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

#1    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 24 September 2013 - 10:45 PM

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:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador.  Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods".  Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study.  Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being.  A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed.  The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy...  Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils.  He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton.  To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums.  They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils.  Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find.  Is it real?  Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results?  Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please.  If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up.  Thanks!


#2    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,780 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 24 September 2013 - 11:06 PM

You should be aware that historically (and depending upon location, currently) newspapers were known to create stories out of whole cloth to increase sales. They can be slightly to spectacularly untrustworthy. You'd be better off contacting the Smithsonian directly to see what they might or might not hold.

--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

#3    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 24 September 2013 - 11:16 PM

 jaylemurph, on 24 September 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

You should be aware that historically (and depending upon location, currently) newspapers were known to create stories out of whole cloth to increase sales. They can be slightly to spectacularly untrustworthy. You'd be better off contacting the Smithsonian directly to see what they might or might not hold.

--Jaylemurph

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify... The article I read is from within the past year, not a historical thing.


#4    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,428 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 24 September 2013 - 11:34 PM

 Dr_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:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador.  Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods".  Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study.  Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being.  A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed.  The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy...  Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils.  He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton.  To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums.  They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils.  Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find.  Is it real?  Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results?  Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please.  If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up.  Thanks!

It should be brought to your attention that the Square-Cube law shows that this would not be possible since as one increases in size (2X, 3X, etcetra) their weight is cubed. Meaning that a person who is 2X the size of a normal human weighs 8X more, 3X in height becomes 27X more in weight. The human skeletal frame and musculature was not designed to sustain such weights on only 2 legs. Robert Wadlow at 8 foot, 11.1 inches tall at his tallest is a good example. His size was essentially crushing his legs and ankles, which led to leg-braces, an infection because of that leading to his death.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/SquareCubeLaw

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 24 September 2013 - 11:36 PM.

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

#5    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 24 September 2013 - 11:56 PM

 cormac mac airt, on 24 September 2013 - 11:34 PM, said:

It should be brought to your attention that the Square-Cube law shows that this would not be possible since as one increases in size (2X, 3X, etcetra) their weight is cubed. Meaning that a person who is 2X the size of a normal human weighs 8X more, 3X in height becomes 27X more in weight. The human skeletal frame and musculature was not designed to sustain such weights on only 2 legs. Robert Wadlow at 8 foot, 11.1 inches tall at his tallest is a good example. His size was essentially crushing his legs and ankles, which led to leg-braces, an infection because of that leading to his death.

http://tvtropes.org/...n/SquareCubeLaw

cormac

That's very interesting, thanks for the comment.  I have actually read a little on the Square-Cube law.  I don't quite understand, for instance, if something doubles it's size how it could weigh 4X as much as it used to... Logically one would assume it weighs double.  But, I'm not a mathematician, the concept just slightly confuses me.

However, for the sake of argument, I could theorize that this giant may have been a different species yet also was a member of the genus homo.  Therefore it could have had a bodily structure that could handle it's gigantic weight, as it would have evolved to have such.

As a side note: the sarcocuchus was a genus of crocodyliform (crocodile) from prehistoric times.  It was huge and weighed around 8 tonnes.  It looked much like an overgrown crocodile.  That makes me assume that a giant human-looking species is a plausible idea.

Edited by Dr_Acula, 25 September 2013 - 12:04 AM.


#6    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,428 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:09 AM

Anything approaching the size of the alleged human giants you're talking about would not be recognizable as human. Also, Sarcosuchus was four-legged not two. That makes all the difference.

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

#7    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:15 AM

 cormac mac airt, on 25 September 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

Anything approaching the size of the alleged human giants you're talking about would not be recognizable as human. Also, Sarcosuchus was four-legged not two. That makes all the difference.

cormac

Could you elaborate on why anything the size I'm suggesting would not be recognizable as human?  How did you come to that conclusion?  I'm not disputing it or saying that you are wrong; I would just like more information so that I can understand the logic behind your statement.

Good call, I wasn't thinking about the fact that sarcosuchus was four-legged.  What about giant dinosaurs that walked on two legs?

Edited by Dr_Acula, 25 September 2013 - 12:22 AM.


#8    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,428 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:26 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 25 September 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

Could you elaborate on why anything the size I'm suggesting would not be recognizable as human?  How did you come to that conclusion?  I'm not disputing it or saying that you are wrong; I would just like more information so that I can understand the logic behind your statement.

