User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:11:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
10 foot tall mummy. GD debates whether the pic shows dick or split. Proof this place will one day be viewed as the Vulcan Science Academy of 21st century earth. 
It's funny because it's true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:13:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol what the fuck is wrong with some of you? Mummy gash/dick. It didn't even occur to me to study the freaks groin area. Lots of meat gazers in GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:15:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nightman (ah-ah-ah). "The Nightman Cometh"? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:22:55 PM EDT
[#4]
The PNW isn't all that remote. The woods here get scoured periodically by foresters, biologists, archaeologists, geologists, and others. It can get damn near crowded during hunting season. Then there are the mushroom hunters, fishermen, hikers, and loggers. These people all survey off trail, some systematically. You don't really go anywhere without finding some modern debris left behind. Wherever you manage to get to, someone has been there already, likely recently.
The desert hills and mountains in CA and NV are a lot more remote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:24:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Smithsonian had recently jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon in the late 1800's just before the turn of the century. There was a predominant belief in those early days of transpecial evolution that bipedal hominids evolved from a smaller stature and body weight, slowly became more erect, and grew in height over the ages. The evidence of giant remains, including numerous sites with entire communities, burial mounds, and artifacts of their habitations, flew in the face of the recent "revelation" of bipedal evolution. There is something very odd about the Smithsonian's ways of dealing with reality, and they have a huge influence over academia and what gets swallowed by the populace at large. In the book the OP mentions, I believe it references a speech President Lincoln gave, mentioning giant remains in the area when he was dedicating some type of structure or place in New York State. There are hundreds of newspaper articles from the 1800's referenced in the book, with serious discussions about the remains of human giants, not bigfoot. That all sounds like a lot of conjecture. Giants wouldn't disprove evolution any more than discovering a new species of ape or primitive man. Your example of Telsa getting shoved to the wayside was mainly due to Edison and had a monetary motive. There is no motive for this conspiracy to hide giant skeletons. Newspaper articles of the 1800s are hardly something I would take at face value. The 1800s was full of hoaxes, quackery, and tall tales .From exaggerated accounts of the wild west, to corpses of mermaids, to miracle cures. "serious discussion" of something is meaningless with out evidence to back it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:16:45 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That all sounds like a lot of conjecture. Giants wouldn't disprove evolution any more than discovering a new species of ape or primitive man. Your example of Telsa getting shoved to the wayside was mainly due to Edison and had a monetary motive. There is no motive for this conspiracy to hide giant skeletons. Newspaper articles of the 1800s are hardly something I would take at face value. The 1800s was full of hoaxes, quackery, and tall tales .From exaggerated accounts of the wild west, to corpses of mermaids, to miracle cures. "serious discussion" of something is meaningless with out evidence to back it up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Smithsonian had recently jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon in the late 1800's just before the turn of the century. There was a predominant belief in those early days of transpecial evolution that bipedal hominids evolved from a smaller stature and body weight, slowly became more erect, and grew in height over the ages. The evidence of giant remains, including numerous sites with entire communities, burial mounds, and artifacts of their habitations, flew in the face of the recent "revelation" of bipedal evolution. There is something very odd about the Smithsonian's ways of dealing with reality, and they have a huge influence over academia and what gets swallowed by the populace at large. In the book the OP mentions, I believe it references a speech President Lincoln gave, mentioning giant remains in the area when he was dedicating some type of structure or place in New York State. There are hundreds of newspaper articles from the 1800's referenced in the book, with serious discussions about the remains of human giants, not bigfoot. That all sounds like a lot of conjecture. Giants wouldn't disprove evolution any more than discovering a new species of ape or primitive man. Your example of Telsa getting shoved to the wayside was mainly due to Edison and had a monetary motive. There is no motive for this conspiracy to hide giant skeletons. Newspaper articles of the 1800s are hardly something I would take at face value. The 1800s was full of hoaxes, quackery, and tall tales .From exaggerated accounts of the wild west, to corpses of mermaids, to miracle cures. "serious discussion" of something is meaningless with out evidence to back it up. Since Edison is long dead, and Edison's financier, J.P. Morgan, dropped him like a bad habit and switched over to financing Tesla, why would the Smithsonian have any motive to hide Tesla's massive achievements, while spotlighting the lesser achievers? Serious question. You have to realize, that the power flowing through these electronic mediums come from Tesla's out-dated patents that he sold to Westinghouse on July 7th, 1888, with the poly-phase, alternating current hydro-electric generation system. Why do we not hear about anomalies in Meso-American civilizations that contradict the Smithsonian's unintelligent narrative? There were numerous flourishing civilizations throughout the Americas, and you simply don't hear a lot about their advancements, highways, cities, trade routes, and so forth. All structures are automatically relegated to "temple" or some type of religious status, to include their earth mound fortifications for war. I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listened to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:31:33 PM EDT
[#7]
 Red haired frost giants, duh. The Gods of my ancestors dealt with them though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:39:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think they existed and are from the same mystery tribe known as the red headed mummies in China. Those guys are also very tall for the time period. Check out lovelock cave for some cool artifacts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think they existed and are from the same mystery tribe known as the red headed mummies in China. Those guys are also very tall for the time period. Check out lovelock cave for some cool artifacts. Cool read. They say they think the skeletons discovered were normal size, but the guano miners used them as tourist attractions. Also, this. However, about a hundred miles north of Lovelock there are plentiful fossils of mammoths and cave bears, and their large limb bones could easily be thought to be those of giants by an untrained observer. She also discusses the reddish hair, pointing out that hair pigment is not stable after death and that various factors such as temperature, soil, etc. can turn ancient very dark hair rusty red or orange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:40:04 PM EDT
[#9]
The Smithsonian has very close to zero influence in academic and CRM archaeology in the US and pretty much zero anywhere else. They have some influence with shit rags like National Geographic if whoever in charge of the archaeology department is a good bullshitter (like Dennis Stanford). The funny part is most of the archaeology conspiracy nut jobs would agree with just about every thing he says. "The Smithsonian sucks! But Dennis Stanford is right!" The Smithsonian is essentially the opposite of what you clowns are claiming.
