Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

[stereologist]

In the 1800s it was common for fun facts to be inserted into magazines and newspapers. Some of these fun facts are still being presented by various groups as facts. One of these fun facts had to do with people finding jewelry and Civil war buttons in lumps of coal. These fanciful tales weren't true, but fun to read. Today some of these fun facts are being touted as truth.

[TheWizard]

In the 1800s it was common for fun facts to be inserted into magazines and newspapers. Some of these fun facts are still being presented by various groups as facts. One of these fun facts had to do with people finding jewelry and Civil war buttons in lumps of coal. These fanciful tales weren't true, but fun to read. Today some of these fun facts are being touted as truth.

Yes, but magazines and newspapers are completely different than history books.

[jaylemurph]

Yes, but magazines and newspapers are completely different than history books.

...how so?

--Jaylemurph

[TheWizard]

...how so?

--Jaylemurph

Let me answer that with another question: how are they similar?

The differences I would think are kind of obvious to anyone who understands the industry.... Magazines and newspapers rely on advertising. They always have and always will. If advertising didn't exist neither would magazines or newspapers. Now, if a magazine or newspaper doesn't get many readers, advertisers won't want to advertise with them. Because of this simple fact magazines and newspapers will publish anything as long as it will keep people reading them. For instance, they will publish "Fun Facts". History books will not. There is no advertising in history books. History books are there to educate and that's all.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Dr_Acula

[jaylemurph]

Let me answer that with another question: how are they similar?

The differences I would think are kind of obvious to anyone who understands the industry.... Magazines and newspapers rely on advertising. They always have and always will. If advertising didn't exist neither would magazines or newspapers. Now, if a magazine or newspaper doesn't get many readers, advertisers won't want to advertise with them. Because of this simple fact magazines and newspapers will publish anything as long as it will keep people reading them. For instance, they will publish "Fun Facts". History books will not. There is no advertising in history books. History books are there to educate and that's all.

...so unlike publishers of newspapers and magazines, the publishers of history books are saints and philanthropists who bring out books out of sheer great-heartedness? And the purveyors of such material make no profit from them?

I don't even know what the correct response to this /is/, really. I can't quite believe anyone is that naive.

--Jaylemurph

[HeathenRoyalty]

It has been my experience with history books and their authors/publishers, that not everything in a history book is accurate or fully detailed. We have a way of glossing over the bad history here in the U.S. and that leaves many things out where history is concerned. It has and still happens to this day. When we as a united people come to terms with everything we have done through the ages, will we have a complete and comprehensive history book or volume.

[stereologist]

Yes, but magazines and newspapers are completely different than history books.

Sometimes. Some history books, especially ones recording local lore, contain stories that are never verified. They are added for some sense of "completeness."

One of the classics concerns Bisbee Arizona. Some recorded events never happened. many events are embellished. It has taken on a life of its own. Even the cemetery changes location from time to time.

So imagine that someone goes into a small town in Ohio and wants to write up some of the history. Where do they get their information? They can read the newspapers and magazines in the archives. They can read local diaries. They can look for items that might be mentioned in these written sources of information.

Stories of giants make it into the newspapers. The cardiff giant was the rage.

http://www.museumofh..._cardiff_giant/

Even in more modern times fake stories make it into the newspapers. One concerns an office worker that dies at his desk and his coworkers do not realize it for 3 days. That story has appeared in many newspapers in many countries. It is a fake story. People believe it because it was printed in a newspaper. In the same way a fun fact in a local paper can end up being written up in a book labeled a history book.

Another edit to add in a link to snopes

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/fivedays.asp

You might want to read the article. It is really funny.

Edited September 26, 2013 by stereologist

[TheWizard]

...so unlike publishers of newspapers and magazines, the publishers of history books are saints and philanthropists who bring out books out of sheer great-heartedness? And the purveyors of such material make no profit from them?

I don't even know what the correct response to this /is/, really. I can't quite believe anyone is that naive.

--Jaylemurph

Wow, you are really taking this to the extreme. No, I obviously don't think anything that you implied here and I never said that I did. You fabricated that in your own mind. I DO believe that the content of history books isn't driven by advertisements. Also, the target audience isn't your everyday consumer. Publishers of educational history books target educated people/instructors/professors and usually have deals with schools, universities or governments who provide these books to their students or certain instructors/professors who require their students to obtain copies of these books. It's a much different world than the world of magazines, newspapers and advertisements.

