Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Dr_Acula

Skeleton Fragments of a Giant Found?

289 posts in this topic

I would like to add a little story here. I have traveled to ancient sites in the world - certainly not as many as I'd like to visit. One of the first things we learned was that we needed to be able to talk openly in front of guides without offending them. We invented the word "geeding". If someone in the group thought that the guide was telling us a question issue about the site we might remark, "Oh, geeding." Others could respond with "yes, geeding" or "maybe geeding" or something similar.

I recall that we were at a site outside of Karnak in Egypt and I was still puzzled about these grooves in the monuments. There were often 2 or 3 parallel grooves across pillars. I asked a fellow traveler about the grooves and someone from a tour group came over to tell us that the grooves were made my people praying. They would scratch and scratch at the stone until months or years later they had made a groove. And those up high were made when the sand had blown in around the ruins. I told my wife "ahhh ... geeding" We already knew that many of the marks had V-shaped cross sections. Human fingers cannot fit into those grooves. The point of geeding by the guides is to be able to answer questions so that the tour group provides a big tip. If a guide says they do not know then the tip is much smaller.

What this story is about is that there are often reasons for making statements. It sells newspapers. It also sells books. It can also turn a typical burial mound into a more interesting place to visit. Think for a moment how you might bring travelers to your town and you can probably come up with reasons for embellishing.

I'm not saying it did happen in the case of these burials mounds. All I can suggest is why there are records of many human remains of tall people, and those remains are no longer available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add a little story here. I have traveled to ancient sites in the world...One of the first things we learned was that we needed to be able to talk openly in front of guides without offending them. We invented the word "geeding". If someone in the group thought that the guide was telling us a question issue about the site we might remark, "Oh, geeding." Others could respond with "yes, geeding" or "maybe geeding" or something similar....The point of geeding by the guides is to be able to answer questions so that the tour group provides a big tip. If a guide says they do not know then the tip is much smaller....

Fascinating! I think I need to adopt that word - it fills a definite need. Did you coin it by combining "guiding" and "feeding" (as in, hand-feeding) or some such?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unclear about how it was invented, but I have a vague recollection that it was a mispronunciation of guide. So instead of saying that they were guiding us, they were geeding us.

I remember one in the US. A guide at the tobacco museum in North Carolina had a story about tobacco pouches and men's underwear that did not seem plausible. We asked another guide and they knew who the person was. The guide was known for getting laughs out of the tour groups by making up fanciful embellishments.

I too have to admit that I have done that. In a previous lifetime I was doing some rock climbing at Devil's Tower. People would ask us if we made it to the top and when I tried to explain that we stopped at the lower angle weathered cap they would say, "Oh too bad." We learned to say yes and then they went away happy. Some people would ask what was on top. We told the truth at first. "It's just like the land down here, but no trees or prairie dogs." That was not what people wanted to hear. So a climbing partner told people that the Tower was hollow and rainwater had filled it to form a small lake. He went on to tell them that the park service did not want pitons used since that could cause a leak. You should have seen the amazed and happy faces when that geeding was told to them. I refrained from telling the hollow Tower story, but I did not stop the telling of this tall tale. There might be people out there today telling their friends they had eyewitness reports that Devil's Tower has a hidden lake on its summit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I had thought that all the remaining mounds were Federally protected? Was this years and years ago, or does digging still occur on individual mounds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's supposed to be some ancient skeleton, why did the guy die sitting on a barrel in a modern (if you consider the 1970s modern) building? Huh? Huh?

PS

If you insist on continuing to advertise your computer die thingys on this forum, I'll be forced to report you for spam.

Supposedly the bones came from a farmer over 100 years ago who dug them up and traded them for treatment. The bones then were kept by the doctor till he died. They then ended up wired together in a nightclub, and eventually moved next door to the restaurant.

Various experts have looked at them and noted they could be 300+ years old. A DNA test would tell for sure the ethnicity.

:yes:

Do you want some die-thingys? There're cheap and I give them out to just about anyone. Call it a bribe......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WeAny landbound creature that tall will have serious hydraulic problems trying to pump blood around it's system. It's too tall to live with a ribcage the size shown in the reconstruction, it's too small for the very large heart it will need.

I agree. Even a biped like a Tyranosaurous has it's head only a little more then three times as high as a human. A tyranosaur might be able to reach 35 feet tall, but it is designed a lot different then a slim human figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have to admit that I have done that.

