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

#31    HeathenRoyalty

HeathenRoyalty

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male

  • "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." -Hunter S. Thompson

Posted 26 September 2013 - 05:59 AM

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.


#32    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 12:59 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 26 September 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

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.co...me/fivedays.asp

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

Edited by stereologist, 26 September 2013 - 01:14 PM.


#33    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:23 PM

View Postjaylemurph, on 26 September 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

...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.

View PostHeathenRoyalty, on 26 September 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

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.

View Poststereologist, on 26 September 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

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.


#34    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:28 PM

View PostDr_Acula, on 26 September 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

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

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

#35    margiel

margiel

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2013

Posted 26 September 2013 - 01:32 PM

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


#36    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:08 PM

Quote

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.


#37    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:27 PM

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?


#38    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 36,211 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 26 September 2013 - 03:29 PM

View Poststereologist, on 26 September 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#39    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,492 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:31 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 26 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

.

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 by Swede, 27 September 2013 - 12:34 AM.


#40    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,818 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:41 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 26 September 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

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:

Quote

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

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#41    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,818 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:47 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 26 September 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

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

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#42    ExplainInTheAss

ExplainInTheAss

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:12 AM

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


#43    Dr_Acula

Dr_Acula

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 27 September 2013 - 02:56 AM

View PostHarte, on 27 September 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Are you thinking I didn't read the article?

No, of course I'm not thinking that.

View PostHarte, on 27 September 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

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.

View PostHarte, on 27 September 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

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******.

View PostHarte, on 27 September 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

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.

View PostHarte, on 27 September 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

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...

View Postcormac mac airt, on 26 September 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.

View Poststereologist, on 26 September 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

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.

View PostSwede, on 27 September 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

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.


#44    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:11 AM

View PostDr_Acula, on 27 September 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

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

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

#45    stereologist

stereologist

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,866 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:40 AM

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.






Also tagged with ancient, fossil, giant, giants

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users