"Natural Rock Formation"

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgur.com

all 65 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]GConly 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (38 children)

So, that's a "footprint" in granite, an igneous rock.

This stuff is used as a footing for skyscrapers, a "giant" stepping on granite would have either left no imprint, or shattered it. Or it happened when it was semi molten, and we had a roasted giant foot somewhere.

This is pretty obviously a foot-like shaped natural depression that someone has added carved toes to.

I'd like to add, there's a physical reason to why bipedal giants with a truly massive body size can't exist. The mechanics of the foot and bone strength in the legs just don't allow for it. As it is normal human giants over 7ft have massive issues with their feet and find up walking with a cane, or in a wheelchair fairly quickly because their feet can't take the strain.

If you get to twice normal height, you have about four times normal weight, so the loading on lower limbs us effectively twice what it is in a normal human. Even a normal step would break the bone.

You could go somewhat bigger than human, but only by seriously reinforcing the thickness of the lower limb bones and having flat 'stomping' feet like an elephant. Think of the giants in game of thrones for a design, but even then you couldn't get anywhere near that big.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out for that rock to have a footprint in it, it would need to by lying flat. If it ever was lying flat, it would have to have been a few million years ago.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

I personally think giants had too difficult of a time surviving here with our gravity and their biology, which is why they chose a group of humans to try and mate with. It never worked.

Read some of the folklores and myths. Giant people are often described as being lumpy, ogreish, hunchbacked, and so on. It fits what you are saying, rather than being debunked. Edit: I should say that your comment does make a good point in this specific case.

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Slight problem with the alien hybrid theory: there's literally no trace of anything like that in the human genome.

Believe me it would stick out like a sore thumb.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I don't believe in the alien hybrid theory. Read my comment. I suspect that their experiments never properly worked, and IF they did work, then its not because they mixed our genomes. It's because they changed them, and we are looking at the changed results thinking they are normal. Really, if you are to act as though science is settled on the matter of our evolution, our genome, and our ultimate beginnings, then you are barking up the wrong tree. I already know that most of what people take as literal truth is little more than educated guesses. So, you are just guessing that if we were to carry around foreign DNA or somesuch, then we would be able to notice. I am saying that we wouldn't notice unless we were already acknowledging its existence. Anyways, I don't support the alien-hybrid theory because I don't believe giants are aliens, unlike most folks who are interested in the old tales. They are tales, with some amount of truth. You don't know what amount, and neither do I.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

So, you are just guessing that if we were to carry around foreign DNA or somesuch, then we would be able to notice.

I know a fair bit about genetics, specifically human population and ancestry. We would indeed be able to spot inserted genes in a flash for a whole range of reasons. We can detect "ghost" populations of humans by their traces, which would be way harder by comparison.

They are tales, with some amount of truth. You don't know what amount, and neither do I.

Some do have some roots in traceable facts. For example, bronze age European myths and fairytales are traceable back to the same root culture (Yamnaya). You can spot the roots of assorted deities going back almost 5K.

Myths of floods are pretty ubiquitous because we had a massive change in sea level in the Mesolithic all over the planet.

You can even roughly date some mythical events by their match to archaeological sites.

For example theres an excellent match for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah found recently. Looks like a comet airburst over a thriving bronze age town, so hot that ceramics vitrified and molten salt got blasted all over the nearby plain (oblique angle of impact).

Anyhoo, another issue with "giants" is mistranslation. For example the Nephilim get called giants, but a better translation is "great men", the term great in the original text didn't originally mean size. That's a major issue in a lot of myths, words shifting meaning between generations.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

ghost" populations of humans

What's that?

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

An extinct human population that you can deduce existed from DNA and or archaeology.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Once again, educated guesses with just as much truth, if not a little more applicable truth, than the myths.

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, except that we've found bones from some of them. Like the Denisovans.

It's not really guessing if you've got their bones in your hands.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for this information.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I hate it in sci-fi where they have giant beasts with tiny legs - or mega beasts (ie. Godzilla, King Kong, etc.) with human-like physics instead of slow elephant-like movements.

I liked the dwarf-giant in the Thor movie, but really his head should have been proportionally much smaller (like many basketball players) to be closer to "realistic".

