530 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

As a note on the "giant mummy finger", has anybody noticed the "bone" at the base (in the upper right of the four photos)? It doesn't look like a millennia-old mummified bone to me... I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on mummification, but it doesn't look like bone, particularly in the way it's broken of. At the very least, it looks as though it's been tampered with; though it's more probable that it outright betrays a wholesale fabrication. What's visible of the 'interior' of the "bone" in particular doesn't look at all like the interior of a human bone.

I'd also be keenly interested to know where these people claim that the rest of this "giant" mummy went... I mean, it would be rather odd to find just a mummified finger, wouldn't it? Where's the rest of it's body suppose to be?

[Mangoze]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

As a note on the "giant mummy finger", has anybody noticed the "bone" at the base (in the upper right of the four photos)? It doesn't look like a millennia-old mummified bone to me... I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on mummification, but it doesn't look like bone, particularly in the way it's broken of. At the very least, it looks as though it's been tampered with; though it's more probable that it outright betrays a wholesale fabrication. What's visible of the 'interior' of the "bone" in particular doesn't look at all like the interior of a human bone.

I'd also be keenly interested to know where these people claim that the rest of this "giant" mummy went... I mean, it would be rather odd to find just a mummified finger, wouldn't it? Where's the rest of it's body suppose to be?

It seems you're not Robinson Crusoe regarding the bone.

...

Now, call me crazy but that bone sticking out looks a lot more like wood than bone to me. I mean, from what I understand, bone doesn’t have a grain pattern. Of course, I could be seeing things and I’m not here to debunk this story today…if that’s OK with our readers?

...

http://www.ghosttheo...-found-in-egypt

What is the usual length of a finger nail, relative the length from the tip the knuckle - is it usually about half the length?  Does the nail in this photo look a little small, or am I seeing things?

[Eldorado]

Mangoze, on 14 October 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

It seems you're not Robinson Crusoe regarding the bone.

Robinson Crusoe?  (am confused but that ain't easy... could you explain, please?)

Edited by Eldorado, 14 October 2012 - 12:50 PM.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Eldorado, on 14 October 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Robinson Crusoe?  (am confused but that ain't easy... could you explain, please?)

I think he means as in your not alone with that sentiment.

[Eldorado]

tipsy_munchkin, on 14 October 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

I think he means as in your not alone with that sentiment.

Thanks, Tipsy.  Is that a common phrase?  (am losing my mind methinks.. I used to know stuff)

[tipsy_munchkin]

Eldorado, on 14 October 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Thanks, Tipsy.  Is that a common phrase?  (am losing my mind methinks.. I used to know stuff)

No it had me confused too. Took me a few mins and google to work it out.

[meryt-tetisheri]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

As a note on the "giant mummy finger", has anybody noticed the "bone" at the base (in the upper right of the four photos)? It doesn't look like a millennia-old mummified bone to me... I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on mummification, but it doesn't look like bone, particularly in the way it's broken of. At the very least, it looks as though it's been tampered with; though it's more probable that it outright betrays a wholesale fabrication. What's visible of the 'interior' of the "bone" in particular doesn't look at all like the interior of a human bone.

I'd also be keenly interested to know where these people claim that the rest of this "giant" mummy went... I mean, it would be rather odd to find just a mummified finger, wouldn't it? Where's the rest of it's body suppose to be?

According to the article posted by Mangoze, the finger was discovered not far from Cairo, my guess is Kerdassa judging from the material of the cushions in the picture which is a typical craft of the place. This kind of material is woven there and sold in the numerous tourist bazaars of Kerdassa. It is not commonly used by Egyptians. This makes me suspect that the 'finger' is also aimed at tourists, a wild guess but...Also, the white cloth underneath it, though dirty, is too intact & white to be an ancient piece of material supposedly predating dynastic kings of Egypt (or even dynastic kings for that)!

I also wonder why would a 'professional' tomb robber, whose 'skill' is passed on from one generation to the other, would be content with chopping off one finger and leaving the rest of the mummy? After all these 'professionals' rob tombs to sell whatever they find, they do not do it to build personal collections for their own satisfaction! If such a stupendous mummy has been sold in bits & pieces, or even whole, it would have somehow been publicized.

Everything screams hoax, or the egyptologists and all their collaborators though willing to lie about every aspect of their discipline, have maintained an amazingly strict code of ethics; despite all the competition and the temptation of fame and fortune, not one leak! I wonder if 'men in black' will show here soon

[Mangoze]

@ Eldorado, tipsy_munchkin

I'm sorry for the confusion.  I thought it was a common saying.

