Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,618 Year: 4,875/9,624 Month: 223/427 Week: 33/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Giant People in the bible?
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5297 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 301 of 352 (532934)
10-27-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Theodoric
10-27-2009 10:29 AM


Re: Reality bites, don't it
Theodoric:
You're another one who lives in lies.
Documentation: [thumb=300]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Shaq-Aasen.jpg[/thumb=33]
This photo is a direct comparison between two men about six feet tall and John Aasen and Shaquille Oneal. If you can see that Aasen is much bigger than Shaq then you are either (1) blind or (2) deliberately lying. I think that latter.
Not only so but he was measured many times for his height. 8'9 3/4 at age 18.
http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/index2.html
The records of the Mendocino State Hospital state that he was 9'2 at the time of his death.
[qs]You did get Robert Wadlow correct but that is about all you got correct.[/qs]
Nope. I got it all correct. Anyone viewing the pictures themselves can tell that you are lying...both to yourself and the readers.
Now, handle this:
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Stadnik85.jpg[/thumb=200]
Stadnick is 8'5. Still alive.
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/giantvainmyllarine-1.jpg[/thumb=200]
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Vaino-Myllyrinne.jpg[/thumb=200]
Vaino Myllyrinne, measured at 8'1.
Your so-called source is bogus. These things are a matter of public record in many places, such as
http://villageofjoy.com/10-tallest-men-in-the-world/
What God's Word says about giants (& everything else) is true and what the skeptics say to the contrary is lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 10:29 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 11:58 AM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 350 by Bent Bones, posted 11-27-2009 2:45 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 351 by Bent Bones, posted 03-15-2010 1:07 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9278
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 302 of 352 (532938)
10-27-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 11:02 AM


Evidence please, evidence
First of all Steve Quayle is a nutball and he provides no real evidence for his assertions. Second of all I do not see on his site where he asserts the measurements you do.
Also, his sources are more than suspect.
Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
quote:
MT. BLANCO FOSSIL MUSEUM
The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a scientific and educational institution dedicated to a correct interpretation of Earth history and fossil remains. We believe that the fossil record speaks of catastrophic events happening several thousand years ago rather than slow processes taking place over millions or billions of years as is held by the popular establishment.
Gee no one at the museum has any scientific training. Whudda thunk.
You really have no concept of perspective do you. How do you know the two men standing next to Shaq and John Aasen are both 6 feet tall. Do you have any evidence? It has always been typical to stand tall men next to shorter people to make the height seem even higher. You may have provided documentation but you have not provided any proof.
Shaq then you are either (1) blind or (2) deliberately lying. I think that latter.
Whats up with the accusations of lying? Who the hell are you to start accusing me of lying? I provide evidence you provide nothing and then accuse me of lying. Grow up. Either debate like an adult or don't bother.
Not only so but he was measured many times for his height. 8'9 3/4 at age 18.
www.stevequayle.com
The records of the Mendocino State Hospital state that he was 9'2 at the time of his death.
Where is this evidence? I find no reference on the site your presented.
Now about Stadnick and Vin Myllyrinne. First of all they were not part of your original post, so how do you feel you can use them to back up your original post. You are resorting to doing what you always do. Just throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks.
You seem to be wrong about Stadnyk.
quote:
On August 8, 2007, Guinness book's spokeswoman Amarilis Espinoza stated that in the 2008 edition of the record book, Mr Stadnyk appeared to be taller than Bao Xishun, a native of Inner Mongolia in China who stands 2.36 m (7.7 ft). Although he held the title for a few months, Stadnyk refused to be measured and was consequently denied the GWR recognition. Others have questioned the legitimacy of his record, noting that Stadnyk has never been officially measured by Guinness World Records, only by the "Ukrainian Book of Records" that says that he measures 2.54 m (8 ft 4.0 in), and that the doctor originally credited by Guinness with confirming Stadnyk's height has denied ever measuring him.[3]
Your so-called source is bogus. These things are a matter of public record in many places, such as
Page not found – Village of Joy
This site says nothing about Petersson and Aason so how can you make such a claim.
Do you even know what your arguments are? I am not denying there have been extremely tall men. I am just pointing out that you are not being factual in your assertions.
Also, you may have notice that all of these extremely tall men had diseases or accidents that caused their unnatural growth spurts and that their bodies could not support their huge size. To think a human being could survive in a pre-mechanized world at heights greater than 9' is ludicrous.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 11:02 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5297 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 303 of 352 (532941)
10-27-2009 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Theodoric
10-27-2009 11:58 AM


