Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

ancient fossil giant giants

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
288 replies to this topic

#106    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:16 PM

View PostAvallaine, on 28 September 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

I have no objection to it at all, of course.  Please feel free to appreciate all the evidence you like.  

...And now that I've answered your question, would you do me the courtesy of answering mine?



There's nothing wrong with that.  It's a good thing to know one's own preferences.

But...if someone else would like to discuss a "less meaty" mystery, why can you not simply allow them to do it?  As long as they're not claiming it as irrefutable fact, I fail to see why you should object to it.

Please feel free to appreciate the complete lack of evidence all you like.

The only mystery I've seen is that you and Dr_Acula appear to believe that because something is mentioned in a book that it carries more weight that it does. It's a claim. Nothing more, nothing less and carries no more weight than any other unsupported claim.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#107    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,722 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 28 September 2013 - 09:35 PM

A 7 feel human is a genetic mutation. Though not good at statistics, i would say, the probability of having a 7 feet human is 1 in 100,000.

But the issue here is, Dr. Acula started his post with a link to a psuedo scientific site called mulders world with the title "Reconstruction the Giant Skeleton rediscovered in Loja in Ecuador 19 October 2012." while the other website he linked to, Jason Colavito has debunked it that it was just a theme part attraction in Con Von Daniken's failed theme park.

The woo woo website says that the skeleton is a reconstruction, based on seven fragments. which is purpoted to be around 7 times the size of a normal human being.
If you consider the height of the average human being to be 5 Feet 4 inches. So, 7 times means 37 feet 2 inches ,  which is already explained to be physiologically not feasible.
So, there went his trump card.
So he settles down to 7 feet.
No one is arguing about a 7 feet human.

Acula,  get back on topic and debate on the 37 feet 2 iches giants that you claim to have lived on earth. can you?  Will you?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#108    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:17 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 September 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

One can talk about what's possible all day long and never really get anywhere. Theoretical physicists do it all the time. But being possible does not necessarily make something probable nor likely, even if it's mentioned in print. And we're not really talking about what's possible, since these claims are in print and are not outside the scope of modern understanding, we're talking about what's probably or possibly likely. But without any actual evidence to support same then there's no reason to suggest the latter are indeed true. Which leaves us back at square one with nothing but a claim.

And by your own logic you have nothing but a claim as well.

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 September 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

Solely because something is mentioned in a book isn't a mystery. If that something was indeed true but unexpected, then that would be a mystery. I guess I just prefer my mysteries with a little more meat to them.

You seem to have a very different perspective on what a mystery is.... Out of curiosity, what in particular mysteries do you prefer?

View Postsam12six, on 28 September 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

He said you can't prove a negative. Your response was basically, "Oh yeah? Prove a negative." - really?

For one thing, he said you can't prove a negative.  I did not.  I think that it is true in some debates but not in this one.  If any of the history books I am referencing is actually reporting the same exact story as one of the old newspaper articles (one that is known to be untrue) then it will discredit my source of information which would in turn disprove my claims.

View PostLeonardo, on 28 September 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

You have said yourself that you are aware that history changes, so do any modern history books carry information regarding these giant skeletons and whether they exist in truth or only as a late 19th century 'urban legend'?

If modern history books do not relate these giant skeletons, then that tells you that logically - they never happened.

Good question!  I'll have to look into some modern history books.  I guess since we never hear about it I assumed they probably weren't in newer books but I'll definitely research that.

View PostThe_Spartan, on 28 September 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Acula,  get back on topic and debate on the 37 feet 2 iches giants that you claim to have lived on earth. can you?  Will you?

We already came to the conclusion in the first page or two of this topic that it was physically impossible, lacked credible sources and was therefore was almost certainly false.  I still agree with what we concluded on earlier pages regarding the matter so... there's nothing to debate.  Also, note that I didn't claim 37 foot giants ever lived.  I posted a link to an article and asked for help deciding if it was legit or not.  It turns out we decided it was not.

View PostThe_Spartan, on 28 September 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

So, there went his trump card.
So he settles down to 7 feet.

There was no trump card, lol.  As I said I was asking for help from this site on how legit the story was.  I really don't care that it was false and I'm not the least bit surprised.  As for "settling down to 7 feet," you need to stop assuming.  I came across this alleged 37 foot giant article by chance while researching the 7 foot tall skeletons of mound builders.  So 7 foot skeletons came first.  I only posted the article here out of curiosity and kind of expected it to be false anyway.

EDIT:
Also, once I gather the information I need, I will post a new topic on this subject so you won't have to be so concerned about staying on topic.

Edited by Dr_Acula, 28 September 2013 - 10:18 PM.