A contemporary human-giant in an exoskeleton might make for some decent piece of fiction or sci-fi.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

how do rocks form?

a simple question. One that does not have a simple answer. Once i found a green rock, that I cut in half. The middle, which was orange, was like think putty, I could push it around with my finger. There was a harder, but still not solid layer of yellow around it.

A month later, the entire thing was solid as... a rock.

cement is another rock like substance, made from limestone, that has equally liquid history.

So what was grantie, before it set? Some kind of viscous liquid, without a doubt.

So what we are seeing here is, perhaps, evidence of a Nephilim having fun running across a magma field a long time ago....

prove me wrong!

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

A giant foot does not mean it had to have been 20 feet tall. It just means he had a giant dick.

[–]Vigte 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

The concept u/GConly is referring to that defines the height limit for a human is the "square cube law" - apparently the human form maxes out around 9 to 12 feet, depending on the math/individual.

As absolute size decreases , relative strength increases, it's why "short people" are actually quite strong (ants too) - and a giant would be "relatively weak" (for its (absolute) size).

HOWEVER, I've considered that there might be various differences (if giants existed at all) ie: stronger skeleton, lower gravity, that could accommodate their existence.

Keeping in mind the stories of giants can be explained by "relative size" - if a 7 foot tall person meets your 4 foot pygmy tribe, it's going to be a "big deal", no pun intended.

[–]GConly 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes.

Although I think animal bone as is, is at its theoretical maximum for strength. You'd need to go back to the drawing board for a support structure stronger.

If you look at the large mammals we have, per gram their bone is about the same strength as ours. Selection will select in stronger bones at a lower mass in every species pretty evenly, because it takes fewer calories to drag it around.

You could see bigger animals in a lower G environment, obvs.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The argument for "relative size" sounds so much like coincidence-theorists and what they say to deny corruption. Like, VIKINGS had stories of giants, and they weren't pigmies. Gaelic-speaking tribes also have stories of giants, THEY WEREN'T PIGMIES.

Honestly, you guys are better than this. GConly pointed out what was wrong with the picture. Everyone else is just laughing at how dumb people must be to consider the reality of non-human intelligent life on this planet. Personally, I don't know why people are so quick to side with academia on this. If another intelligent species existed on this planet just five hundred years ago (the stories fit this timeline) then the powers that be would have a vested interest in keeping that hushed up. Especially if those other intelligent species have been involved with our race for a very long time. I'm not trying to convince you that giants exist. I don't care.

I do care that people here are really quick to treat this like the flat-earth theory. Suspiciously close-minded in this regard.

[–]Vigte 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If I came off as not open the idea, then I apologise.

I was just mentioning what I had found out in studying them also - and what hurdles the idea would have to overcome to gain "wider scientific acceptance".

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think I'm just upset with GConly, my apologies.

[–]Vigte 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Don't sweat it, I really appreciated your point about not all groups being pygmy's, lmao - my brain obviously had a short-circuit.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

By that logic, dragons, found in many cultures, must be real too.

Provide some compelling evidence. Give me your 3 best videos.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I have no interest in youtube videos, Jason. No, by that logic, dragons don't have to exist. We already have pygmy humans. It is not a stretch to imagine giant humans. It is a stretch to call them aliens from Mars, or fifteen foot gods, or alien-magic wielders. It is a stretch to compare them to dragons, which I expect you mean the non-water serpent dragons. Some Asian dragons and some Irish-Scottish dragons are likely stories of a species of water serpent, now extinct.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I know videos aren't always the best way to share or absorb information (sometimes they are), but that's the common medium that I can not only share further if compelled, but more importantly that's how I take in the majority my information. Reading and typing takes all of my hand-eye attention for the duration. With the YouTube playing at 2x or more I can be doing other things, even typing this, washing dishes, building something, or taking a dump. Hands and eyes free. If I'm doing other things on my computer I can glance at the screen. If I'm in the other room building something, rarely am I compelled to rewind to look at whatever they're saying is on screen. In videos, just as in books, they often go on and on and on about stuff we already know (hopefully to reach a payoff with new info), which I suppose is an aid for the memory, but it doesn't feel like a waste of time if doing other things too.

Being on YouTube does not validate a thing, obviously. But I'd have a hard time believing the giant-believer community doesn't have some top-level presentations that they revere. If not they should get on it, and it makes me suspicious that they haven't yet.

