Re: ancient giants?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 07:34:15 -0800 (PST), in soc.history.ancient,
J.LyonLayden wrote:

On Feb 2, 11:56 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jeff Morgan" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Aggie makes it up as he goes along.


news:13q96crdg8gmcbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I was watching some vids on Google. One of the vids was about giants,
demons, Nephilim, etc. There were some still photos in the vid

I think I saw that one. If it is the one I think it was, it had some
good information but also some very bad information. Was it the one
who tried to spin the facts to justify neo-nazism?


The Nephelim were indo-Europeans who ruled over Assyria and Palestine,
probably blonde from the M170 linage and conquered the Middle East from
their base in Phrygia at the time of the Hyksos. At the time the average
height of a man in Egypt and Palestine was about 5'4'' whereas the average
height of M170 was over 6'.

Agememnon's timeline is screwed up as shown from his other recent
posts. The Nephelim were more likely cro-magnons, some of the earlier
waves of which approached 7 feet tall.

I can't think of any good reason to take the Nephilim story at all
seriously. And the idea that they were some sort of folk memory from
24,000 years ago -- well, sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

[SNIP]



showing people unearthing giant skeletons -- maybe 15 to 20 feet
tall.

Most of that is fake stuff, but there were an aweful lot of reports by
at least semi-respectable souirces from that era that spoke of a
ruling class of 7-8 foot indians from America's prehistory. Alot of
the evidence seems to have been covered up or lost.
Part of the problem I think is that scientists don't like to report
height anymore. It seems like fear that holds them back from doing so.
They don't dare claim a 7 foot skeleton is evidence of a race of tall
people, even when they find several tall people in the same area, and
they tend to act like height is not an important factor in the study
of anthropology.
Scientists are quick to lump Meganthropus in with homo erectus, and
quick to disregard earlier scientist's views on their height and
weight, but just try to get them to speculate on a new height
estimation: they will either refuse or claim a height/weight so slight
as to sound ridiculous to anyone who knows the difference in size of
the molar compared to any other hominid.

Scientists still report height. There are no verifiable sources for a
giant ruling class. There are no verifiable sources for a race of giants.
Not even decent photos although a lot of the claims are in the age of
photography.
Here's the official report for instance on Lovelock, no red haired giants:

http://tinyurl.com/387dmm
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhearstmuseum.berkeley.edu%2Fblm%2Flovelock.pdf&ei=se2lR-PaJJ32wQGXys3ZAg&usg=AFQjCNFoguwaevpcwL0mY0Anz3f3ZT80SQ&sig2=XB_XtrGGGYS73C-ZqbCCFw

Lack of evidence does not mean there was a coverup or the evidence was
lost, and where there is literally no evidence for these claims, the most
likely explanations are confusion and hoaxes.


Is this just another Hollywood creation or has archeology actually
encountered giant humanoid skeletons?

Homo Erectus or Hidelbergensus was about 7 or 8 feet tall I think.

No...There were extremely tall strains of erectus that averaged 6'3"
in africa. Idaltu may have even been slightly taller. And
Heidelbergensis averaged 6'1 by conservative estimates. Of course
there may have been strains of either of these that averaged close to
7 feet.
But the tallest hominid ever was Meganthropus Robustus, who could not
have been a Nephelim because he was way too early.
The second tallest was probably early cro-magnon, the especially the
strains from about 30,000 to 25,000, when they averaged six and a half
feet and probably better.

I've seen 5 foot 10 inches as the current accepted height but to quote
Loring Brace:
"However, if the leg bones are used to calculate stature, the Cro-Magnon
individual usually illustrated measures out to be between 57" and 5'8" in
height."

No where near six and a half feet, and certainly not probably better than
that (where do you get 'probably better' or even six and a half feet?)

Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ancient giants?
    ... waves of which approached 7 feet tall. ... then there were populations of giant cro-magnons at 10,000 ybp. ... The second tallest was probably early cro-magnon, ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: ancient giants?
    ... waves of which approached 7 feet tall. ... then there were populations of giant cro-magnons at 10,000 ybp. ... Homo Erectus or Hidelbergensus was about 7 or 8 feet tall I think. ... "However, if the leg bones are used to calculate stature, the Cro-Magnon ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: Which GPS
    ... and that is precisely what I am using it as evidence of. ... I brought up the issue of older walkers to try to point out that the ... UK walked without shoes most of the time during their formative years, ... and their feet therefore developed naturally. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Do smaller players make better players
    ... leeds and liverpool ... Liverpool and MU? ... I have no idea how tall Leeds were in ... Cole, Robben and Makelele were under 6 feet, probably Shevchenko too. ...
    (rec.sport.soccer)
  • Re: RAF Scamptons Grand Slam
    ... it's 'little' brother "Tall Boy" yet twice the weight. ... sound during descent from about 20,000 feet and on impact made a 80 ... Concerning the explosive effect of the 'Gate Guard' Grand Slam ...... ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)
Loading