#109    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,819 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:53 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Apparently I can't "take humor as it is" and my attempt at sarcasm wasn't understood so I guess I'll have to seriously address this.  If you had even looked at the links I provided as my source documentation you would know that they are NOT alternative history books about UFO's, Annunaki or sinking continents.  You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders so I'm going to assume you DID look at my source links.  This assumption brings me to the conclusion that you made this statement under false pretenses for some reason.  Why?  I can only speculate...

Well, since you /asked/...

Why? Because it was funny. I -- apparently erroneously -- assumed you would look at the title of a book proposing that the Pyramids were constructed from the magic saliva of giant basset hounds from outer space and immediately think, "This cannot possibly be genuine. This is humorous exaggeration." But you didn't. You apparently thought it to be so real you threatened to inform a mod I was shilling said non-existent book. Which is, in fact, much funnier than my poor joke.

Either that, or you've got a more keenly developed sense of irony than me.

What makes it actually significant is the fact your whole argument in this thread depends on your ability to defend your position as a canny reader and critical judge of written historical material. Your apparently genuine belief that a book could exist (and be sold and advertised) extolling magic space basset hounds who use drool as a construction material rather unfortunately undermines that position of canny, critical reader.

...which, sadly, is not at all funny.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#110    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:07 PM

Quote

Out of curiosity, what in particular mysteries do you prefer?

Genetic and cultural related ones, such as:

1)  What was daily life like for people in the British Isles before the influx of R1b subgroups c.6500 BC and subsequent development of farming.

2)  What percentage of genetic material is not the result of interbreeding amongst humans (members of the genus Homo) outside of Africa but is actually the result of either interbreeding amongst groups or splitting from a common ancestor while still in Africa?

3) How many paleolakes were there actually in Eurasia and Africa from the last interglacial period to the end of the Pleistocene.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#111    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:20 PM

View Postjaylemurph, on 28 September 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Well, since you /asked/...

Why? Because it was funny. I -- apparently erroneously -- assumed you would look at the title of a book proposing that the Pyramids were constructed from the magic saliva of giant basset hounds from outer space and immediately think, "This cannot possibly be genuine. This is humorous exaggeration." But you didn't. You apparently thought it to be so real you threatened to inform a mod I was shilling said non-existent book. Which is, in fact, much funnier than my poor joke.

Either that, or you've got a more keenly developed sense of irony than me.

What makes it actually significant is the fact your whole argument in this thread depends on your ability to defend your position as a canny reader and critical judge of written historical material. Your apparently genuine belief that a book could exist (and be sold and advertised) extolling magic space basset hounds who use drool as a construction material rather unfortunately undermines that position of canny, critical reader.

...which, sadly, is not at all funny.

--Jaylemurph

If that's the way you'd like to interpret what happened.  I see it as you being out of arguments so pulling one out of your ass just to try and get in the last word.  It doesn't hold a good case for your character, being an ******* that is.  So good luck with that.  At least at the end of the day I know I'm a good person.  If all you can do is toss out insults then you can kindly leave this discussion.

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 September 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Genetic and cultural related ones, such as:

1)  What was daily life like for people in the British Isles before the influx of R1b subgroups c.6500 BC and subsequent development of farming.

2)  What percentage of genetic material is not the result of interbreeding amongst humans (members of the genus Homo) outside of Africa but is actually the result of either interbreeding amongst groups or splitting from a common ancestor while still in Africa?

3) How many paleolakes were there actually in Eurasia and Africa from the last interglacial period to the end of the Pleistocene.

cormac

I see...  So why are you so worried about this thread?


#112    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,104 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:33 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 24 September 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

I am doing some independent research on the possibility of giants in ancient times.  I ran across an article claiming that some fragments of a human skeleton were found and that the person these bones belonged to would have been seven times larger than the average human...  But, of course, the whole story is debatable.  I'll give you a little info from the two different perspectives on the issue as well as some links:

<snip>


When I read "Klaus Dona" and "Father Crespi", I think of Erich von Däniken clones.

Or better: don't bother.


#113    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,528 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:41 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

If that's the way you'd like to interpret what happened.  I see it as you being out of arguments so pulling one out of your ass just to try and get in the last word.  It doesn't hold a good case for your character, being an ******* that is.  So good luck with that.  At least at the end of the day I know I'm a good person.  If all you can do is toss out insults then you can kindly leave this discussion.



I see...  So why are you so worried about this thread?

I'm not worried about it. I just don't believe in presenting something that's been written in a book as more than it actually is simply due to it being in a book. And past experience has shown that someone at some point will likely read your links and since no verifiable evidence exists for said remains and you see it as some sort of mystery will be like: "Oh my god, there were giants in (insert location here) and they're being covered up by (insert scientific establishment, the government, any BS organization such as the Illuminati) etcetra. You might laugh but I've seen it time and time again.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#114    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,382 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:58 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

As I said I was asking for help from this site on how legit the story was. .

