Lord Harry Posted July 31, 2017 Author #51 Share Posted July 31, 2017 44 minutes ago, Harte said: No giant remains have been found in North America. Plenty of remains have been found at Chaco - normal people though. Chaco Canyon giants are from a native myth. There are newspaper (and other) reports of giant bones being discovered - mostly in mounds - and no evidence they are true. One must keep in mind the mores of journalism in those days (today's not much different, to tell the truth.) I've read in newspapers from that time of turnips grown so large that one was hollowed out and a military academy established inside it. Copied and linked that story - I believe it was here - back in my earlier days when I gave a **** about what people believed. Harte Yes I agree, one most always keep in mind the penchant for journalistic sensationalism when investigating 19th century newspaper accounts of this nature. I am going to have to do some more indepth research on the subject of alleged giant remains excavated in North America. Though based upon the quality of evidence I have found thus far, it appears most if not all of these accounts were journalistic hoaxes. Most of the information I have about the alleged discovery of giant remains in North American archaeological contexts, comes from a book written by David Hatcher Childress, who admittedly is not a very good source. And dare I say it, he's a crank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted July 31, 2017 #52 Share Posted July 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Lord Harry said: I will try to find some reputable links. I am not an expert in this subject, and have only recently developed an interest. And unlike Cladking, I will freely admit that there is a strong probability, over 50% most likely, that I am wrong here. However, I still think this is worth investigating. Not sure how reputable it is, but here is a link describing alleged giant remains found in Wisconsin. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/giant-humans-you-decide-here-what-i-have-found-mark-anthony-garrett While the general accuracy of the finds cannot be determined, the article links to several contemporary newspaper accounts of alleged giant skeletons found throughout the mid-west and western North America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those are hoaxes. I'm mildly familiar with North American prehistory and archaeology and know of no reliable finds of "giant human beings." I'm open to being shown some, but I want papers and field reports and photos and museum catalog numbers for bones and artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted July 31, 2017 Author #53 Share Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kenemet said: Those are hoaxes. I'm mildly familiar with North American prehistory and archaeology and know of no reliable finds of "giant human beings." I'm open to being shown some, but I want papers and field reports and photos and museum catalog numbers for bones and artifacts. I'm inclined to agree with you that most of these accounts are hoaxes. The best we can hope for, would be the finding of giant bones in some dusty old museum cabinet in the Smithsonian. Or, in lieu of that, the excavation reports and photographs you mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted July 31, 2017 #54 Share Posted July 31, 2017 20 hours ago, kmt_sesh said: Would this be the infamous Kensington Runestone? I spent a good chunk of my life, including a large portion of my childhood, in Minnesota. Any Minnesotan worth his salt knows of the Runestone. We learned about it in junior high, and even that far back in ancient history, when I was a cute little mummy, the Runestone was regarded by most as a hoax. But it was only after joining UM that I learned some people still try to believe it's real. I don't and never have. I also dispute it as an artifact of the Vikings. It makes no sense at all to land on the coast and hotfoot it all the way to Minnesota unless you had some reason to believe there was a Fountain of Youth there. The undressed slab also makes little sense since the stoneworker apparently had time to carve the runes neatly. Why not take a few hours to polish off the surface and make it even easier to carve neatly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted July 31, 2017 #55 Share Posted July 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, Lord Harry said: Yes I agree, one most always keep in mind the penchant for journalistic sensationalism when investigating 19th century newspaper accounts of this nature. I am going to have to do some more indepth research on the subject of alleged giant remains excavated in North America. Though based upon the quality of evidence I have found thus far, it appears most if not all of these accounts were journalistic hoaxes. Most of the information I have about the alleged discovery of giant remains in North American archaeological contexts, comes from a book written by David Hatcher Childress, who admittedly is not a very good source. And dare I say it, he's a crank. Childress isn't just a crank. He's a liar. link Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted July 31, 2017 Author #56 Share Posted July 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, Kenemet said: I also dispute it as an artifact of the Vikings. It makes no sense at all to land on the coast and hotfoot it all the way to Minnesota unless you had some reason to believe there was a Fountain of Youth there. The undressed slab also makes little sense since the stoneworker apparently had time to carve the runes neatly. Why not take a few hours to polish off the surface and make it even easier to carve neatly? I agree the Keningston Runestone is most likely a hoax. However, I wouldn't necessarily discount the possibility of Viking longships traveling further inland. If they navigated one of the inland river systems, they feasibly could have reached the mid-western states. I'm not saying they did, just putting it out there as a remote possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted July 31, 2017 #57 Share Posted July 31, 2017 Feasible? Okay. But a thousand miles upriver in a new land? Don't think so. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted July 31, 2017 Author #58 Share Posted July 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Harte said: Feasible? Okay. But a thousand miles upriver in a new land? Don't think so. Harte You're probably right. But if there were an enticing enough incentive, for example the local Indian tribes informed them of valuable mineral resources or prime agricultural lands further inland, then being the intrepid explorers they were, they may have followed the lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted August 1, 2017 #59 Share Posted August 1, 2017 20 minutes ago, Harte said: Feasible? Okay. But a thousand miles upriver in a new land? Don't think so. Harte Why would 1000 miles along freshwater bother them after bopping across the saltwater pond?. Stone point caches have been found hundreds of miles from the origin of the stone. If hunter gatherers without domesticated animals were willing to traverse the North American continent on foot dragging stone weapons why would a group of Norse be overly fussed about floating up a game rich river? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted August 1, 2017 #60 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Jarocal said: Why would 1000 miles along freshwater bother them after bopping across the saltwater pond? It's logic. The thousands of miles passing by is also unexplored - why go further? Recreational purposes? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted August 1, 2017 #61 Share Posted August 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Harte said: It's logic. The thousands of miles passing by is also unexplored - why go further? Recreational purposes? Harte And while not crowded inhabited with people not always happy to have unknown armed men passing into their territory and hunting areas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted August 1, 2017 #62 Share Posted August 1, 2017 I went and mentioned Kensington and look what happens. It's an entertaining story but I'm firmly in the camp of hoax. Our poster Taun was in Chicago over the weekend and we spent Saturday together at the Field Museum. It was a great visit. I brought him around to show him where we hide the giant human bones. They're way underground in a storage area behind where our captured alien chicks do table and lap dances, and next door to the room where we store the recovered geyser equipment. Okay, maybe not. But I did show him a lot of dead people because at the Field we have a lot of dead people. And those are just the ones on display. I've seen big chunks of the anthropology collection kept in storage and have yet to see any giant bones. One of the women with whom I work used to dig at one of the mound sites and she doesn't recall uncovering giant bones among the human remains they excavated. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted August 1, 2017 #63 Share Posted August 1, 2017 17 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said: But I did show him a lot of dead people because at the Field we have a lot of dead people. All those missing scientists, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarocal Posted August 1, 2017 #64 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Harte said: It's logic. The thousands of miles passing by is also unexplored - why go further? Recreational purposes? Harte Which according to available evidence via C14 dating is apparently what the migrants out of Beringia did with their mad dash to Monte Verde not leaving any evidence such as contemporary settlements along the way. Unless your suggestion is they followed a mammoth migration South for the winter and decided to stay. Edited August 1, 2017 by Jarocal Cladking translations are from the natural language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted August 1, 2017 #65 Share Posted August 1, 2017 12 minutes ago, ShadowSot said: All those missing scientists, right? Oh, heavens, no. We give our scientists proper burials. (I probably shouldn't joke, since one of our most prominent and beloved scientists recently passed away...but he'd be the first to get such humor.) So, no, not missing scientists. Missing visitors. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted August 1, 2017 #66 Share Posted August 1, 2017 Speaking of Native American myths of giants, many of these stories may have been inspired by the bones of mammoths and mastodons. In particular the limb bones, which can resemble a giant human's to the untrained eye. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 1, 2017 #67 Share Posted August 1, 2017 5 hours ago, Harte said: Feasible? Okay. But a thousand miles upriver in a new land? Don't think so. Harte Exactly. Not without some sort of pre-plan and motive. And they'd leave traces along the way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted August 1, 2017 #68 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Speaking of Native American myths of giants, many of these stories may have been inspired by the bones of mammoths and mastodons. In particular the limb bones, which can resemble a giant human's to the untrained eye. Although there is one book by an anthropologist that makes this case, paleontologists are in general unimpressed with the idea. The bones you see in museums are restored and repaired. In nature, they're... well, they're awful. For example, in this photo there are 9 different bones - pachyrhinosaur, hadrosaur, and the gods know what else. You probably can't find them all but I can. This is what dinosaur and mammoth bones look like "in nature." Here's the back of a mammoth head just as you'd see it eroding out of the ground. This is only a small portion of it, but this was the part that was sticking out. Even if the whole thing appeared, it's embedded in rock and clay and until it gets cleaned off you really can't tell what the thing is. And this is why paleontologists (and I) seriously doubt the "saw bones eroding out and made stories" concept. It's neat, but the author hadn't been on many field trips with the rock jocks and shovelbums. (the Legos are for scale because friends kept asking "how big is that?" A friend sent me a Lego Paleontologist and that got me into minifigs and taking photos with them posing all over the rocks when I'm doing prep in the lab. Edited August 1, 2017 by Kenemet 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylemurph Posted August 1, 2017 #69 Share Posted August 1, 2017 2 hours ago, kmt_sesh said: Oh, heavens, no. We give our scientists proper burials. (I probably shouldn't joke, since one of our most prominent and beloved scientists recently passed away...but he'd be the first to get such humor.) So, no, not missing scientists. Missing visitors. The last few weeks I've been engaged with a prolonged