It has been my experience with history books and their authors/publishers, that not everything in a history book is accurate or fully detailed. We have a way of glossing over the bad history here in the U.S. and that leaves many things out where history is concerned. It has and still happens to this day. When we as a united people come to terms with everything we have done through the ages, will we have a complete and comprehensive history book or volume.

I completely agree with the idea that things are left out of history books and that modern history books can be inaccurate. However, mound builders, their temples, forts and burial sites appear in almost every old county history book and we know that they really existed and we know that the graves were exhumed. Also in nearly every old county history book is the fact that several 7-8 foot skeletons were found within several different mounds from several different areas. That tells me that logically - it actually happened. And 7-8 feet is tall but not supernaturally tall.

Sometimes. Some history books, especially ones recording local lore, contain stories that are never verified. They are added for some sense of "completeness."

One of the classics concerns Bisbee Arizona. Some recorded events never happened. many events are embellished. It has taken on a life of its own. Even the cemetery changes location from time to time.

So imagine that someone goes into a small town in Ohio and wants to write up some of the history. Where do they get their information? They can read the newspapers and magazines in the archives. They can read local diaries. They can look for items that might be mentioned in these written sources of information.

Stories of giants make it into the newspapers. The cardiff giant was the rage.

http://www.museumofh..._cardiff_giant/

Even in more modern times fake stories make it into the newspapers. One concerns an office worker that dies at his desk and his coworkers do not realize it for 3 days. That story has appeared in many newspapers in many countries. It is a fake story. People believe it because it was printed in a newspaper. In the same way a fun fact in a local paper can end up being written up in a book labeled a history book.

Another edit to add in a link to snopes

http://www.snopes.co...me/fivedays.asp

You might want to read the article. It is really funny.

You make a valid point, however, did you read the link that I posted to the Brown County Ohio history book? I seriously doubt that it was taken from some hokey old newspaper article. The pages that deal with the mound builders are written in such a way that it is very convincing and compelling.

[cormac mac airt]

Wow, you are really taking this to the extreme. No, I obviously don't think anything that you implied here and I never said that I did. You fabricated that in your own mind. I DO believe that the content of history books isn't driven by advertisements. Also, the target audience isn't your everyday consumer. Publishers of educational history books target educated people/instructors/professors and usually have deals with schools, universities or governments who provide these books to their students or certain instructors/professors who require their students to obtain copies of these books. It's a much different world than the world of magazines, newspapers and advertisements.

I completely agree with the idea that things are left out of history books and that modern history books can be inaccurate. However, mound builders, their temples, forts and burial sites appear in almost every old county history book and we know that they really existed and we know that the graves were exhumed. Also in nearly every old county history book is the fact that several 7-8 foot skeletons were found within several different mounds from several different areas. That tells me that logically - it actually happened. And 7-8 feet is tall but not supernaturally tall.

You make a valid point, however, did you read the link that I posted to the Brown County Ohio history book? I seriously doubt that it was taken from some hokey old newspaper article. The pages that deal with the mound builders are written in such a way that it is very convincing and compelling.

It's only a fact if it can be shown that it has been scientifically verified. So the documentation verifying same is where?

cormac

[margiel]

I think there are a few too many "sevens" in this story.

[stereologist]

You make a valid point, however, did you read the link that I posted to the Brown County Ohio history book? I seriously doubt that it was taken from some hokey old newspaper article. The pages that deal with the mound builders are written in such a way that it is very convincing and compelling.

So is VonDaniken. Those old articles are not written in a hokey manner. A good read is a good read.

All I'm saying is be careful in accepting certain types of material. It may well be true, but there are many cases in which the write ups were not.

[stereologist]

I was poking around looking for the sizes of skeletons uncovered in the burial mounds of Ohio and I came across a story about giants with horns found in a burial mound in Ohio.

http://gianthumanskeletons.blogspot.ca/p/workman-uncover-giant-humans-with-horns.html

Is this a fact or a fun fact?

[questionmark]

I was poking around looking for the sizes of skeletons uncovered in the burial mounds of Ohio and I came across a story about giants with horns found in a burial mound in Ohio.

http://gianthumanske...with-horns.html

Is this a fact or a fun fact?