It would be hoped that you have had the time to study the cultural/temporal/genetic information previously supplied.

In more specific regards to the various osteological analyses of representatives of eastern North American cultural manifestations from the late Archaic through the late pre-contact period, the bulk of this information will be found in white papers which general readers may not be familiar with. To very briefly condense some of these papers:

Writing in respect to the moundbuilder "giant myth", Iscan and Kessel observe the following:

In contrast, there are no osteological analysis of the data to support these claims...Results indicate that at an average height under 170 cm, these people were definitely not giants (Iscan and Kessel 1997:76).

To further elaborate:

The research of Webb and Snow indicated that the mean male height amongst the Adena culture was 168 cm (5' 6"), while the mean amongst the later Hopewell Interaction Sphere was 170.2 cm (Webb and Snow 1979:28 in Iscan and Kessel 1997:76). The most extreme account was by Dragoo (1963:72 in Iscan and Kessel 1997). This account refers to a representative of the Adena culture calculated to have been 188 cm in stature (7' 2"). Unfortunately, as noted by Iscan and Kessel, Dragoo provided no further critical data.

The analyses of the recoveries from the Kubinski Mound (Hopewell) indicated a mean male stature of 167.8 cm (5' 6") with a maximum of 183 cm (6") (Pestle et al 2007:58).

Recent further refinements of the osteological regression tables utilized in stature determinations that more accurately reflect the morphologies of the eastern Archaic/Woodland cultures have been conducted (Fully, Raxter et al). The analyses of 201 individuals spanning a time period from the late Archaic to the late pre-contact period indicates that the males of the moundbuilding period attained a maximum mean stature of 169.7 cm (5' 7") (Sciulli and Hetland 2007:111,112).

In total, the skeletal remains of literally hundreds of individuals recovered from moundbuilder sites have been forensically evaluated. As evidenced by the above, there would appear to be no indications of a cultural component that did not fall well within the realms of normal morphology.

As previously noted by contributors, "histories" of the period that you have been utilizing are not without their flaws. And, as you have noted, the state of preservation can certainly be a factor.

One additional aspect that should be seriously considered is the state of archaeological/bioanthropological/forensic research during the time period under consideration.

Following are the references cited above plus one additional. Three of these will require establishing a free JSTOR account that will allow you to read (but not download) the references. Enjoy.

http://www.as.miami.... et al 2007.pdf

http://www.clas.ufl..../Braun 1979.pdf

http://www.jstor.org...howAccess=false

http://www.jstor.org...howAccess=false

http://www.jstor.org...=21102693720437



.


#115    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,008 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:01 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

The article you linked has absolutely no citations or even an explanation as to where it originated.

No, I have been stating that I believe that these records are possibly true...  So, who is misinterpreting who here?

The books actually only referenced a large number of unusually tall skeletons in a condensed area once that I can recall.  The rest recorded only two or three unusually tall skeletons among several regular sized skeletons.  The thing is, I never said that I believe this to be true and factual.  I believe it is possible because it is recorded in these historical books and it lies within the realm of science and the observable reality that people can be as tall as these alleged skeletons.  The reason I'm continuing to research this subject is because I am trying to find more evidence to support the idea that these records may be accurate, while everyone else is seeming to just push them aside.  If I am wrong in my allegation then tell me what research you have done on this in particular subject and what your conclusions were and why.  If you do that it wont look as though you are automatically discrediting it as I have stated in previous posts.

As for finding the bones, it's not as easy as that.  If they are in archaeological storage somewhere, which I assume they probably are, I can't simply walk in and start rummaging through everything trying to find them.

I am still researching this.  I am having trouble pinpointing the names of the authors and dates.  If I do I will post the results here.

Therein lies the problem neither your source nor mine seems to have any backing evidence as to the claim. You seem to see the problem clearer in what I posted than in what you posted.

I know that the issue is that you wonder if the claims in the book are true. A good position to take. You on the other hand have made specific claims about what I stated and the thread shows you have made unwarranted inferences about my posts. No problem as long as that is now understood. It seems to be.

Posters here are not "pushing them aside". They are pointing out that there are reasons to believe that the reports may not be correct and that the simple solution is to find the physical evidence - the bones.

I and others have already posted why we would be skeptical of the statements in the book. You seem to think that is discrediting the book. Not at all. Posters including myself are saying to take these statements with a grain of salt.

Now you get to the real issue which is finding the bones. Sometimes the book will state where the bones ended up. Sometimes they do not. Sometimes they claim the existence of bones when the area in question is only known for its cremation burial mounds. Sometimes you can learn that the bones ended up being sold to a carnival show because that is what earned money for a town. Sometimes they end up in the state museum or in the hands of wealthy collectors. That is what happened to mammoth teeth found in Saltville, VA. They ended up in the possession of Thomas Jefferson.

Does this book describe where the bones ended up?


