tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15194226.post8839706141281668746..comments2024-03-08T01:24:09.884-07:00Comments on Matt's Sci/Tech Blog: Book Review: True GiantsMatt Billehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18230930494550861704noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15194226.post-50733944765445066062010-12-26T13:35:56.157-07:002010-12-26T13:35:56.157-07:00Thanks for responding, Loren. On your points:
(1) ...Thanks for responding, Loren. On your points:<br />(1) I agree evidence should not be overlooked because the animal is viewed as improbable. The whole point of cryptozoology is taking a fair look at what might otherwise be too quickly discarded. It would, however, take more evidence to convince me of a live True Giant than it would take for (to use the obvious example) sasquatch, which I would characterize as unproven but less of a stretch from its presumptive ancestor. <br />(2) We certainly do have evidence for a massive primate (Gigantopithecus). A knuckle-walking Giganto might well have stood 10 feet high when rising onto its hindlimbs in gorilla fashion. The True Giant accounts seem to describe a natural biped of that height, though, and that's harder for me to connect to Giganto. <br />Hall and Coleman have done cryptozoology a service by diligently collecting and presenting everything known on this topic. "Everything known" just isn't enough yet.Matt Billehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18230930494550861704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15194226.post-22218091179843370362010-12-26T11:44:15.130-07:002010-12-26T11:44:15.130-07:00I sincerely wish to thank Matt Bille for taking th...I sincerely wish to thank Matt Bille for taking the time to read and critique Mark A. Hall and my book on True Giants.<br /><br />Needless to say, in our heavily referenced text, one of the major goals of this book was to propose a radical theory and view of legend, traditions, sightings, and evidence for a group of primates excluded from most consideration by hominologists, Yeti, Bigfoot, and associated cryptozoologists.<br /><br />Without becoming overly defensive, to answer Matt's main criticism, which is that there is not enough evidence, we must point out two main points: (1) as long as the True Giant notion is seen as unacceptable for the existence of these primates, evidence often will be ignored, not collected, or not even recorded if found; and (2) paradoxically, the main body of evidence for these primates of over 10 feet tall actually existing has already been verified - i.e. the fossils of Gigantopithecus! And yet this lynchpin seems to be ignored, as well, as a point in the theory's favor.Loren Colemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705306131201565523noreply@blogger.com