...my summer job in college was in the Outer Banks of NC, pretending to be a 16th Century soldier. We did it /all/ the time. We made a game of seeing who could make up the most ridiculous story and sell as real to the tourist.

A particular favorite was telling about the dwarf elephants of Roanoke Island, that the English colonists hunted to extinction. You'd run them through with a pike, flip them over on it to break their back, and then use halberds to cut up the carcass.

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get that impression, but how we react to what others say is going to vary. I felt more like he was trying to be a little dishonest in his characterization of the rebuttal that was posted (the whole "He says they look like rocks. Fossils ARE rocks." thing when what the rebuttal said was more along the lines of "They look like rocks or fossils fragments from some other large mammal."). Quoting out of context is kinda fighting dirty, and once you do it, you can't really expect everyone to ignore it.

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I wasn't being dishonest or trying to quote out of context. I was just relaying what I got from the statement that was written. I even gave a link to the article. If I was trying to be dishonest, why do you think I would leave a link to what I was allegedly being dishonest about?

If this is the reason why everyone is so defensive after everything I post in this thread then, please, accept my apology. I think you all took something from that particular part of the article that I didn't. I simply interpreted what I was reading differently.

I don't have much time to address any of the other comments yet but I will when I can.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I wasn't being dishonest or trying to quote out of context. I was just relaying what I got from the statement that was written. I even gave a link to the article. If I was trying to be dishonest, why do you think I would leave a link to what I was allegedly being dishonest about?

If this is the reason why everyone is so defensive after everything I post in this thread then, please, accept my apology. I think you all took something from that particular part of the article that I didn't. I simply interpreted what I was reading differently.

I don't have much time to address any of the other comments yet but I will when I can.

I wouldn't sweat it. This forum is the most respectful place I've ever seen online to debate and discuss. There's not a lot of the "You, sir are building a strawman!" "Oh, I'll raise your strawman and accuse you of arguing from ignorance", etc, etc - basically annoying debate talk. Here, most people try to stick to fact and logic to make their arguments so anything that even vaguely resembles being disingenuous is something people jump on.

Anyway, anywhere you can debate topics from complete opposite positions with the same people for years without anyone getting p***ed and degenerating to open flaming or taking their ball and going home is a good place to hang...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd probably suggest that the original bone fragments be scanned into a 3D program and compared to ancient animal bones. Surely there is a 3D bone database somewhere with North and South American animals in it. Making such a database seems like an obvious Graduate level Project.

It seems clear to me at least that the giant skeleton is NOT the actual bones that were dug up, but a recreation of an exact human skeleton based on the proportions of the obviously misidentified bones.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

depends on the diameter of the bones. Many large dinosaurs stood on two legs. How did they not crush themselves under their own weight? From the look of the bones, they are much larger in diameter than regular human bone. About three or four times as large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the diameter of the bones. Many large dinosaurs stood on two legs. How did they not crush themselves under their own weight? From the look of the bones, they are much larger in diameter than regular human bone. About three or four times as large.

Maybe compared to a human thighbone, but you need to look at proportions. Proportionately its the same structure. Also, the thing that helped theropod dinosaurs was the fact that they had a head and torso in front of their legs and a tail in back, so the weight wasn't stacked on top of the legs.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the diameter of the bones. Many large dinosaurs stood on two legs. How did they not crush themselves under their own weight? From the look of the bones, they are much larger in diameter than regular human bone. About three or four times as large.

That's just it, you're talking about dinosaur bones. Human bones aren't built that way.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should research the relic of Bir Hooker.

http://www.ancient-o...ts-part-1-00753

Which amounts to an alleged giant finger with no actual provenance and not found "in situ" but has been claimed to have been in Nagib's family for 150 years and supported by an X-ray allegedly taken in the '60s also with no real provenance. And, as in more cases where the remains of giants are claimed, this artifact is never seen again. None of which is enough to validate the claim. Although it would have been nice to have had it scientifically analyzed and verified as to origin.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evidently Nagib and the fabricators of the giant finger didnt know the Square Cube law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've got to forgive them. They never studied law. :D

cormac

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It's not "just because it's in a book" it's the sheer number of historical books it is in from so many different places around the same time period. That's what I think makes this worth at least researching more before completely writing it off. You may not agree with me on that but that's ok; I'm not asking you to, but you must at least see the logic behind it...

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.