I would say: made up. Single source sensations are generally single source brain maxturbations.

[Swede]

.

I'm not 100% sure what you're implying, but my studies (no quotes necessary) have shown that historians are still unsure who the mound builders were and although there are some very compelling theories, there is no certainty. If you have a credible source that confirms that we do know without a doubt who the mound builders were and also explains that claim, share it and I will change my mind.

I got them from first hand accounts written in state county history books from the late 1800's to the early 1900's. Are these books dated? Yes, but that is irrelevant because they aren't conveying a concept that changes over time such as scientific theories.

1) From my perspective, your question is rather vague. In what manner would you be defining "who"? The reality that the various moundbuidling activities documented across areas of eastern North America were the product of Amerindians was firmly established as early as 1894 (Cyrus Thomas, Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1894).

If you are referring to more specific connections (ie Adena/Hopewell) or their potential associations with previous/current cultural groups, you may find the rather recent genetic research by Mills' to be of interest. Below are two lay-oriented references that provide complimenting details in regards to her research:

http://www.friendsof...807OhioDNA.html

http://apps.ohiohist...-ohio-hopewell/

If you would be more concerned with bio-metrics as opposed to genetic studies, the following abstract (paper readily available) may be of interest:

http://www.jstor.org...=21102696826973

For additional introductory information on pre-Adena/Hopewell/Mississippian mound-building manifestations, you may find the following to be of interest:

http://www.eprida.co...moundcarbon.pdf

http://www.saa.org/A...01/Default.aspx

http://www.crt.state...verpoi/popo.htm

Additional information available

2) Having professionally utilized a number of "local histories" (in addition to numerous journals dating to as early as the early/mid 17th century), can personally assure you that the data contained within such references are not without their problems in regards to accuracy. In the case of latter 19th century county histories, these were rarely compiled by trained historians, but are more likely to be the product of a historically concerned "antiquarian". You may wish to actually research the author.

Edit: Software glitch.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Swede

[Harte]

No, because there is no evidence to prove that anatomists and/or scientists ever actually examined the alleged skeletal fragments... lol.

But fossils ARE rocks so they're going to look "like rocks" and museums don't usually put the actual fossils on display; they're usually "fake" reconstructions. I was only pointing out the stupidity of those two statements he made.

Really?

Are you thinking I didn't read the article?

Okay, then, here's more from your link:

Honestly, they look like rocks to me, or perhaps the bones of a giant sloth or some other Pleistocene mammal. I note that no anatomist examined the bones, only creationists, Atlantis believers, and priests.

SNIP

It is dumbfounding that the same “evidence”—nothing more than a few lumps of stone, or possibly Pleistocene mammal fossils—can be spun into an ancient astronaut genetic experiment, proof of Biblical creationism, and an anti-elite government conspiracy, all based on how the reader chooses to incorporate ambiguous ideas into a preexisting ideology.

These are the statements you completely mischaracterized while simultaneously ignoring even the statement from your other link calling these "bone fragments." Which is it, fossils or bone fragments? You did this in a way to reinforce your own bias, with no regard to the actual phrasing provided by the journalist you had already decided to impugn.

Did you think that maybe I wouldn't catch that?

Perhaps in the future if you're going to take pot shots at an investigator, you'll refrain from linking to the text of what you're shooting at if it tends to expose what you are up to.

I mean, that way it would take me at least ten seconds longer to see that you were constructing straw men.

In my original response, I refrained from excoriating you, merely pointing out the obvious. My thinking was that if anyone was really interested, they'd read the article anyway and note your mischaracterization themselves.

However, your response forces me to explain exactly what you are doing.

Now the question is, why (if you're not a YEC or some other finge loonie) are you doing this?

Harte

[Harte]

Wow, you are really taking this to the extreme. No, I obviously don't think anything that you implied here and I never said that I did. You fabricated that in your own mind. I DO believe that the content of history books isn't driven by advertisements. Also, the target audience isn't your everyday consumer. Publishers of educational history books target educated people/instructors/professors and usually have deals with schools, universities or governments who provide these books to their students or certain instructors/professors who require their students to obtain copies of these books. It's a much different world than the world of magazines, newspapers and advertisements.