Conspiracy BS, is BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:41:31 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nephilim. For reals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:45:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listed to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. And yet it defies everything we know about biomechanics, and there's no evidence of it that we can put our hands on today. You know what else was commonplace in the 1800's? Bullshit. Bullshit news, bullshit science, bullshit medicine, bullshit mysticism. Bullshit dripped from the 1800's like blood dripped from the 1900's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:51:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool read. They say they think the skeletons discovered were normal size, but the guano miners used them as tourist attractions. Also, this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think they existed and are from the same mystery tribe known as the red headed mummies in China. Those guys are also very tall for the time period. Check out lovelock cave for some cool artifacts. Cool read. They say they think the skeletons discovered were normal size, but the guano miners used them as tourist attractions. Also, this. However, about a hundred miles north of Lovelock there are plentiful fossils of mammoths and cave bears, and their large limb bones could easily be thought to be those of giants by an untrained observer. She also discusses the reddish hair, pointing out that hair pigment is not stable after death and that various factors such as temperature, soil, etc. can turn ancient very dark hair rusty red or orange. The China red headed mummies are pretty tall. Chances are they sent their big guys out to fight and intimidate the local Indians and made an impact on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:54:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet it defies everything we know about biomechanics, and there's no evidence of it that we can put our hands on today. You know what else was commonplace in the 1800's? Bullshit. Bullshit news, bullshit science, bullshit medicine, bullshit mysticism. Bullshit dripped from the 1800's like blood dripped from the 1900's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listed to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. And yet it defies everything we know about biomechanics, and there's no evidence of it that we can put our hands on today. You know what else was commonplace in the 1800's? Bullshit. Bullshit news, bullshit science, bullshit medicine, bullshit mysticism. Bullshit dripped from the 1800's like blood dripped from the 1900's. Maybe so. I'm not really well-researched into giant studies. The research the author did lists scores of discoveries of these different archeological finds all over North America, to include Canada. Some had apparently been buried by water, mud, and other preserving natural means. It's definitely not something that is far-fetched though, given how little is known about anything about earth's history. Scientific theories come and go from so few people, and most of those scientists do very little original work. Many simply ride the gravy train of grant money and department mentality, falling into one of the camps among the staff. A lot of them are professional students who do very little traveling, and know the world through the blindfold of their academic experiences. They begin life with the premise that Darwinian evolution is a foundational, non-negotiable law, and move forward from there, which means their understanding of life is extremely limited, and will not venture far from the reservation/academic cult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:59:07 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm not well researched but these guys that have put their lives in to their work, have peer reviews don't know anything about anything. But I found a book about giants.
yeah good thinking there |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:00:33 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:00:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many myths from local native tribes will also be analyzed by historians from the team to see if they could hold useful information, as both Chickasaw and Choctaw mythologies include many stories of fights against "red-haired devils”. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/usa-viking-ship-discovered-near-mississipi-river/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many myths from local native tribes will also be analyzed by historians from the team to see if they could hold useful information, as both Chickasaw and Choctaw mythologies include many stories of fights against "red-haired devils”. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/usa-viking-ship-discovered-near-mississipi-river/ Disclaimer
World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:12:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or because they're too smart to put carnival fakery in their museum? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Skeleton supposedly bought by the Smithsonian but never displayed. because it didn't fit the view they wanted to portray. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll109/osudds53/giant-mound-builder_zpsbe680454.jpg Or because they're too smart to put carnival fakery in their museum? Indeed. These were all late hoaxes. Very popular around the end of the 19th century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:14:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have also been several very large skeletons found in mounds associated with the Adena culture. Skulls much larger then normal and bones much thicker then the average human. Many between 7-9 foot tall. There actually is quite a bit of "cover up" done by the Smithsonian, or arbitrarily refuting finds because it doesn't fit the established beliefs. One such example is the discrediting of artifacts found in Hopewell and other sites that show Hebrew writings or symbols. Almost without exception, they are written off as frauds by the Smithsonian and scientific community at large, with no research being done, because they "say" there was no influence in this country from that area before Columbus. The problem is, more and more such artifacts have been found since then by reputable archeologists. Some Indian tribes have symbols and words as part of their language that come from the middle East. 