Good call, I wasn't thinking about the fact that sarcosuchus was four-legged.

Take a good look at actual gigantic, two legged creatures. Some dinosaurs for instance. Notice how comparatively massive a T-Rex's leg bones are. They have to be that massive in order to support its weight, which is some 7.5 tons. Also notice that its body is balanced front to back over the legs, which means that its full weight is not directly over the legs, which is something it would not be likely to handle.

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

#9    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,866 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:34 AM

You asked about the square-cube law. The idea is fairly easy to understand. Let's represent a person with a slab so that the math is easy. Let's make the slab 200cm tall, 80cm across and 30cm deep. If we double the height of the slab we have a slab that is 400cm tall. At the same time we maintain the proportions of the slab and it becomes 160cm across and 60cm deep. Each dimension has been doubled. The first slab has a volume 200cm times 80cm times 30cm. The larger slab is the same volume times 2 times 2 times 2. The doubling in height has increased the volume by 2 cubed. The weight is proportional to the volume so the weight is 8 times as much.

A person 7 times as tall weights 7 cubed or 243 times as much.

I took a look at the story and it has many of the properties of a hoax. The skeleton is destined for Europe, but the researchers are from the US. Notice that the discoverer is mentioned but not the people that authenticated the bones. They mention people doing tv shows, but not the researchers. They claim that 7 researchers validated these as human. Not one name is mentioned.

Then an Alex Putney is mentioned. I did an online search for this person and the name only appears as part of this event and some other questionable issues.

Here is a link to this scientist.
http://thestarnation...y/solar-flares/

Here is another.
http://information-m...nipulation.html

OK. So the named scientist is not a scientist.

It's a pretty obvious hoax.


#10    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,288 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:41 AM

 Dr_Acula, on 24 September 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify... The article I read is from within the past year, not a historical thing.
I can't find any reference to a Loja giant skeleton before September 3rd 2013. Which seems strange to me if this is real.

Apparently it was dug up, scientifically examined, reconstructed and sold to an amusement park in less then a Year? And not one scientific paper or article was written?

That too sounds strange to me.

Here is another picture....
Posted Image

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#11    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:49 AM

 cormac mac airt, on 25 September 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

Take a good look at actual gigantic, two legged creatures. Some dinosaurs for instance. Notice how comparatively massive a T-Rex's leg bones are. They have to be that massive in order to support its weight, which is some 7.5 tons. Also notice that its body is balanced front to back over the legs, which means that its full weight is not directly over the legs, which is something it would not be likely to handle.

cormac

Ok, I see what you mean.  I'll have to look more into anatomy of large animals before I can completely understand how a giant person would have been impossible but you pointed me in a good direction for more research.  Thanks!

 stereologist, on 25 September 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

You asked about the square-cube law. The idea is fairly easy to understand. Let's represent a person with a slab so that the math is easy. Let's make the slab 200cm tall, 80cm across and 30cm deep. If we double the height of the slab we have a slab that is 400cm tall. At the same time we maintain the proportions of the slab and it becomes 160cm across and 60cm deep. Each dimension has been doubled. The first slab has a volume 200cm times 80cm times 30cm. The larger slab is the same volume times 2 times 2 times 2. The doubling in height has increased the volume by 2 cubed. The weight is proportional to the volume so the weight is 8 times as much.

A person 7 times as tall weights 7 cubed or 243 times as much.

I took a look at the story and it has many of the properties of a hoax. The skeleton is destined for Europe, but the researchers are from the US. Notice that the discoverer is mentioned but not the people that authenticated the bones. They mention people doing tv shows, but not the researchers. They claim that 7 researchers validated these as human. Not one name is mentioned.

Then an Alex Putney is mentioned. I did an online search for this person and the name only appears as part of this event and some other questionable issues.

Here is a link to this scientist.
http://thestarnation...y/solar-flares/

Here is another.
http://information-m...nipulation.html

OK. So the named scientist is not a scientist.

It's a pretty obvious hoax.

I was also speculating if it would turn out to be a hoax because, as you said, no names were really mentioned of the scientists who examined it.  Thanks, and also thanks for explaining the square-cube law.

 DieChecker, on 25 September 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

I can't find any reference to a Loja giant skeleton before September 3rd 2013. Which seems strange to me if this is real.

