A couple of days ago, I wrote a post about the Helenwood Devil (a clay statue manufactured in the 1920s) in reaction to a story by Kristan Harris. Harris' story led with an article about a petrified, horned giant that was "discovered" in Scott County, Tennessee, and exhibited in Helenwood. I think it's pretty clear from the photograph of the "giant" (which I reproduce again for your viewing pleasure) and the associated stories about it that it was a hoax, and probably not the strongest card to play if you want to argue that a "race of humans with horns protruding from their skulls" once roamed the planet. A newspaper account of the Helenwood Devil is also featured on the Greater Ancestors World Museum (GAWM) website.
I made both of the charter members of the Helenwood Devil Fan Club (Harris and GAWM) aware of my post by commenting on their pages. Both have, apparently, chosen to do nothing: the stories still remain exactly like they were two days ago.
What does that mean? Does that mean they stand by the Helenwood Devil as an authentic evidence of the existence of a prehistoric race of horned humans?
I think it does. Putting myself in their places, if I were interested in knowing and presenting accurate information (which I am, and which they claim to be), I would adjust my stance on the Helenwood Devil if I found out that the "giant" I was using as evidence was actually a sculpture.
I presume that Harris would print a retraction of his story if he felt it was no longer accurate. After all, in this video, Harris tells us that newspapers retract stories that they know to be false in order to maintain their credibility. Speaking on the issue of accounts of giants in old newspapers, Harris says:
"Where are the articles calling these things hoaxes? Obviously, as a newspaper, you want to be as credible as possible, and you would retract these things."
Likewise with the GAWM, which makes the claim that it utilizes "a scientific model of origins" that is "boldly superior to all previous and existing models globally." Science is built on falsification: leaving the Helenwood Devil on the GAWM site signals acceptance of a crappy statue that some guy built from clay in an abandoned coal mine as evidence supporting whatever it is the GAWM is boldy exploring.
What Do Giant Enthusiasts Do When the Truth Turns Out To Be Inconvenient? Nothing, Apparently.
The choices that Harris and GAWM have made (to do nothing) signal that they apparently still believe in the Helenwood Devil. It will be interesting to see if the Helenwood Devil Fan Club attracts any more members.
3/26/2015 04:05:51 am
And its not even a well-made fake, the proportions are awful.
The first logical fallacy committed here is called a "strawman". I don't judge the articles, the GAWM website is there for Giant Hunters as an exhaustive resource, even though there is about 500 yet to be loaded to the site. I have compared the Helenwood devil with the plaster apeman skull called "Peking Man" which still exists in evolutionary examples. Are we to assume that you as an evolutionist who criticize others beliefs, hold to a different standard. I suggest you look into "Peking Man" and lets see how that level of criticism stands. So I am to assume that plaster skulls are acceptable when they fit your beliefs. The next problem is that you have brought the label "runt-hunter" on yourself. You pick out the easiest target and generalize all the articles as such. This is like trying to prove real apples do not exist by showing the public one "plastic apple". I let the public decide which ones are plastic, I am not arguing for the authenticity of the Helenwood Devil, I remain neutral my scientific model is not only safe but its superior to the lesser belief of Common-Ancestry". So you say this one (Helenwood Devil) is fake, . . .great! I am not threatened in any way. It will remain, instead of controlling what people think, as academia does, I suggest that each person judge for themselves in each case and ignore fallacious arguments such as cherry-picking, runt-hunting, double standards and Strawman attacks that misrepresent the motives of others. . thanks.
10/27/2015 07:38:07 am
Here's my response to your comment:
Leave a Reply.
All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.
I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing.
Follow me on Twitter: @Andrew_A_White
Email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Sick of the woo? Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.