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:26:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Totally legit. 
As a doctor, I can attest to the fact that some of the things in that picture are actually found in hospitals. Sarcasm aside, I'm too pragmatic or cynical to think we as the current western culture humans know everything about everything. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Totally legit.
As a doctor, I can attest to the fact that some of the things in that picture are actually found in hospitals. Sarcasm aside, I'm too pragmatic or cynical to think we as the current western culture humans know everything about everything. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I remember seeing that on a discovery show, I believe they said it was found in south america and thought to be some sort of human fetus TK and Mike killed bigfoot years ago |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:35:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe so. I'm not really well-researched into giant studies. The research the author did lists scores of discoveries of these different archeological finds all over North America, to include Canada. Some had apparently been buried by water, mud, and other preserving natural means. It's definitely not something that is far-fetched though, given how little is known about anything about earth's history. Scientific theories come and go from so few people, and most of those scientists do very little original work. Many simply ride the gravy train of grant money and department mentality, falling into one of the camps among the staff. A lot of them are professional students who do very little traveling, and know the world through the blindfold of their academic experiences. They begin life with the premise that Darwinian evolution is a foundational, non-negotiable law, and move forward from there, which means their understanding of life is extremely limited, and will not venture far from the reservation/academic cult. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listed to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. And yet it defies everything we know about biomechanics, and there's no evidence of it that we can put our hands on today. You know what else was commonplace in the 1800's? Bullshit. Bullshit news, bullshit science, bullshit medicine, bullshit mysticism. Bullshit dripped from the 1800's like blood dripped from the 1900's. Maybe so. I'm not really well-researched into giant studies. The research the author did lists scores of discoveries of these different archeological finds all over North America, to include Canada. Some had apparently been buried by water, mud, and other preserving natural means. It's definitely not something that is far-fetched though, given how little is known about anything about earth's history. Scientific theories come and go from so few people, and most of those scientists do very little original work. Many simply ride the gravy train of grant money and department mentality, falling into one of the camps among the staff. A lot of them are professional students who do very little traveling, and know the world through the blindfold of their academic experiences. They begin life with the premise that Darwinian evolution is a foundational, non-negotiable law, and move forward from there, which means their understanding of life is extremely limited, and will not venture far from the reservation/academic cult. The author claims all manner of things he has no evidence of, and it is in fact far fetched. The very definition of far fetched. Fantasy. Go look at the tallest men that ever lived. You will notice that they are a sickly bunch. You will notice they use a lot of canes, wheelchairs, leg braces, etc. That's because they're hitting the limit of what the human design can take in terms of height and remain functional. A race of ten foot or larger giants with skeletons that appear human would be a race of cripples. They would be the Nephilim indeed, The Fallen, because they'd fall the fuck down and never get up. Your academic cult and gravy train hysterics is setting you up to fall for a 200 year old hoax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:51:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The China red headed mummies are pretty tall. Chances are they sent their big guys out to fight and intimidate the local Indians and made an impact on them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think they existed and are from the same mystery tribe known as the red headed mummies in China. Those guys are also very tall for the time period. Check out lovelock cave for some cool artifacts. Cool read. They say they think the skeletons discovered were normal size, but the guano miners used them as tourist attractions. Also, this. However, about a hundred miles north of Lovelock there are plentiful fossils of mammoths and cave bears, and their large limb bones could easily be thought to be those of giants by an untrained observer. She also discusses the reddish hair, pointing out that hair pigment is not stable after death and that various factors such as temperature, soil, etc. can turn ancient very dark hair rusty red or orange. The China red headed mummies are pretty tall. Chances are they sent their big guys out to fight and intimidate the local Indians and made an impact on them. I keep safe search off. Must be more careful googling anything involving redheads, large, mummy, discovery, china. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:14:06 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda like a GD dogpile....enough folks see it from the sidelines and eventully no one wants to go against the norm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you know how one becomes a well respected, famous person in science? Because they discover something new or find something that goes against established beliefs. You know who Einstein is because he did just that. Only he backed up his ideas with math, and had other people confirm his predictions through experiments. Yeah, in the 20th century that is how things worked. But you might be surprised to find out that isn't necessarily the case one or two hundred years before that. A lot of the people that found things that went against established beliefs weren't always exalted right away, especially when the respected guys discounted them. It isn't like that now. I'm not saying the Smithsonian destroyed anything, but I am saying that it wouldn't surprise me if they have some things in storage that would challenge conventional wisdom. Kinda like a GD dogpile....enough folks see it from the sidelines and eventully no one wants to go against the norm. and if you do you get called a troll  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 7:48:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since Edison is long dead, and Edison's financier, J.P. Morgan, dropped him like a bad habit and switched over to financing Tesla, why would the Smithsonian have any motive to hide Tesla's massive achievements, while spotlighting the lesser achievers? Serious question. You have to realize, that the power flowing through these electronic mediums come from Tesla's out-dated patents that he sold to Westinghouse on July 7th, 1888, with the poly-phase, alternating current hydro-electric generation system. Why do we not hear about anomalies in Meso-American civilizations that contradict the Smithsonian's unintelligent narrative? There were numerous flourishing civilizations throughout the Americas, and you simply don't hear a lot about their advancements, highways, cities, trade routes, and so forth. All structures are automatically relegated to "temple" or some type of religious status, to include their earth mound fortifications for war. I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listened to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Smithsonian had recently jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon in the late 1800's just before the turn of the century. There was a predominant belief in those early days of transpecial evolution that bipedal hominids evolved from a smaller stature and body weight, slowly became more erect, and grew in height over the ages. The evidence of giant remains, including numerous sites with entire communities, burial mounds, and artifacts of their habitations, flew in the face of the recent "revelation" of bipedal evolution. There is something very odd about the Smithsonian's ways of dealing with reality, and they have a huge influence over academia and what gets swallowed by the populace at large. In the book the OP mentions, I believe it references a speech President Lincoln gave, mentioning giant remains in the area when he was dedicating some type of structure or place in New York State. There are hundreds of newspaper articles from the 1800's referenced in the book, with serious discussions about the remains of human giants, not bigfoot. That all sounds like a lot of conjecture. Giants wouldn't disprove evolution any more than discovering a new species of ape or primitive man. Your example of Telsa getting shoved to the wayside was mainly due to Edison and had a monetary motive. There is no motive for this conspiracy to hide giant skeletons. Newspaper articles of the 1800s are hardly something I would take at face value. The 1800s was full of hoaxes, quackery, and tall tales .From exaggerated accounts of the wild west, to corpses of mermaids, to miracle cures. "serious discussion" of something is meaningless with out evidence to back it up. Since Edison is long dead, and Edison's financier, J.P. Morgan, dropped him like a bad habit and switched over to financing Tesla, why would the Smithsonian have any motive to hide Tesla's massive achievements, while spotlighting the lesser achievers? Serious question. You have to realize, that the power flowing through these electronic mediums come from Tesla's out-dated patents that he sold to Westinghouse on July 7th, 1888, with the poly-phase, alternating current hydro-electric generation system. Why do we not hear about anomalies in Meso-American civilizations that contradict the Smithsonian's unintelligent narrative? There were numerous flourishing civilizations throughout the Americas, and you simply don't hear a lot about their advancements, highways, cities, trade routes, and so forth. All structures are automatically relegated to "temple" or some type of religious status, to include their earth mound fortifications for war. I honestly haven't looked heavily into the giant aspect of ruins and remains, but the review I listened to on the book mentioned in the OP had a great many supporting facts, to include a lot of research by scientists and men who were respected in their day. It's one thing to hoax a single set of human remains, and another entirely to construct a community, complete with bodies, structures, cemeteries, clothing, tools, animals, etc. These kinds of finds were commonplace in the 1800's. History is full of "also ran"s who contributed to history, but for one reason or another was overshadowed by someone else and became a footnote, only recognized later.. It's hardly a conspiracy. The Smithsonian isn't the end all - be all museum. When it comes to archeology there are still many gaps and unexplained questions like the existence of Clovis tech in the Americas. Even assuming the Smithsonian or whom ever is trying to actively depress evidence of giants - they can't possibly do so if the evidence was so definitive. Of all these discoveries, NO ONE went and protected the artifacts and documented them? ETA - and again - there ARE people who have mutations making them tall - like Andre the giant. Finding some buried skeletons doesn't mean there was a race of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:00:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The PNW isn't all that remote. The woods here get scoured periodically by foresters, biologists, archaeologists, geologists, and others. It can get damn near crowded during hunting season. Then there are the mushroom hunters, fishermen, hikers, and loggers. These people all survey off trail, some systematically. You don't really go anywhere without finding some modern debris left behind. Wherever you manage to get to, someone has been there already, likely recently. The desert hills and mountains in CA and NV are a lot more remote. when I went out to NV and to Death Valley, I was stunned at the fact there were miles and miles of nothing....but a few odd people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:01:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Myth: Scientist and researchers ignore and hide new evidence to protect established theories.
