you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.