Here is a link to the original article translated from Spanish.  The date says Dec. 29, 2010.  But even so, if someone had a discovery like that why would they sell it to an amusement park?  Sounds fishy to me.

- http://translate.goo...l?m=1&sandbox=1

Edited by Dr_Acula, 25 September 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#12    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 17,288 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:51 AM

I found this...

Quote

Archaeology: The Pastor Father Carlos Miguel Vaca A, amateur archaeologist, who kept his museum there and were photographed and studied as the "Father Museum Cow". It had become custodian of bones found on the property of Luis Guaman. To his good looks armed and drawn parts believed to find a giant human 7m. Also referred to a giant cemetery in a place called "The Waterfall". Someday science will tell what species are the remains found.

It is translated from here....
http://es.wikipedia....iki/Changaimina

I tried Search Engine searches on some of the people and places in that quote, but found nothing useful.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#13    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,380 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 September 2013 - 12:58 AM

 Dr_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:

Apparently the skeleton fragments were found in Loja, Ecuador.  Several bones and fragments were found on a site named "Changaiminas" which translates to "cemetery of the gods".  Some of the fragments were sent to the Smithsonian Institution for further study.  Seven fragments were investigated by seven different scientists and anatomists have confirmed that they are part of a human skeleton of seven times the size of a modern human being.  A full reconstruction of what the skeleton may have looked like has been completed.  The project took eight months to complete.

- http://www.mulderswo...oto.asp?id=3379

On the other hand...

The giant skeleton was reconstructed for use in a tourist attraction called Mystery Park located in Switzerland, which sadly kind of takes the entire story of the bones out of the realm of serious science and archaeology and into the realm of fantasy...  Also, in this opposing article the author states that no anatomists studied the bones.

- The author of the link I'm about to provide writes a few stupid things such as "Honestly, they look like rocks to me," regarding the recovered bones, and to that I say - no ****; they're fossils.  He also continues to remind the reader that the reconstructed skeleton is a fake skeleton.  To that, again, I say: no ****; neither are probably 90% of the dinosaur fossils in museums.  They are mostly all replicas based on the original fossils.  Anyway, here's the link:

- http://www.jasoncola...f-of-bible.html

Now, the reason I am creating this post is because I need more information on this find.  Is it real?  Have fragments actually been sent to the Smithsonian Institute and if so what are the results?  Have they actually been studied by anatomists and/or scientists?

Any more information about this would be very helpful!

In closing, I am not a young-earth creationist and I would like to keep spiritual beliefs and faith (which has nothing to do with science) out of the comments please.  If you are going to comment, make sure that you are commenting with cold hard facts and links/citations to back them up.  Thanks!

An admittedly brief search did not result in any credible information in regards to your query, though it should be noted that there is simply no credible paleo-anthropological/bio-anth support for a "race of giants". Particularly of the scale proposed in your references (which should hardly be considered to be scientifically astute).

In addition to the initial references themselves (which do not include such specifics as the Smithsonian researchers), do be cautious (!) of any source that applies "credentials" to the likes of Klaus Dona (easily referenced) or Alex Putney (see below). While my command of the Spanish language is not accomplished, there would also appear to be some problems with the "interpretations" of Father Vaca.

http://www.disclose....ess-t65912.html






Given the current lack of  credible information, would be most leery of these claims.

Edit: Format

Edited by Swede, 25 September 2013 - 01:06 AM.


#14    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 25 September 2013 - 01:19 AM

Yeah, it seems like this is probably a hoax... Thanks for the help.  I usually wouldn't believe a story of a person standing almost 30 feet tall but I do believe certain races of men were 7-10 feet tall.  There is actual historical evidence to back that up but that's a completely different topic.  Thanks again everyone.


#15    qxcontinuum

qxcontinuum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,436 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:in between

  • The age of stupid is upon us. Scientific conclusions are drawn from missing data, resuming to suppositions and guessing.

Posted 25 September 2013 - 04:37 AM

There are numerous encounters with giants in ancient times. I don't deny their existance. At 6.9 feet tall and some interesting characteristics including rh negative blood I could be a descendent of them. :)

Bible is full of stories of their presence and lets not forget that bible first is a great historic book then religious.

Here is if you would like to read more http://www.greatdrea...tlan/giants.htm

Genesis 6;
6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Edited by qxcontinuum, 25 September 2013 - 04:45 AM.






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users