This is absolutely ludicrous. Science is based on establishing hypothesis, and testing them. Basically, a guy or gal comes up with a hypothesis, throws it out there, and other scientist review their findings, and test it. It's a brutal process, but I assure you no one is hiding ANYTHING. Finding that a race of 12' red haired giants roamed America would make a researchers career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:02:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Short peeps be hatin
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:06:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "academic community" viciously denounces ANY theory or discovery that differs in any way from published accounts of our past. I've seen Iit first harewritten. was going to college for my anthropology degree. I laugh at a lot of the "esteemed scientist's" explanations of many pre historic sites. Have you ever noticed how many structures that are unearthed are quickly described as "temples" or religious building or monuments of some sort? We never seem to read about those sites being anything but whatever fits academic descriptions of a culture. Also, someone mentioned genetic disorders as possibilities for larger than average skeletons. To me, this is an entirely plausible explanation--yet when a tiny skeleton is found on Java, genetic disorder is never even discussed as an option--instead, there must have been a race of tiny people on the island. Much of the human evolution tree has been based on the discovery of a skeleton or maybe two. Some lines are even based on partial skeletons or even a lone skull. If the "established" scientists were held to the same scrutiny or outright disdain that they apply to everyone else, the whole of human history would be rewritt I place no credibility in your anonymous claim of "seeing it first hand" when you were getting your "anthropology" degree. I see you as akin to those with a BS in engineering whom I wouldn't trust to build me a swing set or a dirt path let alone a bridge or a road. Most people in undergraduate degrees, and even many graduate students really have no concept of what "top scientists" in the field know, based on what evidence, with assumptions they make, and why. Your post sound like typical troofer nonsense. I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Thank you--I appreciate your understanding. Fatalerror sounds EXACTLY like the people I'm talking about "Your theory doesn't match 'ours', so therefore it is bullshit." And I wasn't specifically referring to to the giant human thoery. I was, however, referring to the self protective, idea denying philosophy of current academics, which has already been easily proven in this thread by referencing the denial of early exploration of the North American continent by people's other than those that crossed the Bering Strait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:12:08 PM EDT
[#28]
It's funny what people will dismiss and laugh at when it comes to things like this. Sometimes I wonder if those same people are christians and believe the stories in the bible. They probably don't talk in their church about the angels that came down to mate with humans and birthed offspring giants that had power over humans until one guy that is important in biblical history killed one of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 8:17:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Dammit! You were NOT supposed to release this to the public! Now they will panic!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:26:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thank you--I appreciate your understanding. Fatalerror sounds EXACTLY like the people I'm talking about "Your theory doesn't match 'ours', so therefore it is bullshit." And I wasn't specifically referring to to the giant human thoery. I was, however, referring to the self protective, idea denying philosophy of current academics, which has already been easily proven in this thread by referencing the denial of early exploration of the North American continent by people's other than those that crossed the Bering Strait. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bullshit. I place no credibility in your anonymous claim of "seeing it first hand" when you were getting your "anthropology" degree. I see you as akin to those with a BS in engineering whom I wouldn't trust to build me a swing set or a dirt path let alone a bridge or a road. Most people in undergraduate degrees, and even many graduate students really have no concept of what "top scientists" in the field know, based on what evidence, with assumptions they make, and why. Your post sound like typical troofer nonsense. I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Thank you--I appreciate your understanding. Fatalerror sounds EXACTLY like the people I'm talking about "Your theory doesn't match 'ours', so therefore it is bullshit." And I wasn't specifically referring to to the giant human thoery. I was, however, referring to the self protective, idea denying philosophy of current academics, which has already been easily proven in this thread by referencing the denial of early exploration of the North American continent by people's other than those that crossed the Bering Strait. Yep, the field of anthropology is one of the few areas which has more derp and arguments and hate than arfcom GD
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:32:26 PM EDT
[#31]
I've lived in the PNW my entire life. I've ben deep in the back country hunting. There are hundreds of thousands of acres here that the public cant access because of watersheds that could easily have something in it that would never be bothered. You can look at maps that show roads leading all through the back country but one you get part way down it, there is a huge gate preventing any entry. And its such dense forest that getting further than 10ft. off the road and you aren't going anywhere.