I completely agree with the idea that things are left out of history books and that modern history books can be inaccurate. However, mound builders, their temples, forts and burial sites appear in almost every old county history book and we know that they really existed and we know that the graves were exhumed. Also in nearly every old county history book is the fact that several 7-8 foot skeletons were found within several different mounds from several different areas. That tells me that logically - it actually happened. And 7-8 feet is tall but not supernaturally tall.

You make a valid point, however, did you read the link that I posted to the Brown County Ohio history book? I seriously doubt that it was taken from some hokey old newspaper article. The pages that deal with the mound builders are written in such a way that it is very convincing and compelling.

The story I mentioned about turnips large enough to build a military acadamy inside of came from an official history book of some county or other out west.

Harte

[ExplainInTheAss]

I'd expect Ecuador to the last place where we'd find giant skelatons Lol

[TheWizard]

Are you thinking I didn't read the article?

No, of course I'm not thinking that.

These are the statements you completely mischaracterized while simultaneously ignoring even the statement from your other link calling these "bone fragments." Which is it, fossils or bone fragments? You did this in a way to reinforce your own bias, with no regard to the actual phrasing provided by the journalist you had already decided to impugn.

I didn't "mischaracterize" anything. People often call fossils bones because at one point in time that's what they were. By looking at old rock-looking bones it's easy to tell (at least for anyone with half a brain) that they are fossils. I would say that I'm surprised I have to explain this to you - but I'm not. Regardless of what you have convinced yourself of, I have no bias. I don't believe that these bone fragments, fossils, whatever you want to call them, are genuine giant human bones. I posted this here because I was unsure as to the validity of the story. So you can continue to be butt-hurt because I pointed out a couple of stupid statements your friend made or you can let it go and stop throwing a tantrum, the choice is yours. But this is the last time I'm going to reply so if your doing this for attention, you wont get any.

Did you think that maybe I wouldn't catch that?

Perhaps in the future if you're going to take pot shots at an investigator, you'll refrain from linking to the text of what you're shooting at if it tends to expose what you are up to.

I mean, that way it would take me at least ten seconds longer to see that you were constructing straw men.

In my original response, I refrained from excoriating you, merely pointing out the obvious. My thinking was that if anyone was really interested, they'd read the article anyway and note your mischaracterization themselves.

However, your response forces me to explain exactly what you are doing.

I am not up to anything you crazy paranoid b******.

Now the question is, why (if you're not a YEC or some other finge loonie) are you doing this?

I'm going to just ignore this based on my above statement.

The story I mentioned about turnips large enough to build a military acadamy inside of came from an official history book of some county or other out west.

Source please.

Now, on to conversation that is actually intelligent and constructive...

It's only a fact if it can be shown that it has been scientifically verified. So the documentation verifying same is where?

I'm sorry, I think I worded that wrong. I meant, the fact is that these descriptions are in several different history books from several different states and counties. So its kind of consistent and might be worth looking into.

I was poking around looking for the sizes of skeletons uncovered in the burial mounds of Ohio and I came across a story about giants with horns found in a burial mound in Ohio.

http://gianthumanske...with-horns.html

Is this a fact or a fun fact?

I'd say false.

1) From my perspective, your question is rather vague. In what manner would you be defining "who"? The reality that the various moundbuidling activities documented across areas of eastern North America were the product of Amerindians was firmly established as early as 1894 (Cyrus Thomas, Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1894).

If you are referring to more specific connections (ie Adena/Hopewell) or their potential associations with previous/current cultural groups, you may find the rather recent genetic research by Mills' to be of interest. Below are two lay-oriented references that provide complimenting details in regards to her research:

http://www.friendsof...807OhioDNA.html

http://apps.ohiohist...-ohio-hopewell/

If you would be more concerned with bio-metrics as opposed to genetic studies, the following abstract (paper readily available) may be of interest:

http://www.jstor.org...=21102696826973

For additional introductory information on pre-Adena/Hopewell/Mississippian mound-building manifestations, you may find the following to be of interest:

http://www.eprida.co...moundcarbon.pdf

http://www.saa.org/A...01/Default.aspx

http://www.crt.state...verpoi/popo.htm

Additional information available

2) Having professionally utilized a number of "local histories" (in addition to numerous journals dating to as early as the early/mid 17th century), can personally assure you that the data contained within such references are not without their problems in regards to accuracy. In the case of latter 19th century county histories, these were rarely compiled by trained historians, but are more likely to be the product of a historically concerned "antiquarian". You may wish to actually research the author.