The comparison to dragons is that they are mythical yet in most cultures worldwide. There's no shortage of other things that seem global yet have no evidence. Saying that giants must exist because they are in most cultures may be evidence, but it's far from proof.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I agree, it is far from proof. As I said, I don't really care to convince people to believe in giants. I also realize that I was over-reacting. Thank you for being courteous, and not flippant.

I just can't trust videos, although I do use Youtube to help with learning other languages. I have to read something in twelve places before I come to trust anything of it, or I need to see it with my own eyes in person. So, some "conspiracy" stuff (like the Cabal) is quite easy to say exists because I've seen it. I've never seen giants hahah, and I'd have a hard time believing someone if they told me that they had. All we have are these old tales (everyone agrees they are only quasi-historical at best), sketchy newspaper clippings, unauthentic interviews with the likes of Steven Greer, and debatable archaeological finds with nincompoops jumping to conclusions right away.

Still, there is nothing to disprove giants, or water-dragons, so I can't compare the overall theory to things like flat-earth, or so on. I remain neutral, but with a large interest in keeping my bias in check. To be honest, I would rather believe that nothing like this ever existed, but I just don't feel like that has any merit. Things interacted with our ancestors, and they tried to tell their offspring about these things. It's foolish to scoff at these stories wholesale, but equally foolish to accept them wholesale.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Remain skeptical with videos AND with other media too, just as on SaidIt, the Internet, books, etc. Video can be more emotionally manipulative with music or selective editing, but really it's not that different - in capable author's hands.

A dozen sources is a lot. I'd settle for less than half if they were sources from diverse viewpoints, preferably non-corporate, to triangulate on my own truths, often multi-faceted. With juxtaposing views you can determine what is bias or agenda and fill in the gaps with inconvenient truths from their opposition. Corporate media doesn't do that so much - and they rarely provide any meaningful context.

I have limits and limited time on Earth. I consider all myths to be like Santa. Nice and fun but fake until proven otherwise. People who push Flat Earth (nonsense), Big Foot (verifiabley debunked), and the Mandela Effect (so dumb) are wasting time and distracting. I've tried to ask them to provide 3 of their best and I've never had anyone come through. If anyone questions me I provide them with Corbett's Bill Gates, Big Oil x2, and the Plandemic II documentaries and could provide them countless more if that's not enough. Usually I have extras handy from within the week too.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I tend to lean towards what I can experience firsthand, which is a lot. I read a lot, too, to supplement any experience I discover. I didn't go to college because they wouldn't have ever shown me the good stuff. I like to read non-corporate sources, but a lot of these are older than America, so I have to sift through the BS the academics release. I have to triangulate between sources just like you, if not...well, you fall into your own bias. I have done this.

I understand your views on limited time on Earth and how that could change your perception of myths. That is fine, and respectable. It's basically an attitude of "I don't have the time to prove/disprove this, but if you can prove it to me, great." I do not live life that way in regard to myths and folklores and fairy tales (clear and discernible differences between all of these things, mind you) but I am not like most people. The closest folks I have met have been old folks of the diaspora, and unfortunately, some bohemians. My main problem with sourcing things is that I can only ever point to the fact that sources exist and are easy to find. If one link cannot bring someone into looking into things on their own, then I know that an older more experienced user will provide more varied links. I am not tech savvy, and have not saved anything except, surprise surprise, books and pdfs. Some of you guys are really good comparative analysts with legitimate conspiracies, I noticed this years ago on Reddit too. However, that was pre-Trump.

[–]EndlessSunflowers[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

In this picture is Michael Tellinger
He gets bonus points for wikipedia trying to smear him in his introduction:

Michael Tellinger is a South African author, politician, explorer and ... promoter of pseudoarchaeology - wikipedia

Nevermind that these "pseudo" scientists often present evidence that cannot be explained by conventional academia

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I prefer the theories about the age of the Sphinx, human civilizations, or how all our timelines are bunk.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

All of these are connected.

[–]EndlessSunflowers[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

The conspiracy here is a deep one
Earth's history is thousands of millions of years old
We have no idea what really happened - and whenever unexplained artifacts or ruins can be made to disappear, they do.
What is inside of all the world's secret archives!?!?
What has been destroyed, intentionally, or by millions of years of shifting sands and seas .........