Do I believe in bigfoot or some large north American primate......I don't know. But there is one area myself, a good friend and his father used to elk hunt that we will never return to. It was enough to scare the piss out of us. My friends father actually pee'd himself a little. Do I believe in giants that once walked the earth. Part of me says yes, but the other part of me says show me bones, show me something. Its the culture we live in now....show me proof. I also believe that behind every myth or legend....there is some truth to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:37:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Just got finished reading this book. Very interesting read. Essentially there are thousands of accounts of the settlers finding skeletons up to 12 feet tall. The Smithsonian and other scientists buy or destroy the skeletons and they are never seen again. book It's also interesting to read about the oral histories of some of the Western Indians talking about red haired cannibalistic giants that once roamed the country and who were eventually killed off by the Indians. There have been some giant mummies found in caves with red hair still attached. There is also alot of interesting reading online talking about these finds. Skeleton supposedly bought by the Smithsonian but never displayed. because it didn't fit the view they wanted to portray. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll109/osudds53/giant-mound-builder_zpsbe680454.jpg I remeber their being a show on giants on the history channel. they had skulls that had been found in indian mounds that were 3 or 4 times the size of human skulls and the bones to go with them. I dont mean the south american bound skulls. I means skulls that look exactly like regular skulls except they are huge compared to ours. I dont buy into the big foot ufo aliens bullshit BTW. All I am saying is the size of humans is dictated by the size of a womans birth cannal. If big women and big men breed for a long time, 9 foot people aint out of the question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:39:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There have also been several very large skeletons found in mounds associated with the Adena culture. Skulls much larger then normal and bones much thicker then the average human. Many between 7-9 foot tall. There actually is quite a bit of "cover up" done by the Smithsonian, or arbitrarily refuting finds because it doesn't fit the established beliefs. One such example is the discrediting of artifacts found in Hopewell and other sites that show Hebrew writings or symbols. Almost without exception, they are written off as frauds by the Smithsonian and scientific community at large, with no research being done, because they "say" there was no influence in this country from that area before Columbus. The problem is, more and more such artifacts have been found since then by reputable archeologists. Some Indian tribes have symbols and words as part of their language that come from the middle East. The closest point between the americans on the atlatic side is from africa to south america. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:53:20 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:58:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "academic community" viciously denounces ANY theory or discovery that differs in any way from published accounts of our past. I've seen Iit first harewritten. was going to college for my anthropology degree. I laugh at a lot of the "esteemed scientist's" explanations of many pre historic sites. Have you ever noticed how many structures that are unearthed are quickly described as "temples" or religious building or monuments of some sort? We never seem to read about those sites being anything but whatever fits academic descriptions of a culture. Also, someone mentioned genetic disorders as possibilities for larger than average skeletons. To me, this is an entirely plausible explanation--yet when a tiny skeleton is found on Java, genetic disorder is never even discussed as an option--instead, there must have been a race of tiny people on the island. Much of the human evolution tree has been based on the discovery of a skeleton or maybe two. Some lines are even based on partial skeletons or even a lone skull. If the "established" scientists were held to the same scrutiny or outright disdain that they apply to everyone else, the whole of human history would be rewritt I place no credibility in your anonymous claim of "seeing it first hand" when you were getting your "anthropology" degree. I see you as akin to those with a BS in engineering whom I wouldn't trust to build me a swing set or a dirt path let alone a bridge or a road. Most people in undergraduate degrees, and even many graduate students really have no concept of what "top scientists" in the field know, based on what evidence, with assumptions they make, and why. Your post sound like typical troofer nonsense. I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Just because you don't understand the science of reconstructing skulls from fragments doesn't mean it is bullshit. It just means you are ignorant on the subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:58:47 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference between a 6-7' body and a 9' body is MASSIVE. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not saying it's a direct correlation but just that the genetics for the larger size was contained in that particular tribe. The difference between a 6-7' body and a 9' body is MASSIVE. And so would the NBA contract!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:24:02 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you--I appreciate your understanding. Fatalerror sounds EXACTLY like the people I'm talking about "Your theory doesn't match 'ours', so therefore it is bullshit." And I wasn't specifically referring to to the giant human thoery. I was, however, referring to the self protective, idea denying philosophy of current academics, which has already been easily proven in this thread by referencing the denial of early exploration of the North American continent by people's other than those that crossed the Bering Strait. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "academic community" viciously denounces ANY theory or discovery that differs in any way from published accounts of our past. I've seen Iit first harewritten. was going to college for my anthropology degree. I laugh at a lot of the "esteemed scientist's" explanations of many pre historic sites. Have you ever noticed how many structures that are unearthed are quickly described as "temples" or religious building or monuments of some sort? We never seem to read about those sites being anything but whatever fits academic descriptions of a culture. Also, someone mentioned genetic disorders as possibilities for larger than average skeletons. To me, this is an entirely plausible explanation--yet when a tiny skeleton is found on Java, genetic disorder is never even discussed as an option--instead, there must have been a race of tiny people on the island. Much of the human evolution tree has been based on the discovery of a skeleton or maybe two. Some lines are even based on partial skeletons or even a lone skull. If the "established" scientists were held to the same scrutiny or outright disdain that they apply to