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.