Printable View
I always knew stories had some backing to history. Is this a dwarf or a halfling? The way the bones are designed I would say halfling. It is a hobbit I tell ya!
Edit: Also in the story they found bones of a dwarf elephant. Isn't that interesting, lol.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...arf_cavewoman_2
Not the first time some "discovery" like this has happened. I recall some arcahelogist getting hold of a bunch of bones and gluing them together. Took a while for anybody to notice they were fake. *shrug*
Well, lets consider the story... They said the skull size is smaller. The bones to the body are also smaller. It IS smaller. And the age they know. I highly doubt it is a hoax since it is on the news.
It's not a hoax because it's on the news?! keowfjeoiwjfowiewgh9erhgui!! ;;
I said highly doubt. Most of the time the news is the truth, but not all the time.
Okay: Just 'cuz it's on the news is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER. The media is distinctly biased in this way: They want money. To get money, they need attention. How do you get attention? Publish something far-fetched. As much as we'd like to believe that they exist to bring us the news, they're really there to make money. Do you really think that these people would still be working if they weren't paid?
Would you STOP correcting me when I have said I highly doubt it is fake. That translates to, "although I am fairly certain it is the truth, there is a chance it is not true". That means that yes I do not think beyong any doubt that it is true.
If it was something that you heard from a friend who heard from a friend, etc it would be much different. Since it was instead on the news it is much more likely to be true than what I just said.
Doubtfull. Especially since the source was from the internet. If it was on TV, then it would more likely be true, since it's easy to sue a television company for lying, compared to suing an internet company. On the internet there's a far higher percentage of phonies. And I'm not assaulting your position, I'm assaulting the truth of the document you showed us. I don't believe it's true, no matter what you believe. And I'd expect that you'll stick with your opinion regardless of what I think.
It could be some person with a growth defect...that never came across anyones mind? Doh! :wink:
I completely agree with you on this one. And first of all, don't believe everything you see on TV people, come on, don't be so ignorant, sometimes the only place you CAN find the real information is on the internet (just look at my flag). Anyway, dwarfism...remember the munchkins on the Wizard of OZ? Well there used to be a TON of them. But now we have medication to correct that defect at birth or young age so there are no more munchkins anymore...which are proportionately sized miniature people, me only have midgets, or little people, or whatever they want to be called. Anyway, that dwarfism trait is a gene so it might have just been one person with the gene who began a whole civilization of munchkin people. Sounds like they stumbled upon Oz or somethin. People should be a little open-mined too, don't be so quick to criticize or discredit things. Anythings possible.Quote:
Originally posted by Sparky
It could be some person with a growth defect...that never came across anyones mind? Doh! :wink:
Yes, I can perfectly accept that it was a growth defect if it involved ONE person. Heck, I'd even believe that if it were 50 or 60 people. But they're talking about a whole species of dwarf-humans. I don't find that easy to believe. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. And the sources don't credit the possibility much.
hehe.. ironic that the hobbits were ended my a volcano.. they should rename it Mount Doom.
Hmm the news tell the truth. Well lets look at the dozens of tabloids, retarted weather forecasters..........and the list goes on.
I just heard the dwarf story on NPR a second ago, said something about animals who don't have any predators get smaller. Eh, im not sure now.
Stop Growing aye, mmm must be why humans keep growing. I heard the report on Radio News, will check the 6pm news tonight.
holy hell does nobody know how to read or think? This story, which is published on Yahoo News (from the link we were given), was picked up by Yahoo - and hundreds of other sites, newspapers, radio stations, and various other media organizations - from the Associated Press. The Associated Press picked it up from National Geographic, who published about it briefly to their news site today. More about it is going to be published in their next actual publication, and in early 2005 they [National Geographic] are scheduled to air a special about it on their television station.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
Doubtfull. Especially since the source was from the internet. If it was on TV, then it would more likely be true, since it's easy to sue a television company for lying, compared to suing an internet company. On the internet there's a far higher percentage of phonies.
Now then, National Geographic is not the sort of organization that goes around just publishing things on a whim. Especially when publishing "discoveries" like this, they really check stuff out for validity and reliability. There was one time I can recall that they published about a discovery of a new species or something like that, and it turned out to be wrong. However, before publishing the article, they had the fossils, etc examined and studied to determine if they were fake or not. It was determined by many that it was indeed real and so the article was published. Only sometime later was it determined under strenuously careful testing methods that it was in all likelihood a fake. Whoever did it was something of a mastermind as not only was National Geographic fooled, but the entire scientific community was fooled for some time, and National Geographic was quite embarrassed over the incident as they attempt to hold themselves up as a reputable organization and many view them as such.
Now I am neither a scientist nor an archeologist, and even if I were, I have not seen nor studied these bones - something I am sure none of us have done. Now then, I am - we are - in no kind of position to start making wild claims that they are either this or that -or- not this or not that. The only people really in such a position are the scientists studying the skeletons.
Sure we can have our opinions, but to tout our opinions around - with no direct experience in the matter - as being either this or that -or- not this or not that is not only foolish, but it is also a waste of time.
stop wasting your time!
Yeah, I'm not all vehement about it, but it is clear that most of the people who posted didn't actually read the article or notice the source before they started going off. The article suggests to me that these creatures did exist, but were not "little people," but dwarfed primates that branched off a ways back on the family tree. It said they were probably tool users, but didn't really talk about the evidence for that claim. The big deal is that they were around so recently, after we had killed off all of our other close relatives, and also that they represent a way different homo adaptation than homo sapiens.