everyone else, the whole of human history would be rewritt I place no credibility in your anonymous claim of "seeing it first hand" when you were getting your "anthropology" degree. I see you as akin to those with a BS in engineering whom I wouldn't trust to build me a swing set or a dirt path let alone a bridge or a road. Most people in undergraduate degrees, and even many graduate students really have no concept of what "top scientists" in the field know, based on what evidence, with assumptions they make, and why. Your post sound like typical troofer nonsense. I think you are misinterpreting his post as supporting the claim for giants. Instead I believe his post is about how anthropology as a field is so fucked up and full of politics. Fwiw I support his post. I did anthropology subjects and the professors would constantly bitch about the field as a whole and how many experts are not, etc. He had his own agenda so I took it all with a grain of salt, but it didn't change the fact that there is a huge amount of politics and bullshit involved in anthropology. I've seen the pictures of a few skull fragments and then they go LOL SO THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BASED ON THESE FRAGMENTS. It also doesn't help that common opinion in anthropology changes on a very very frequent basis. 1yr old textbooks were considered completely worthless and out of date Thank you--I appreciate your understanding. Fatalerror sounds EXACTLY like the people I'm talking about "Your theory doesn't match 'ours', so therefore it is bullshit." And I wasn't specifically referring to to the giant human thoery. I was, however, referring to the self protective, idea denying philosophy of current academics, which has already been easily proven in this thread by referencing the denial of early exploration of the North American continent by people's other than those that crossed the Bering Strait. Um considering that the Bering Strait theory has only been widely accepted by scientists since the 1920's, how the hell could anyone be dismissing giants found in the 1880's because they didn't fit a theory that not many had heard of? The amount of derp in this thread is disturbing. It's easy to tell who watches retarded shows like ancient aliens nowadays. Unfortunately actual documentaries using scientific fact is too boring for today's dumbed down world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 12:08:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it were true, we'd have known about this a looooong time ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:37:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's easy to tell who watches retarded shows like ancient aliens nowadays. Unfortunately actual documentaries using scientific fact is too boring for today's dumbed down world. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:37:42 AM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 4:39:59 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the first link actually states they tend to be accurate but like anything else are not infallible <in a nutshell> the other links if you actually read them all point out a few inconsistencies, not exonerating them. as i said above as a quick refference you have a 50/50. for anything real i'd discard/verify almost everything they report. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The good news is that I haven't said that Snopes should be trusted blindly. In fact, nearly every time I've addressed the "Snopes is liberal and fake" complaints, I've pointed out that the reason they are worth using is because they back up their claims with sources. If Snopes makes an unverified claim, you can see that on the page itself and use that as a legitimate argument that the specific claim Snopes is making is incorrect. Since Snopes almost always (in my experience at least) provides adequate sources for their claims, their general credibility is pretty high. the first link actually states they tend to be accurate but like anything else are not infallible <in a nutshell> the other links if you actually read them all point out a few inconsistencies, not exonerating them. as i said above as a quick refference you have a 50/50. for anything real i'd discard/verify almost everything they report. Hence why they're providing sources, as well as having a pretty reasonable track record, makes them reputable. Remember, I responded to the claims that Snopes isn't even worth looking at. I'm not claiming 100% accuracy, I'm rebutting the claims that they're not trustworthy enough to look at and verify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 6:54:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've lived in the PNW my entire life. I've ben deep in the back country hunting. There are hundreds of thousands of acres here that the public cant access because of watersheds that could easily have something in it that would never be bothered. You can look at maps that show roads leading all through the back country but one you get part way down it, there is a huge gate preventing any entry. And its such dense forest that getting further than 10ft. off the road and you aren't going anywhere. Do I believe in bigfoot or some large north American primate......I don't know. But there is one area myself, a good friend and his father used to elk hunt that we will never return to. It was enough to scare the piss out of us. My friends father actually pee'd himself a little. Do I believe in giants that once walked the earth. Part of me says yes, but the other part of me says show me bones, show me something. Its the culture we live in now....show me proof. I also believe that behind every myth or legend....there is some truth to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 6:57:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Myth: Scientist and researchers ignore and hide new evidence to protect established theories. This is absolutely ludicrous. Science is based on establishing hypothesis, and testing them. Basically, a guy or gal comes up with a hypothesis, throws it out there, and other scientist review their findings, and test it. It's a brutal process, but I assure you no one is hiding ANYTHING. Finding that a race of 12' red haired giants roamed America would make a researchers career. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:05:05 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is absolutely ludicrous. Science is based on establishing hypothesis, and testing them. Basically, a guy or gal comes up with a hypothesis, throws it out there, and other scientist review their findings, and test it. It's a brutal process, but I assure you no one is hiding ANYTHING. Finding that a race of 12' red haired giants roamed America would make a researchers career. Yep, someone would be all over it like stink on shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Myth: Scientist and researchers ignore and hide new evidence to protect established theories. This is absolutely ludicrous. Science is based on establishing hypothesis, and testing them. Basically, a guy or gal comes up with a hypothesis, throws it out there, and other scientist review their findings, and test it. It's a brutal process, but I assure you no one is hiding ANYTHING. Finding that a race of 12' red haired giants roamed America would make a researchers career. Yep, someone would be all over it like stink on shit. You two live in a land of theory and/or fantasy if you think science can't be railroaded and coerced into saying something that isn't true. Or even clamming up about a subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:12:08 AM EDT