Re: Evidence please, evidence
First of all Steve Quayle is a nutball
You are the 'nut ball'. Even after being proven wrong you still maintain the lie. My documentation went far beyond Steve Quayle (who was not wrong about this). The truth is that you just don't care.
You really have no concept of perspective do you. How do you know the two men standing next to Shaq and John Aasen are both 6 feet tall
Because the height of the the two men standing next to the big men was known by the researchers who did the investigation, that's why.
Still living in lies. It was obvious. The comparisons were accurate.
Where is this evidence? I find no reference on the site your presented.
That's because you didn't LOOK close enough. You don't wish to find the truth to begin with.
First of all they were not part of your original post, so how do you feel you can use them to back up your original post.
Well, goodness, even if I told you would you grasp it. It doesn't take an intellectual 'giant' to figure it out. Where does that leave you?
The Internet is loaded with sites about the height of the individuals I posted. People who care enough to know the truth will do their own research just as I did.
Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 11:58 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by AdminNosy, posted 10-27-2009 12:34 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 10-27-2009 12:40 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 306 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 6:34 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 304 of 352 (532942)
10-27-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 12:08 PM


48 hours for Calypsis4
You need to actually post arguments and rebuttals. Use the word "lie" a lot less.
You can think that over for 48 hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5973
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 305 of 352 (532944)
10-27-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Evidence please, evidence
The Internet is loaded with sites about the height of the individuals I posted. People who care enough to know the truth will do their own research just as I did.
OK, so then just how tall was Harold Lloyd? And please this time do not act in your characteristic unprofessional manner! Reference your source!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9278
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 306 of 352 (532976)
10-27-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Calypsis4
10-27-2009 12:08 PM


Re: Evidence please, evidence
Because the height of the the two men standing next to the big men was known by the researchers who did the investigation, that's why.
Please, please just a scrap of evidence. Why should we take your word for it when you won't even provide us with the source? Who were the researchers? How did they determine the height of the men? Do they know the name of the man standing next to the 'giant'.
That's because you didn't LOOK close enough. You don't wish to find the truth to begin with.
Well I looked at almost every page on the site you referenced and did not see any info about his height being measured or Mendocino State Hospitasl. Are you sure it was on the site you referenced? If so could you please provide a link to the exact page. If not could you provide a link to the correct reference.
Well, goodness, even if I told you would you grasp it. It doesn't take an intellectual 'giant' to figure it out. Where does that leave you?
I would appreciate a response to what a post not just lame attacks. So far you have given no one anything to 'grasp'.
You are the 'nut ball'. Even after being proven wrong you still maintain the lie.
Is all you can do is insult? Show me how I am lying. Do you actually know what a lie is. I am posting evidence and showing where the source of that evidence comes from. How am I lying? Is everyone that disagrees with you or shows you where you are wrong a liar in your eyes? What a sad, pathetic world you must live in. I welcome when people can show me that I am wrong. It allows me to reexamine what I think I know. Knowledge is a never ending journey, you should try getting on the path.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-27-2009 12:08 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2009 9:09 PM Theodoric has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 307 of 352 (532987)
10-27-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Theodoric
10-27-2009 6:34 PM


Why does it matter?
Robert Wadlow - Wikipedia
This gives the tallest human "ever" at just under 9 feet. Does it matter if there was a 9' 2" human?
There have been measured very tall men. No one disputes that, right?
Why do you care if there is a 2" discrepancy? What is the real point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Theodoric, posted 10-27-2009 6:34 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Theodoric, posted 10-28-2009 9:36 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5082 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 308 of 352 (532989)
10-27-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Coyote
10-27-2009 12:26 AM