I'm sorry, but if people aren't able to take my points seriously because old history books are unreliable, I really don't think you making this claim can hold any weight in the discussion.

I'm going to start a new thread on the old 7ft skeletons be aide this is till under the debunked giant thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to start a new thread on the old 7ft skeletons be aide this is till under the debunked giant thread.

Lol. I'm posting from my phone. For some reason I can't edit my post but this should say:

I'm going to start a new thread on the old 7ft skeletons because this is still under the debunked giant thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. I'm posting from my phone. For some reason I can't edit my post but this should say:

I'm going to start a new thread on the old 7ft skeletons because this is still under the debunked giant thread.

Hwere is something for you start with

giantwrestlers_zps0079b465.jpg

http://www.graphs.ne...nfographic.html

Majority of the Wrestlers above had Acromegaly. visit the link for a better resolution image.

it is not a civilization of giants, but rather a medical condition that makes them so.

Edited by The_Spartan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a couple are exceptional tall...7"-7'2" are a dime a dozen in the NBA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 450 players in the NBA.

Less than 3 dozen are 7 ft. or more.

That's less than 30 cents worth to you.

Under 10% in a league where height is desirable.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I'm sorry, but if people aren't able to take my points seriously because old history books are unreliable, I really don't think you making this claim can hold any weight in the discussion.

I'm going to start a new thread on the old 7ft skeletons be aide this is till under the debunked giant thread.

Did you consider the points I made in my post, or attempt to answer the questions I posed? Many of the same points and questions have been brought up by other contributors in this discussion. I ask only because it doesn't make much sense to start yet another thread on the same topic. You will merely encounter the same resistance...and the same points and questions. There is a reason we're presenting these points and questions, after all.

In fact as a Moderator I would suggest to you that it wouldn't be a good idea to start another thread on the same topic. As long as this one is still active, there's no reason for another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

As I've said before, most of the bones were probably destroyed during excavation. Keep in mind that this was a long time ago, people weren't as well trained as they are now and a lot of the people digging up this stuff were completely untrained and digging on their own land or treasure hunters. As for the credibility of old local history books, I understand that they can have inaccuracies and that is why I am not 100% convinced that these skeletons were actually found. That's why I'm doing more research on the matter. I have found some more info in the annual reports of the smithsonian institute. I would think that these reports are more credible.

Did you consider the points I made in my post, or attempt to answer the questions I posed? Many of the same points and questions have been brought up by other contributors in this discussion. I ask only because it doesn't make much sense to start yet another thread on the same topic. You will merely encounter the same resistance...and the same points and questions. There is a reason we're presenting these points and questions, after all.

In fact as a Moderator I would suggest to you that it wouldn't be a good idea to start another thread on the same topic. As long as this one is still active, there's no reason for another.

If anyone has asked a question that I haven't addressed I'm not seeing it. Also, the reason I'm going to move this to a new thread is because it is not on topic with the original subject of this thread. In the new thread I am going to compile as much info as I can from both sides and make it easier to find.

Edited by Dr_Acula

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before, most of the bones were probably destroyed during excavation. Keep in mind that this was a long time ago, people weren't as well trained as they are now and a lot of the people digging up this stuff were completely untrained and digging on their own land or treasure hunters. As for the credibility of old local history books, I understand that they can have inaccuracies and that is why I am not 100% convinced that these skeletons were actually found. That's why I'm doing more research on the matter. I have found some more info in the annual reports of the smithsonian institute. I would think that these reports are more credible.

If anyone has asked a question that I haven't addressed I'm not seeing it. Also, the reason I'm going to move this to a new thread is because it is not on topic with the original subject of this thread. In the new thread I am going to compile as much info as I can from both sides and make it easier to find.

If all we have are some farmers digging up bones more than a century ago, and mentions of it in local histories and old newspapers, then it's not going to be a defensible position. It's more anecdotal than anything. It's implausible that if giant human bones have been found, not a single one has survived. Short of scientific evidence that can be examined and evaluated, such claims do not survive scrutiny. You sound like someone who understands the scientific method, so I think you can appreciate this fact.

I cannot keep you from starting a new thread. I can only advise you against doing so. This thread is still active, so anything pertaining to your research on the matter can continue to be posted right here. All I can say about a new thread is, as long as this one still exists, a new thread on the same topic and by the same poster is likely to be closed by a Mod or merged into this current thread anyway. We do not want multiple discussions of the exact same topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.