from the New York Times (I've uncovered a few interesting sources here). I may also include a section on Indian folklore -- just below the newspaper articles; with a possible section containing pictorial evidence just below that.
All in all, I'm looking to make this into a solid collection of research. I'll update the date in the thread title once I've added additional content.
"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
Warp,
don't you have anything more productive to do with your life than write agressive statements about what another person should or not look up for information or do with their free time?
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Warp wrote:
I hear that chasing wild geese can also form a solid collection of research.
Don't you have anything more productive to do with your life?
Good to know that I bring rays of sunshine into your life, Warp :)
"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
Warp,
don't you have anything more productive to do with your life than write agressive statements about what another person should or not look up for information or do with their free time?
I consider it quite productive to inspire people into healthy skepticism, rationality and science, away from superstition, fairytales, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. Into understanding how the world really works, how science works, and to recognize deductive and argumentative fallacies.
So if even one person becomes intellectually better because of what I have written, I would be very happy.
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
Warp, stop posting in the topic if you don't like it. They're going to be pursuing information regardless of what you say. In fact, proceeding to do so makes you look like kind of a jerk.
It would be like when Darwin first discovered evolution, and some random guy chimes in and says "DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO WITH YOU LIFE?!!"
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
It would be like when Darwin first discovered evolution, and some random guy chimes in and says "DON'T YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO WITH YOU LIFE?!!"
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Warp wrote:
grassini wrote:
Warp,
don't you have anything more productive to do with your life than write agressive statements about what another person should or not look up for information or do with their free time?
I consider it quite productive to inspire people into healthy skepticism, rationality and science, away from superstition, fairytales, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. Into understanding how the world really works, how science works, and to recognize deductive and argumentative fallacies.
So if even one person becomes intellectually better because of what I have written, I would be very happy.
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
I completely agree with you about this giants thing being conspiratorial, anti-scientific, and etc. And I also agree the lack of skepticism nowadays is a significant problem: There're governments cutting money from science while promoting 'alternative' medicine, and people who do think that medicine works. In Brazil, you can graduate as a astrologist or a naturologist (idk if this word exists in English, it is who studies Naturology, a pseudo-science that alleges to cure diseases with 'natural' methods with absolutely no scientific evidence) in universities. There're doctors who recipe homeopathy or that work with orthomolecular medicine or Reiki. Even a airplane company changed the number of a fly because a 'prophet' said the airplane which that number would crash. So, our society does have a lack of skepticism.
But I don't think that's the way we to make people to think more rationally. Your comment was a bit of aggressive indeed, and it wouldn't change no one's mind. This problem is deeper - to solve it it would be necessary a better scientific divulgation and awareness on schools. Ars4326 certainly has his reasons to consider the possibility of the existence of giants, and it isn't really something that harms anyone. It is just something with lack or proof and strong negative evidences. So, attacking someone just because of his belief in giants is equivalent to attack someone just because he or she believes in a god. It's a disnecessary rudeness that won't change no one's thinking.
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
Am I right that you consider existence of giants absolutely not possible ever no matter what?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Tolerating irrationality, superstition, hoaxes and conspiracy theories simply to not hurt feelings is not something I strive for, sorry.
Am I right that you consider existence of giants absolutely not possible ever no matter what?
I consider the existence of giants to be not possible if said giants fit the two following criteria:
1. The giants must be significantly larger than humans.
2. The giants must be humanoid.
These two criteria are mutually incompatible based on what we know from biology and anthropology.
Please understand that humans are already really quite large for animals.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Your reply makes me feel like I claimed they existed.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
You make me think there's something wrong with feeling.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Feel free to use these findings as your material, ars.