Re: Pics of giants
I emailed the Nevada State Historical society back in April 20-24, 2003 inquiring about the alleged giant skeletons. They replied, and said they weren't sure if they had any remains and whether or not they were the 'red head giants.' They knew about the legend of the giants but weren't sure how much was true. They reminded me that the items pulled from the cave are under NAGPRA laws that were found on BLM land and are securely stored off-site.
Similar inquiries have been met with similar results.
Kathleen C. Warner, in her book "The quasi-prehistorical validity of Western Numic (Paviotso) oral tradition" 1978, pg. 151 explains that in June 1975, she asked the Secretary of the State Historical Society, Eslie Cann where the Lovelock Cave skeletons and associated material were kept, but was told that the Society had made many inquiries regarding the whereabouts of the red headed remains, but none of the institutions involved had any knowledge of these remains!
So, I really don't know where the remains are.
A study was conducted in 1976 by the University of Nevada and the Nevada State Museum which re-examined a box of bones found by the amateur archaeologist John T. Reid near Lovelock Cave. Reid had calculated that some of these people were giants, but Dr. Sheilagh Brooks, chair woman of the anthropology department at UN-Las Vegas said that her initial investigation indicated some of the bones were from "cows", and those which were human indicated people of approximately "6 feet tall."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Coyote, posted 10-27-2009 12:26 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by John Williams, posted 10-27-2009 9:57 PM John Williams has not replied
 Message 310 by Coyote, posted 10-27-2009 10:14 PM John Williams has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5082 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 309 of 352 (532991)
10-27-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by John Williams
10-27-2009 9:45 PM


Re: Pics of giants
I was content that the study by Dr. Sheilagh Brooks, vaporized the giant Indian myth. But I later discovered more reports of large human remains in the vicinity of central Nevada which made me uneasy. Also, some of the fiber sandals found at Lovelock cave are inescapably huge. Even if they were awkward and primitive tule and reed sandals, they seem excessively large for normal sized people. At least one of them is about 15 to 16 inches long, and as great as 7 inches across the toes. Mrs. Clara Beatty had previously described these artifacts, and others have described them also. I believe the Museum in Reno or Carson city has them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by John Williams, posted 10-27-2009 9:45 PM John Williams has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 310 of 352 (532993)
10-27-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by John Williams
10-27-2009 9:45 PM


Bones of giants
A study was conducted in 1976 by the University of Nevada and the Nevada State Museum which re-examined a box of bones found by the amateur archaeologist John T. Reid near Lovelock Cave. Reid had calculated that some of these people were giants, but Dr. Sheilagh Brooks, chair woman of the anthropology department at UN-Las Vegas said that her initial investigation indicated some of the bones were from "cows", and those which were human indicated people of approximately "6 feet tall."
This is often the case with stories of fabled skeletons when they are examined by experts (such as Dr. Brooks).
I too have heard of other extremely large individuals in central Nevada, but have never seen any of these reports confirmed by an expert, nor have I encountered any of those skeletons in my own research.
You might inquire of Dr. David Hurst Thomas at the American Museum of Natural History, New York. He did a lot of work in the Lovelock Cave area and might be able to shed some light on the subject.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by John Williams, posted 10-27-2009 9:45 PM John Williams has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9278
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 311 of 352 (533029)
10-28-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by NosyNed
10-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Why does it matter?
Why do you care if there is a 2" discrepancy? What is the real point?
Robert Wadlow - Wikipedia
This gives the tallest human "ever" at just under 9 feet. Does it matter if there was a 9' 2" human?
There have been measured very tall men. No one disputes that, right?
Why do you care if there is a 2" discrepancy? What is the real point?
I don't care about that. What I care about is Ca;ypsis presenting fiction as fact. He was correct on Wadlow, he was not correct on the other people. I am also trying to figure out how he thinks bringing in other extremely tall men helps his position at all.
I guess actually I am trying to figure out what his position actually is.
Is his argument that since there have been men in the 8' range in recorded history, this is some how evidence for even earlier men in prehistoric or "biblical " times. I am not sure if this is his argument or if he just likes splashing pictures up.
He is trying to use photographs of a tall guy standing next to a not tall guy and wants to use that as evidence for the guys actual height. This is ludicrous without any backing documentation.
Please reread my posts to him and you should see what the point of my posts are about.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2009 9:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
John Williams
Member (Idle past 5082 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 312 of 352 (533117)
10-28-2009 10:02 PM


