I am not saying there where no ‘giants’ around, but a think that some of the skeletons shown are far fetched and clutching at straws unless there is real evidence to observe. I don’t think it is inconceivable at all that out of the 6 billion+ people we have on earth today, there are some hoaxes out there, even in the thousands.

If evidence is not around today and someone claims it was burned down does not prove that it ever actually existed, or, god forbid, maybe they made a mistake during analysis, something which was very easy to do the further back in time we go. Hoaxes would have also been easier to pull off the further we go back. Why not? A believed hoax can make the finder instantly famous.

Any skeleton claimed to be a giant human is not a provable reliable source of information unless it is still here today for us to look at it, especially when we know now that before we realized that some of the Mammoth bones we found were mammoth bones, we often mistook them as giant humans. Most of the Mammoth, Wooly Rhino and Mastodon fossils found did not have skulls, so this is why they were often mistaken as giants.

It just seems that a lot of people that believe in this kind of thing with ‘one eye on the prize’ are going on blind faith rather than solid proof. History is written by the victors. In Ancient Greece, we would have been laughed at if we told people back then that some of the bones found where not their creatures of myth after all.

Compare this to the way Paleontologists in general are dealing with the issue, which requires (here that dirty word again) solid evidence to support a conclusive theory, I would rather look at what they have unearthed so to speak. Forget the PC (popular choice) claims we like to believe in, the majority of them know that we just don’t know everything about it yet, there are thousands of viable theories out there with what we have to look at today, and none of it is conclusive. I’d rather listen to those who are open minded enough to know that they don’t know yet than those that think they know based on fables and lost so called proof before we could even examine the proof properly.

Don’t believe it till you see it, otherwise it’s that other dirty word, conjecture…

While they may very well have been larger than average, those in power could have been made out to be much larger and more imposing than they actually were. They may even have had artifacts for the purpose of propagating these stories, such as larger than life weapons, utensils, or in the case of the King of Bashan, a bed.

Also, there could have been other physical factors such as pitiutary gigantism, a condition caused by a condition known as acromegaly which often results in extremely large size due to an out of control release of growth hormone. This results in humans that are far larger than normal, while also exhibiting other physical abnormalities such as distorted facial features such as a bulging forehead, thick lips, thickened or flattened nose, and other abnormalities. Interestingly, some of the historical figures mentioned here such as Maximinus Thrax were often mentioned to have such features such as a prominent jaw and brow. Perhaps they exhibited some condition such as acromegaly?

The thing is we have scant evidence that these sizes were real. There are obviously no photographs from the time and we are forced to go mostly on records of the time, which are not always reliable. We just don’t know what the deal was.

As for the more outlandish claims of 20 foot plus giant humans, I find these claims dubious and highly unlikely. We can see huge sizes in many extinct giant mammals but it must be remembered that these were generally quadrupeds, and thus were able to evenly distribute more of their weight. A biped of this size has all of that weight on just two limbs. With something like a human, our spine, pelvic structure, and head placement are all arranged in such a way that our weight bears down directly on our legs.

Considering the massive increase in weight as these huge sizes are achieved, factor in the strength of bones and the proportional power of the muscles’ ability to pull this weight and it seems that anything bipedal approaching 20 feet in height would likely be unable to stand up, let alone stomp dramatically through the countryside. As far as a true biped goes, it seems that humans such as Robert Wadlow are likely approaching the size limits of what our particular bipedal body structure is able to handle. Even in these documented extreme cases, the subjects often had a plethora of health and mobility problems due to their size.

Add to these physical problems the scant evidence for anything like 20 foot tall humans, and the chances of these accounts being based in reality seem unlikely. I would need more evidence that this is not only possible, but that something even remotely like a 20 foot tall humanoid existed at any time for me to really give much weight to these particular accounts. As has already been mentioned, it is quite possible that fossils of dinosaurs and other outsized prehistoric animals were mistaken as being the remains of giants. This sort of thing quite probably contributed to many legends and myths of giants.

This is fascinating to discuss but the reality of 20, 25, 30 foot tall human giants seems quite unlikely. I would say that even accounts of 10 foot tall humans have quite possibly undergone some amount of exaggeration.

> im not a scientist.

I believe you.

> Just like a skeptic, always needing more “proof”.

How about we start with “some” proof? (No, misplaced sarcasm is not of evidentiary value.)

> I think it would be naive to call ALL of them hoaxes.

Not so.

Think of it this way: anybody out there hoaxing six-foot-tall giants?

Were Neanderthals the Genesis “Giants”?

The Bible describes a race of pre-Flood humans that grew to dominate the cultural landscape before being wiped out.

Genesis 6:4 talks about “giants” in the land before the flood. The English word giants is translated from two original Hebrew words: Rephaim and Nephilim. The Rephaim are mentioned only after the Flood; they were tall men, like Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20).

As Roy Shultz brings out in Exploring Ancient History, the word giant in Genesis 6:4 comes from the word Nephilim, which means “a feller,” or one who fells a tree because of his unusual strength. The term implies a “tough,” or a bully, an individual of great physical might. In other words, the pre-Flood Nephilim were giants in strength but not in tallness of stature.

It will be difficult to get me excited until some actual remains are turned up. You wouldn’t even have to have a full bone for DNA recovery. Unfortunately, these giants will likely remain relegated to tall tales. I actually believe in giants. My pet theory for Sasquatch is a degenerate descendant of some kind of giant. Logically, there should be bodies somewhere.

If anyone wants to dig into this stuff, I am game as far as I am able. It would make an excellent TV series. Giants, ghosts, monsters, and treasure!!!