Have you seen this, a profound discovery spiked by Western Media?

Question

Here is an India news broadcast of the emergence of a colossal anthropomorphic skeleton upon the western shores of India. The skeleton was dredged up from the depths of the Indian Ocean sea floor by the catastrophic December 28, 2004 Indonesian Tsunami, and it finally surfaced and beached upon land over a year later in 2006. The skeleton of the creature is about 300 feet in height, half buried in the sand. Note the bone structure of the rib cage, and the five digit fingers on the titanic hand. Its skull is intact, and in the closing scene of the report, the eye socket can be seen in the side of the skull behind the news reporter.

Though the discovery is over a year old, to date the main stream media of the West and the U.S. have not yet reported on this profound and startling scientific discovery, obviously because of its anthropomorphic structure, which does not conveniently fit into the current scientific paradigm nor does it "support" the bogus Evolution/Uniformitarian Model, but, on the contrary, is in diametric opposition to it, for the Holy Scriptures state that before the Flood of Noah, "There were giants in the world in those days."

YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mra5s_zOQ4

Answer 1

Jonmcn49, I don't care for you patronizing tone, it says a lot about your arrogance, and nothing about social sciences. Social scientists aren't incoherent retards. They don't prance around, examining shiny objects and writing incoherent philosophical musings in their journals (not anymore anyway). I'd like to see you COHERENTLY and usefully describe social and cultural processes utilizing only experimental labwork and statistics . Get a grip.

Take a look at how I utilize my brain, despite being a "social scientist":

It just reeks of a hoax.

For starters, the report just looks suspicious. They misspelled Chennai. The English voice can really be saying anything that probably doesn't relate to what the reporter is saying. The editing is beyond terrible.

I don't really see an anthropomorphic anything. In fact, the aerial view looks computer generated. That "rock" in the water looks pasted on.

It's also interesting how such an "intriguing" aerial view was only shown for a few seconds. Just enough to spark interest, but not enough to really show anything.

Also, the view at the end of the report, behind the reporter, is definitely computer generated

     -   the lighting and the saturation of the "creature" compared to the rest of the video don't match.

    -    the sand beneath the "creature", is also probably done in Photoshop - sooo blurry, it actually looks like the "creature" is floating above a blurry patch -  it's very strange how nobody noticed that; look more carefully

    -    that "hand" - the way the light casts shadows on the "fingers" shows it's pasted onto the video.

And lastly, where are the archaeologists? I don't see them, just some people playing in the sand. They "dig", but they don't look like they are qualified. And what are those incisions at 0:55?

It's a hoax. Not a very good one at that. There are probably more inconsistencies, but I don't have time to break down the video. This is not an anthropomorphic "creature". It's not even a creature, it's a bunch of pixels superimposed on a video of a mishmash of clips from news reports.

The real question is:

Why do you think stuff like this (even though it's not real) is convincing and indisputable PROOF of falsity of Evolution, and on the other hand you choose to ignore the ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWING TO THE CONTRARY?

Seriously, why? Where's the "science" in you "way of thinking"?

P.S. Jonmcn49, get over yourself. Your generalizations don't sound like coming from a scientist, but an angry person with issues - and your conversational level is appalling. Very unprofessional. Get a decent set of social skills.

You don't really know anything about my career so don't bump me into the same category as Dr. Phil, who's not a real scientist, but a showman. Please. Social science is only a part of my work. Enough said.

Answer 2

I have to say I agree. Even if you don't believe the Bible or worship the Christian God you have to admit that this can't just be explained by evolution. The Ancient Greeks had myths about Titans(maybe they didn't have to reassemble mammoth skeletons incorrectly) and the Ancient Norse had the Jotun, Muspalli, Thyrm(spelling). Roughly translated they mean Mountain, Fire and Ice giants respectively. Maybe they had found such a skeleton or stories of someone seeing such a thing had been passed down.

Answer 3

There were giants in those days - look at any of the dinosaurs.  They are gigantic.  But trying to pass a whale skeleton off as a giant human, come on...

Answer 4

You posted this drivel over in science and mathematics. Did you think social scientists would be an easier sell? You are probable right. A social scientist would go for just about anything, as they stand for nothing. Unless you wish to call incoherence something. Good luck with your delusions.

PS Methinks the lady, Elvie, protests too much. You should hear how real scientists speak of social scientists. Condescension would be letting you off lightly. I despise social science. I am a evolutionary field biologists and many areas of biology deal with Homo sapiens; rather better than any social scientists could ever hope to do. Aren't you the people who brought us the likes of Dr. Phil?