Since there are occasional people 7 to 9 feet tall nowadays, I don't think it's outlandish to suggest their having existed in "Biblical times" also.
The population in Canaan in the Late Bronze to early Iron age, was probably no more than half a million people, and probably less than that. This would likely rule out Goliath as a pituitary giant, because the incidence of pituitary gigantism, is incredibly rare, with only 100 cases reported in the United States to date.
If Goliath and king Og were giants that tall, their remarkable height would have been genetic, or "constitutional" like Bol, Ming, Sabonis, Fingelton, Xishun, Liang and other extremely tall men medically documented in the 7 and 8 foot range.

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:56 AM John Williams has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9278
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 313 of 352 (533224)
10-29-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by John Williams
10-28-2009 10:02 PM


7 to 9 feet tall is not the issue
Since there are occasional people 7 to 9 feet tall nowadays, I don't think it's outlandish to suggest their having existed in "Biblical times" also.
Neither do and neither would I think anyone else. The issue is claims of taller and much taller. I think we can safely see in the modern age that 9 ft tall is just not very sustainable for a human being. Looking at the evidence of the issues modern "giants" have, I think we can surmise that bronze age men would have huge problems. The human body just cannot sustain that size. Any stories of 12'+ would have to be just that. Stories

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by John Williams, posted 10-28-2009 10:02 PM John Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 1:36 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5297 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 314 of 352 (533242)
10-29-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Theodoric
10-29-2009 11:56 AM


Re: 7 to 9 feet tall is not the issue
Neither do and neither would I think anyone else. The issue is claims of taller and much taller. I think we can safely see in the modern age that 9 ft tall is just not very sustainable for a human being. Looking at the evidence of the issues modern "giants" have, I think we can surmise that bronze age men would have huge problems. The human body just cannot sustain that size.
That is unsubstantiated opinion with no basis in fact. He sounds like those who, before man invented the automobile said, "No man could withstand the pressure of driving at 30 mph". My Dad told me he heard that a lot when he was a kid.
But taking up where I left off:
The giant Machnov; close to 8 ft tall. [thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Russian20giant2.jpg[/thumb=200]
This man picture below was 8'9 according to record. He is accorded the second tallest man in modern recorded history by Wikipedia but I might point out that the list they compiled has quite a few names missing that should have been listed.
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/GiantJohnRogan89.jpg[/thumb=200]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people
This Elizabethan woman was measured at 8'4. He name was Trijntje Keever.
[thumb=200]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/Trijntje_Keever84.jpg[/thumb=200]
I found another picture of one Ella Ewing of Missouri who was also 8'4 but for some reason the picture would not process. You can find her picture here:
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/womanewing.htm
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-30-tallest-people-ever
Contrary to what Theodoric said there are scores of historical accounts of people who were 8 to 25 ft. tall. But those were before photographs could be made of them. But since photographs of giant people doesn't suffice the skeptics like Theodoric then why would we expect drawings of such things to convince them?
Where, pray tell, is there evidence that human DNA cannot produce such giants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 11:56 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2009 1:48 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 316 by Modulous, posted 10-29-2009 1:49 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 317 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2009 1:55 PM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 319 by Coyote, posted 10-29-2009 2:04 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 121 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 315 of 352 (533244)
10-29-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Calypsis4
10-29-2009 1:36 PM


Re: 7 to 9 feet tall is not the issue
Hi Calypsis,
Contrary to what Theodoric said there are scores of historical accounts of people who were 8 to 25 ft. tall.
25' tall? Really? Are you sure that's what you meant to write?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 1:36 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Calypsis4, posted 10-29-2009 2:29 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024