#116    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,819 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:50 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 28 September 2013 - 11:20 PM, said:

If that's the way you'd like to interpret what happened.  I see it as you being out of arguments so pulling one out of your ass just to try and get in the last word.  It doesn't hold a good case for your character, being an ******* that is.  So good luck with that.

I don't think anyone here would confirm my good character, thank you.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#117    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:55 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 28 September 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

Please feel free to appreciate the complete lack of evidence all you like.

Ah.  So you don't have the courtesy to answer my question.  Well, that's that, then.

Quote

The only mystery I've seen is that you and Dr_Acula appear to believe that because something is mentioned in a book that it carries more weight that it does.

Me?  I only believe that a book from the era in question deserves more consideration than a newspaper from that time - depending, of course, on the nature of the book and where its information reportedly comes from.  Whereas you seem to judge all publications by one standard - that of the common newspaper hoax.  I just object to the blatant flaw in your reasoning.

I don't actually have an opinion about seven-foot skeletons in early America or the validity of accounts of same.  As I mentioned before, I haven't looked at the specific books in question, and, in the absence of information, I refrain from forming an opinion.  You, however, with the very same absence of information, have somehow formed a strong opinion.  Where I come from, they call that a "preconceived notion," and that, I do have a problem with, as a matter of principle...at least from someone who claims to be an advocate of truth.


Quote

It's a claim. Nothing more, nothing less and carries no more weight than any other unsupported claim.

And just how much "weight" must exist for something to be speculated on by interested laypersons in a discussion forum online, in your opinion?


#118    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,529 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:58 AM

Dr_Acula, as someone acquainted with historical research over the past 25 years, I fully understand the skepticism shared by other posters. A strong peripheral interest of mine is paleopathology and I have expended significant time over the years reading books and case studies on the archaeology of human remains. Not once have I seen a vetted archaeologist, paleopathologist, Egyptologist, or other specialist bring up a single case study on giants. For this reason alone I do indeed dismiss the notion of a race of giants in ancient times.

This isn't to say archaeologists have not on occasion encountered the skeletal remains of unusually tall individuals, but these individuals would be the exception. The biomechanics of the human body alone make gigantism a life-shortening and disabling condition, so one would not expect to see a race of giants. Considering the wealth of ancient human remains that have been studied throughout the world, and the fact that in most cases in ancient times an average fully grown male wasn't much more than about 5'3" tall, the idea of a race of giants is simply unrealistic.

Other posters are most certainly correct that just because something appears in a book it doesn't mean the thing mentioned is a formal record—it is an historical account, and not necessarily accurate. I've read of numerous cases where the height of an ancient individual based on skeletal remains was grossly exaggerated because the person assessing the remains did not even possess the requisite skills and training to make the assessment correctly.

So an appearance in a book does not necessarily equate fact. Let's be clear on that. I reviewed your links in the earlier post and see they're almost all local histories, and I know from my own research and writing experience that local histories can be remarkably inaccurate—especially very old ones.

There are certain things that are critical to understand when you're reading about such things:
  • Is the book published by a reputable firm with a respected history in historical studies?
  • Are the folks who discovered these remains properly trained archaeologists who know how to assess their findings?
  • Was the dig properly recorded, diagramed, and (preferably, depending on the period) photographed?
  • Was the excavation properly reported to a relevant university or institute?
  • Does the book mention where a given set of bones is today (university, museum, et cetera)?
If you answered no to one or more of these questions, you can be comfortable in deciding that the book you're reading might well not be credible through and through. Consider that the bones of an actual giant human would be an archaeological marvel, and would be known in the archaeological and historical community. Nothing is being hidden, and nothing of this nature would be stored away in a museum's overstorage and completely forgotten. Even if the bones were exceedingly friable and did not survive the excavation (which can happen, I agree), a properly trained digger would've fully documented, diagramed, and photographed the discovery.

Anything short of that...well, you're reading about something that isn't reliable on the face of it. You're reading stories.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#119    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,529 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:00 AM

I nearly forgot and wanted to add that I have a close friend at the museum who did a lot of digging in various mound sites in her younger years. She came across quite a few skeletal remains. Not one was of a giant.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#120    Avallaine

Avallaine

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined:07 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 29 September 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Dr_Acula, as someone acquainted with historical research over the past 25 years, I fully understand the skepticism shared by other posters. A strong peripheral interest of mine is paleopathology and I have expended significant time over the years reading books and case studies on the archaeology of human remains...<snip the rest, though quite worth reading>

Very well said.

Cormac?  Please take note of kmt_sesh's post.  That is how to make a skeptical statement worth listening to.  He states his experience with the subject, is polite and thorough, and most of all, he gives specific details, especially listing actual traits to look for in source documents that add to or detract from their believability, rather than dismissing them all sight unseen.






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users