[#45]
Fascinating topic, gigantisism is well documented through history in many animal species so why not humans?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:12:36 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You two live in a land of theory and/or fantasy if you think science can't be railroaded and coerced into saying something that isn't true. Or even clamming up about a subject. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Myth: Scientist and researchers ignore and hide new evidence to protect established theories. This is absolutely ludicrous. Science is based on establishing hypothesis, and testing them. Basically, a guy or gal comes up with a hypothesis, throws it out there, and other scientist review their findings, and test it. It's a brutal process, but I assure you no one is hiding ANYTHING. Finding that a race of 12' red haired giants roamed America would make a researchers career. Yep, someone would be all over it like stink on shit. You two live in a land of theory and/or fantasy if you think science can't be railroaded and coerced into saying something that isn't true. Or even clamming up about a subject. There is dogma, the ones that just want to get famous, there are all kinds of things, but there is no grand cover-up of giants or anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:16:32 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, well one of us knows the field of archaeology very well. I know what the academics are doing, and I know what the CRM companies are doing. There is dogma, the ones that just want to get famous, there are all kinds of things, but there is no grand cover-up of giants or anything else. Cool. You happened to make a blanket statement about science - which is great, and I actually applaud (science SHOULD work that way) - but the last 40+ years of "OMG! GLOBAL ICE AGES/OMG! GLOBAL WARMINGS! WE MUST ACT NOW!" tells me that science (technically: scientists) is/are not impervious to outside pressure and zeitgeist. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:19:23 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool. You happened to make a blanket statement about science - which is great, and I actually applaud (science SHOULD work that way) - but the last 40+ years of "OMG! GLOBAL ICE AGES/OMG! GLOBAL WARMINGS! WE MUST ACT NOW!" tells me that science (technically: scientists) is/are not impervious to outside pressure and zeitgeist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well one of us knows the field of archaeology very well. I know what the academics are doing, and I know what the CRM companies are doing. There is dogma, the ones that just want to get famous, there are all kinds of things, but there is no grand cover-up of giants or anything else. Cool. You happened to make a blanket statement about science - which is great, and I actually applaud (science SHOULD work that way) - but the last 40+ years of "OMG! GLOBAL ICE AGES/OMG! GLOBAL WARMINGS! WE MUST ACT NOW!" tells me that science (technically: scientists) is/are not impervious to outside pressure and zeitgeist. A lot of that "OMG ACT NOW!" isn't scientists, it's science journalists. Yeah, you'll get some scientists who will scream, but the folks writing about the statements of scientists seem to be the major culprits. "Models show 20% chance of sea level rise of 2m within 50 years under X conditions with 90% confidence" becomes "Scientists say Denmark will be underwater in 50 years!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:20:32 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of that "OMG ACT NOW!" isn't scientists, it's science journalists. Yeah, you'll get some scientists who will scream, but the folks writing about the statements of scientists seem to be the major culprits. "Models show 20% chance of sea level rise of 2m within 50 years under X conditions with 90% confidence" becomes "Scientists say Denmark will be underwater in 50 years!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well one of us knows the field of archaeology very well. I know what the academics are doing, and I know what the CRM companies are doing. There is dogma, the ones that just want to get famous, there are all kinds of things, but there is no grand cover-up of giants or anything else. Cool. You happened to make a blanket statement about science - which is great, and I actually applaud (science SHOULD work that way) - but the last 40+ years of "OMG! GLOBAL ICE AGES/OMG! GLOBAL WARMINGS! WE MUST ACT NOW!" tells me that science (technically: scientists) is/are not impervious to outside pressure and zeitgeist. A lot of that "OMG ACT NOW!" isn't scientists, it's science journalists. Yeah, you'll get some scientists who will scream, but the folks writing about the statements of scientists seem to be the major culprits. "Models show 20% chance of sea level rise of 2m within 50 years under X conditions with 90% confidence" becomes "Scientists say Denmark will be underwater in 50 years!" You're splitting unnecessary hairs. Scientists go along with it, making them complicit (see my comment about zeitgeist and outside pressure...). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2014 7:24:58 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're splitting unnecessary hairs. Scientists go along with it, making them complicit (see my comment about zeitgeist and outside pressure...). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, well one of us knows the field of archaeology very well. I know what the academics are doing, and I know what the CRM companies are doing. There is dogma, the ones that just want to get famous, there are all kinds of things, but there is no grand cover-up of giants or anything else. Cool. You happened to make a blanket statement about science - which is great, and I actually applaud (science SHOULD work that way) - but the last 40+ years of "OMG! GLOBAL ICE AGES/OMG! GLOBAL WARMINGS! WE MUST ACT NOW!" tells me that science (technically: scientists) is/are not impervious to outside pressure and zeitgeist. A lot of that "OMG ACT NOW!" isn't scientists, it's science journalists. Yeah, you'll get some scientists who will scream, but the folks writing about the statements of scientists seem to be the major culprits. "Models show 20% chance of sea level rise of 2m within 50 years under X conditions with 90% confidence" becomes "Scientists say Denmark will be underwater in 50 years!" You're splitting unnecessary hairs. Scientists go along with it, making them complicit (see my comment about zeitgeist and outside pressure...). Do they? Or is there not much they can do about it? This isn't exactly a new problem, after all. Writers have been misrepresenting scientific reports to generate views for a long time. What would you suggest a scientist do about a journalist sensationalizing his work? Do you think he can do anything that will draw anywhere near the attention that the original article drew? Edit: You're talking about scientists making radical claims. Are you claiming this happens because you've read their actual reports or because you've read about their reports in a news article... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