Thanks for all the info! It will take me a while to read all of the links you've provided but I will let you know what my opinions are once I have done it.

[cormac mac airt]

No, of course I'm not thinking that.

I didn't "mischaracterize" anything. People often call fossils bones because at one point in time that's what they were. By looking at old rock-looking bones it's easy to tell (at least for anyone with half a brain) that they are fossils. I would say that I'm surprised I have to explain this to you - but I'm not. Regardless of what you have convinced yourself of, I have no bias. I don't believe that these bone fragments, fossils, whatever you want to call them, are genuine giant human bones. I posted this here because I was unsure as to the validity of the story. So you can continue to be butt-hurt because I pointed out a couple of stupid statements your friend made or you can let it go and stop throwing a tantrum, the choice is yours. But this is the last time I'm going to reply so if your doing this for attention, you wont get any.

I am not up to anything you crazy paranoid b******.

I'm going to just ignore this based on my above statement.

Source please.

Now, on to conversation that is actually intelligent and constructive...

I'm sorry, I think I worded that wrong. I meant, the fact is that these descriptions are in several different history books from several different states and counties. So its kind of consistent and might be worth looking into.

I'd say false.

Thanks for all the info! It will take me a while to read all of the links you've provided but I will let you know what my opinions are once I have done it.

The story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree used to be some history books too, yet that didn't make it true either. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

cormac

[stereologist]

It's easy to pick out the story of a giant with horns as a false story, yet are some as willing to dismiss stories of giants.

It's not hard to find these sorts of stories and that is what they are - just stories.

[cormac mac airt]

It's easy to pick out the story of a giant with horns as a false story, yet are some as willing to dismiss stories of giants.

It's not hard to find these sorts of stories and that is what they are - just stories.

To a person who's only 5' 6" someone who's 6' 4" could be seen as a giant. It really doesn't mean much without some sort of verifiable evidence to support the claim.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

Based on what I remember reading in dozens of Giants threads over the years, the newspaper articles always go like this... Local opens up Indian mound and finds giant skeleton (anywhere between 7 and 10 feet tall). Bones are all collected and displayed locally for a short time and then sent off to a local (or staet, or national) museum.

Investigations then show that if any of these museums even existed, that no record exists of said bones being delivered. Yet, thousands of other artifacts do get recorded during the same time period.

Conclusion: Newspapers were making up fantastic stories to sell papers. Existing evidence of hundreds of discovered bones = zero.

Perhaps non-distructive imaging of any of the hundreds of remaining mounds could show if any are burial sites and if any unusually large bones are inside??

Edited September 27, 2013 by DieChecker

[Avallaine]

It's only a fact if it can be shown that it has been scientifically verified. So the documentation verifying same is where?

Pardon me, but I must intrude with a technical matter: It's only a scientific fact if it can be shown that it has been scientifically verified.

Seven-foot humans are scientifically possible, and that's already been verified. The question here is, were seven-foot skeletons unearthed in a particular time and place? That's a question of historic fact, and history has different standards of proof than science.

[cormac mac airt]

Pardon me, but I must intrude with a technical matter: It's only a scientific fact if it can be shown that it has been scientifically verified.

Seven-foot humans are scientifically possible, and that's already been verified. The question here is, were seven-foot skeletons unearthed in a particular time and place? That's a question of historic fact, and history has different standards of proof than science.

They're not that much different. Historic facts aren't taken from unverified claims in old newspapers. And something being possible, scientifically or historically, doesn't make it a fact just because it sounds plausible.

cormac

[TheWizard]

It's easy to pick out the story of a giant with horns as a false story, yet are some as willing to dismiss stories of giants.

It's not hard to find these sorts of stories and that is what they are - just stories.

If I was getting all of my information from random websites with no credibility then your point would be valid, but I'm not. As we've been talking about for the past page and a half, these encounters came from various old history books, not random websites. That's what this entire debate has become about.

