I agree that claiming giants up to 25 feet tall is a pretty outrageous allegation. And bio physically absurd.
Correct. And that applies to anything over about 8 or 9 feet as well. The cube/square rules show that ramping up an individual that averages somewhat under 6 feet to 8 or 9 feet results in significant problems in a number of areas, particularly the ankle and knee.
At least one study which which I am familiar stems from examination of Bigfoot prints, and shows that a lot of them can be demonstrated to be frauds because they simply enlarge a normal human foot to Bigfoot size. This is a sure sign of fraud, as the bone and soft tissues would have to be significantly different from a normal human foot to support a critter of that size and weight. One example: the human ankle is close to the rear of the foot. In a critter much heavier that joint needs to be located closer to the center of the foot because the stress on the Achilles tendon becomes too great for the strength of the tissues.
The vast majority of the reported "giant skeletons" in more modern times (1850-1950) or the encounters with living giants, have usually ranged in height from 7-9 feet, with some reported at 10-12.
And most have documented medical problems, along with problems with normal locomotion. How many could carry heavy weapons and still be effective in early warfare?
I have already mentioned my case concerning the find at Castelnau-Le-Lez, of human bones of twice the volume and length of normal man (5 1/2 foot man) suggesting an individual approx. eleven feet stature. And if this approximation is correct, I don't think we can rule out 10 to 12 feet as a possibility for the human species.
If I remember from upthread this was from back in the late 1800s and the bones are not currently available for study.
It should be noted that physicians in the 1800s were notoriously poor at identifying unusual bones. The literature is full of misidentifications and other boo-boos. They had little training in "bare" bones, and no X-rays to work with. There was only a limited science of osteology at that time, and physicians were not generally trained in it. The regression formulas to establish height from long bones were not well developed until the early 1950s (Trotter & Glesser 1952). Physicians saw live patients, not loose bones, and they certainly had little to no training in non-human bones. Finally, physicians in the 1800s were often the best educated individuals in a small town, and were relied upon to look at strange findings, but that isn't saying much.
It should be noted, that the physicians who had known Wallow all his life had predicted that he would surpass 9 feet at age 22. He was 22.4 when he died and 8 feet 11.1 inches. Surprisingly, he was still growing at a rate of 2-3 inches per year and his bones had not fused. So Wadlow's case still leaves open the question... How much taller could he have grown?
From Wiki:
quote:
On July 4, 1940, while making a professional appearance at the National Forest Festival, a faulty brace irritated his ankle, causing a blister and subsequent infection. Doctors treated him with a blood transfusion and emergency surgery, but his condition worsened and on July 15, 1940, he died in his sleep. He was 22.
An individual of this stature, with these medical conditions, is not likely to have become a warrior carrying heavy armor and weapons. It looks like he needed braces of some kind just to get around and died at a very young age.
The sum of all of the "evidence" posted on this thread for giants in biblical times is pathetic. We have a number of medically-challenged individuals of that stature in recent history, but we don't have suitable collections of bones showing giants in the past.
What we most likely had was tall tales (sorry about the pun--but not very!).
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2