"There were giants in the earth in those days...." -- Genesis 6:4
"The belief in giants was part of the everyday life of the ancient Greeks and Romans." -- Edward J. Wood, author, 1868
"We want to make clear that the existence of giant people [in ancient times] ... must be regarded as a scientifically certain fact." -- Louis Burkhalter, paleontologist, 1950
University of Oxford: Giant stone-age axes found in African lake basin. (Via Science Daily)
Their research was prompted by the discovery of the first of what are believed to be the world’s largest stone tools on the bed of the lake. Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now. Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
7 comments:
WOW!!!
This is remarkable.
And it's remarkable for a couple of reasons:
First, the size of the stone tools, which is all too evident, seems beyond what would be used by early Man if he was roughly the same size as Man is today.
Giant tools used by giant people is a logical conclusion.
(But I'd sure be interested in reasons that explain giant tools use by men of similar size as today.)
@ OilIsMastery:
When you first raised the issue of giant humans in epics past, I was sceptical (see OIM post, Giants, February 13, 2009), and even made some tongue-in-cheek comments and linked a You Tube video on giant skeletons.
But, OilIsMastery, you did lay a ground work of sorts with a prior post on giant stone architecture that would seem to be beyond Man's capability to move due to the size of the stones (see OIM post, The Mystery of Baalbek, February 12, 2009).
And, you, OilIsMastery, have added to the evidence of giants, since, on this website.
I have to admit this is an example of where I was sceptical at first, yet intriqued, nevertheless, because of the sensational implications and the type of evidence offered, but keeping an open-mind, have come more and more to the conclusion that, indeed, giant humans did exist. (Giganticism is well documented in the animal kingdom, so why should humans be any different?)
What, that others should be reasonably sceptical, yet keep an open-mind and follow the scientific evidence to where it leads.
This report (interesting that implicitly the giant tools were first found in 1994, but kept under wraps) steps up the evidence (unless there is some kind of explanation of giant tools being used by normal sized humans) for the existence of giants.
Second, what is remarkable about the story is that the giant tools while noted in the story and, indeed, used as an attraction for the story (photo) are not explained at all.
There is nothing in the story that addresses or explains the giant size of the tools.
An anomally, it would seem. But how many times have we seen this in the world of science, where a piece of evidence that doesn't fit the accepted narrative is ignored or even suppressed?
Lots of times.
For those that tend to accept the consensus view, this repeated avoidance of scientific evidence that contradicts the accepted narrative should raise red flags.
If it doesn't, let me suggest, the herd mentality is strong in your psyche.
Great job OilIsMastery to see the larger significance to a story.
Thx Anaconda!
I agree this does have a "larger" significance...haha.
My question would be one of who had the tools. Not described scientifically could mean a lot of different things. Assuming that some university was hiding them is one thing. Governments in that area are keen to bow to churches who prefer to obscure the rich history of Africa as the birthplace of mankind.
So... why weren't they described? I shall attempt to find out.
How odd. According to the fellow that described them, they were sitting in a museum in Botswana for more than 10 years.
Oxford researchers only became aware of them last year, they do not belong to Oxford's collection.
Previous finds of this sort have been described as far back as the 1950's.
So... no reply?
Silent assent, perhaps?
Jeffery,
They deliberately weren't described for a decade (centuries in most cases) because fundamentalist atheists and Darwinists are openly involved and engaged in censorship, information suppression, and covering up scientific and historical evidence which contradicts their mythological fairy tales.
They deliberately weren't described for a decade (centuries in most cases) because fundamentalist atheists and Darwinists are openly involved and engaged in censorship, information suppression, and covering up scientific and historical evidence which contradicts their mythological fairy tales.
So the fact that they were in a box in Botswana just doesn't enter into it? Indohyus was central to the notion of whale evolution and it sat for 30 years before being described. Your paranoia is unfounded and silly.
Were you frightened by a scary man in a lab coat as a child?
Post a Comment