The story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree used to be some history books too, yet that didn't make it true either. And the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Yes, but that's one event that got misinterpreted. However, the accounts of early settlers exhuming 6-7-8 foot long skeletons among ancient burial mounds are multiple different incidents within several different books from several different places (as I have already mentioned). The fact that you are taking these stories as anecdotes without a second thought just because the word "giant" is associated with them is, I'm sorry to say, closed minded. Investigation and the search for truth should not be limited by popular belief.

Here's the way I see it: theories are presented and if some kind of evidence is found that doesn't agree with those theories, the theories should be modified OR the evidence should be dis-proven. The evidence should never be ignored. So lets break this down:

The presented theory:

There were never 7-8 foot tall skeletons exhumed in the history of North America.

Presented evidence to refute this claim:

Several old state county history books record settlers and other early Americans exhuming 7-8 foot tall skeletons from ancient burial mounds.

Sources:

[1] Two skeletons not less than 6 and a half feet tall - "The History of Lawrence and Monroe Counties, Indiana"

[2] Skeleton of "immense size" & Skeleton of "nearly seven feet" - "The History of Ashland County, Ohio"

[3] Large skeleton who's "jaw-bone was found to fit easily over that of a citizen" - "The History of Morrow County and Ohio"

[4] Graves of variable giants & gigantic skeletons with high cheek bones powerful jaws and massive frames - "The History of Brown County, Ohio"

[5] Skeletons of persons of very large size, 6'3" skeleton exhumed & very large human skeleton - "The History of Licking County, Ohio"

[6] Skeleton over 7 feet tall - "The History of Richland County, Ohio"

[7] Skull of remarkable size - "The The History of Darke County, Ohio"

[8] Skeleton 8 feet tall and others 7 feet tall - "History of Lake County, 1902"

Now, lets gather some information:

The main arguments against the records in old history books are:

1) Some of the information is simply not true because old history books can be unreliable.

2) Old newspapers ran bunk articles of "giant skeletons" and, likewise, the history books may have contained bunk information too.

3) Some of the information in old history books was made up of unconfirmed "local lore" and/or was constructed from early peoples diaries.

All of these are good arguments. Lets see what we can figure out with further investigation...

Regarding argument number 1:

The problem with this argument is that no source was given. It was a general statement with no facts to back it up. In order to actually count this argument as proof against my evidence there needs to be some kind of reliable source information. To simply state that old history books were unreliable doesn't make it true. Give me some some reliable proof to this claim and I will count it.

Regarding argument number 2:

I have already explained the differences between old newspapers and history books in an earlier post. A quick recap: newspaper content is highly driven by advertisements. Therefore a newspaper will print literally anything as long as it is compelling enough to get readers, regardless of truth - the more readers, the more advertisements, the more profit. On the other hand, history books are not advertisement driven. They are state and government sanctioned and therefore should most likely have much more reliable information compared to old newspapers.

Regarding argument number 3:

This is probably the most compelling argument, but again there is a lack of source. Where did this belief come from? For the sake of argument, if the information did in fact come from local peoples' diaries, why would they lie in their diaries? Why would they lie to themselves? What do they have to gain from doing that? Harte mentioned a story "about turnips large enough to build a military academy inside of" that "came from an official history book of some county or other out west." Again, where is the source of this information? If the story is in fact in the history book, is it told as a tale or as truth? We need source evidence to back up this claim please.

Temporary Conclusion:

What it is starting to boil down to is that I have provided plenty of links to my source information backing up my claims. All of my sources are from original history books and there are plenty more but I'm not going to spend my entire day writing them all out. If you want to find them do your own research. If anyone wants to be taken seriously in this debate they will need to follow suit and start supplying sources to their claims. Otherwise, their arguments against me are seen as opinionated, not based on fact and therefore cannot be used. I'm totally willing to change my ideas and beliefs but I need the reason to be logical and based on some sort of fact.

EDITS:

I honestly don't understand why anyone is arguing about this. Occasionally, humans are known to grow to 7-8 feet tall. Look at this list of the tallest basketball players. If I went and dug up the entire graveyard where one of them is buried, wouldn't it be logical to think that I would find mostly normal size skeletons and maybe 2 or 3 exceptionally tall skeletons? I'm not talking about fairy tale giants, I'm talking about people who were 7-8 feet tall. Nothing magical, no horns, no magic beans, no golden egg laying goose.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Dr_Acula