[–]EndlessSunflowers[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

A few good resources:
Mystery History
Mudfossil University
vladtv
Praveen Mohan
Bright Insight
Viper TV
DTTV

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You've dropped a level in my books by promoting this woo. Despite this you're still one of the good ones.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Some of the resources they provided is indeed "woo" as the kids say these days. However, you can't seriously ignore the existence of giants, can you? Or, the existence of intelligent life on Earth that isn't human? Does everybody here believe their ancestors were simply too retarded to accurately remember or teach anything?

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I have seriously ignored all of those. They seem like woo. I could be wrong. I'd need some good references and to be compelled investigate. If it starts out poorly I won't continue.

" Does everybody here believe their ancestors were simply too retarded to accurately remember or teach anything? "

That's a loaded and misleading question. "Anything" or everything? Our ancestors obviously didn't have the technological resources we now have. Then as now, people were also lazy, not motivated, and subject to propaganda and misinformation. MOST of history has been wiped out. I don't have every note and drawing I've ever made, nor every book or video I've ever looked at. Things get lost or break down over time. History is naturally eroded, and a little is even intentionally or accidentally erased.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Most of history has been reconstructed, there is a difference. I have less of an interest of saying "this happened, here is proof" and more of interest of taking into account everything that could be portrayed as evidence. I am not saying that giants exist the way our ancestors say they did. That's ludicrous. It's also ludicrous to say these are just made-up stories. In history, if there are multiple sources talking about something, and there is archaeological evidence, and written histories, oral stories, all coinciding with each other... well, they treat that as solid evidence to stand on. There is all of that for giants, just not the way we were told them. The sources that I have are translated compilations of fairy-tales, folklores, annals, historical reproductions/copies of annals or folklores, and so on. I don't go to youtube to learn. I find relevant texts from the modern era, relevant texts from what I call the revisionist era (1200-1700), and relevant texts from people who actually trusted their ancestors, so contemporary writers to the events and cultures who have been covered up. Does this give me definite knowledge on any one subject? NO, just like it doesn't for every other researcher, scholar, or historian. Edit: I should say, that after a closer look, all of those sources are indeed "woo" some of them with actual mysteries involved, so they could provide relevant information that would be better attained elsewhere.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Related/unrelated...

I used to be passionate about NorthWest Pacific First Nations art and culture. I have ~80 books surrounding it. I also used to dig the beatniks. The two are mostly unrelated.

Gary Snyder wrote "He Who Hunted Birds in His Father's Village: The Dimensions of a Haida Myth" (1979).

It's interesting-ish, though not the most engaging. You might appreciate some of the ideas. I could mail the short book if you're seriously curious, though I don't know if it'd be worth the bother. It's not a great book, not new or unique, but it's not entirely without merit either.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I've never heard of Gary Snyder. I am mildly interested, but not to the point of having you mail me anything. The internet often has these things hidden somewhere on it, and if it doesn't, well I've found good local places (don't even need to wear a mask!) to order books from. Thank you.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On The Road was Kerouac's most famous but I like Dharma Bums better, with the main guy based on Gary. I was in my teens or twenties reading that.

The book is not long, perhaps in PDF somewhere. I wouldn't even bother reading it. Certainly not ground breaking anymore. However, you might want to read reviews or what others have said - if there's even Internet-age content of that sort.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

"Greg Angry! Greg Kicks Rock!!"

Note: There is also Elephant Rock

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

If you scour the planet you'll find anything you want in a rock shape. I knew a guy who was obsessed with the face on mars and I took him to his bathroom where the floor was composed of tiny rock chips embedded in concrete, I drew around several combinations that could be interpreted as faces. he gawfed at them, nothing like it he said.

True believers cannot be dissuaded, they will go to the grave with their delusions.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's wrong to compare the mud-fossil theory with giants. It's like when you say you won't wear a mask, and someone comes in and calls you a flat-earther.

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Alternate title - "World's Shortest Man".

[–]Tarrock 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ah yes the ancient race of super giants who could walk on walls and leave their footprints in solid rock with no cracking.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

/s/Illusions includes pareidolia: the incorrect perception of a stimulus as an object, pattern, or meaning to the observer, such as seeing shapes in clouds, faces in inanimate objects or abstract patterns - or hearing voices in static or hidden messages in music.

Open your mind, but don't let your brains fall out.

That photo is fine if you have a BigFoot-print fetish. I prefer the photos of genitals that are naturally exposed or "pop up" in nature.