[Eldorado]

Mangoze, on 14 October 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

@ Eldorado, tipsy_munchkin

I'm sorry for the confusion.  I thought it was a common saying.

My apologies, sir.  I could've worked it out if i'd taken a moment to think.  (am only on my second cup of tea of the day)  

[Mangoze]

Eldorado, on 14 October 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

My apologies, sir.  I could've worked it out if i'd taken a moment to think.  (am only on my second cup of tea of the day)  

Hey, no worries.  It just never even occurred to me that the saying, surprisingly - at least to me - might be Australian in origin.

[tipsy_munchkin]

Mangoze, on 14 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Hey, no worries.  It just never even occurred to me that the saying, surprisingly - at least to me - might be Australian in origin.

Its fine sitting and figuring it out was a welcome distraction from revision. As is writing this reply. Always good to learn new sayings.

On topic the lack of verifiable information on the mummy fingers seems to indicate something isn't quite legitimate.

Edited by tipsy_munchkin, 14 October 2012 - 04:14 PM.

[cladking]

This isn't enough to account for the finger but according to Manetho (per Budge)
Neferka-seker (Sesochris) of the second dynasty was 5 cubits tall and three cubits
wide.  Budge does not state the means by which this was known since Manetho's
writings are lost.

Mummys of Egypt - Budge pg 26

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 14 October 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

This isn't enough to account for the finger but according to Manetho (per Budge)
Neferka-seker (Sesochris) of the second dynasty was 5 cubits tall and three cubits
wide.  Budge does not state the means by which this was known since Manetho's
writings are lost.

Mummys of Egypt - Budge pg 26

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Which would have made Sesochris 8 foot, 4 inches tall and 5 foot wide (using a 20 inch cubit). One has to wonder how he'd manage to lift himself. Especially since Robert Wadlow at 8 foot, 11.1 inches tall was nowhere near that wide and his size was effectively crushing his legs, ankles and feet.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 14 October 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

As a note on the "giant mummy finger", has anybody noticed the "bone" at the base (in the upper right of the four photos)? It doesn't look like a millennia-old mummified bone to me... I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on mummification, but it doesn't look like bone, particularly in the way it's broken of. At the very least, it looks as though it's been tampered with; though it's more probable that it outright betrays a wholesale fabrication. What's visible of the 'interior' of the "bone" in particular doesn't look at all like the interior of a human bone.

I'd also be keenly interested to know where these people claim that the rest of this "giant" mummy went... I mean, it would be rather odd to find just a mummified finger, wouldn't it? Where's the rest of it's body suppose to be?

I am in agreement, Arbitran, that it doesn't even resemble bone. It seems more like wood or plastic.

I've worked around mummies for a long time now and have seen my share of ancient bones. I'm not an expert either, but many conditions contribute to coloration of ancient bones. If the bone is sheathed in soft tissue for millennia and kept safe from soil and other contaminants, it often remains surprisingly white. But if the bone is exposed to any one of different outside contaminants, it can easily discolor. This "finger" was supposed to be the heirloom of an "unnamed old man with a history of grave robbing" (source), so I'd have to imagine that such an heirloom kept in less than clinical surroundings might cause discoloration to the exposed "bone."

There. That's my nod to the fringe. If you look into the sources on the internet where this finger is mentioned, none seem to be reputable scientific sources. Many of the links are for alternative sites as well as personal blogs and message boards. That alone should make one suspicious of the whole thing. There's also the image of the "X-ray" of the finger, which seems conveniently and suspiciously blurry. If it's even a real X-ray, there's no reason to suspect it's of the "giant" finger. Supposedly the "unnamed old man with a history of grave robbing" had it X-rayed, but a visit to Google images with the keywords "finger X-rays" shows how easy it would be to obtain the raw material to Photoshop the image for the hoax.

The short of it is, unless this supposed finger is submitted to a legitimate lab for proper analysis and imaging, and subsequently reported in a reputable journal or periodical, it need no be considered as anything other than what it appears to be at first glance: a silly hoax.

All that is required to understand the facts behind the hoax is a bit of common sense as well as some critical thinking. Sadly, not everyone is equipped to apply these basic skills.

[Quaentum]

DieChecker, on 14 October 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

This one I've not quite figured out yet. But, I have seen other pics where those bills (money) are larger, and that makes me think that some of the pictures of these giant fingers are photoshopped also.

It's clearly a fake.  the "bone" sticking out the end and the one along the length of the figure have a decided look of wood and the supposed x-ray attached to the last image is not the same finger as the one on the furniture since it doesn't have the same angle at the last knuckle as the supposed finger does.

As far as the money, since it's an obvious fake, they could have built it large or they could have built it smaller and just printed a smaller version of a scanned bill.