argument with my school's library system*. It never really occurred to me before, but a sinister cabal of research librarians covering up unwanted bits of history strikes me as possible and maybe even probable. More so than actual, working academicians, anyway. --Jaylemurph *: Me: I've had this book couriered over from State University of College six times now. Maybe we could save money and you could just acquire the book for our collection. Evil Librarian: What's the topic? Me: Transcriptions of tenth-century religious services. EL: What's the date of the book? Me: 2010. EL: Oh, no! No! That book is out of date! Me: ...Really? In what way have transcriptions of 1,000 year old church services changed in the last seven years? EL: Well, I don't know. Me: Look, if you just don't want to spend the cash on a book, say so, but don't give me what is clearly and obviously a bull**** answer. I mean, show me these alleged changes and I'll submit an article EHQ with you as co-author. EL: I don't think you're funny. Good day. See? Pure. Evil. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back to earth Posted August 1, 2017 #70 Share Posted August 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Lord Harry said: Yes I agree, one most always keep in mind the penchant for journalistic sensationalism when investigating 19th century newspaper accounts of this nature. I am going to have to do some more indepth research on the subject of alleged giant remains excavated in North America. Though based upon the quality of evidence I have found thus far, it appears most if not all of these accounts were journalistic hoaxes. Most of the information I have about the alleged discovery of giant remains in North American archaeological contexts, comes from a book written by David Hatcher Childress, who admittedly is not a very good source. And dare I say it, he's a crank. Welcome to " Crankistan " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted August 1, 2017 #71 Share Posted August 1, 2017 57 minutes ago, Kenemet said: Although there is one book by an anthropologist that makes this case, paleontologists are in general unimpressed with the idea. The bones you see in museums are restored and repaired. In nature, they're... well, they're awful. For example, in this photo there are 9 different bones - pachyrhinosaur, hadrosaur, and the gods know what else. You probably can't find them all but I can. This is what dinosaur and mammoth bones look like "in nature." Here's the back of a mammoth head just as you'd see it eroding out of the ground. This is only a small portion of it, but this was the part that was sticking out. Even if the whole thing appeared, it's embedded in rock and clay and until it gets cleaned off you really can't tell what the thing is. And this is why paleontologists (and I) seriously doubt the "saw bones eroding out and made stories" concept. It's neat, but the author hadn't been on many field trips with the rock jocks and shovelbums. (the Legos are for scale because friends kept asking "how big is that?" A friend sent me a Lego Paleontologist and that got me into minifigs and taking photos with them posing all over the rocks when I'm doing prep in the lab. Haven't there been bones of mega fauna extracted from what we're attributed to be tombs of heroes? I remember reading this, but can't find any documentation now. And I do know at least in some parts of the US remains of mega fauna are not in a full matrix but are occasionally exposed and full identifiable as bones. There was a river flood somewhere in the Midwest in the 90s where mammoth bones were found tumbled up like old wood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted August 1, 2017 #72 Share Posted August 1, 2017 8 hours ago, Jarocal said: Which according to available evidence via C14 dating is apparently what the migrants out of Beringia did with their mad dash to Monte Verde not leaving any evidence such as contemporary settlements along the way. Unless your suggestion is they followed a mammoth migration South for the winter and decided to stay. AFAIK, it hasn't been established that the people that occupied Monte Verde actually came there via Beringia. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted August 1, 2017 #73 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Harte said: AFAIK, it hasn't been established that the people that occupied Monte Verde actually came there via Beringia. Harte Yeah there the ones who took the first class ticket and may have boated down the west coast of the Americas. I suspect that both avenues (interior and exterior) were used as having been to Central America and done some long distant foot travel. I doubt anyone moved through that area with any dispatch to get to MV in that time frame. Edited August 1, 2017 by Hanslune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted August 1, 2017 #74 Share Posted August 1, 2017 6 hours ago, jaylemurph said: The last few weeks I've been engaged with a prolonged argument with my school's library system*. It never really occurred to me before, but a sinister cabal of research librarians covering up unwanted bits of history strikes me as possible and maybe even probable. More so than actual, working academicians, anyway. --Jaylemurph *: Me: I've had this book couriered over from State University of College six times now. Maybe we could save money and you could just acquire the book for our collection. Evil Librarian: What's the topic? Me: Transcriptions of tenth-century religious services. EL: What's the date of the book? Me: 2010. EL: Oh, no! No! That book is out of date! Me: ...Really? In what way have transcriptions of 1,000 year old church services changed in the last seven years? EL: Well, I don't know. Me: Look, if you just don't want to spend the cash on a book, say so, but don't give me what is clearly and obviously a bull**** answer. I mean, show me these alleged changes and I'll submit an article EHQ with you as co-author. EL: I don't think you're funny. Good day. See? Pure. Evil. As someone who was a Librarian (briefly) I concur. We kept all the good stuff in the 'hidden reserve' (our office book shelves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted August 1, 2017 #75 Share Posted August 1, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Lord Harry said: ..... comes from a book written by David Hatcher Childress, who admittedly is not a very good source. And dare I say it, he's a crank. I use to be on a forum with that fellow. He felt he had a mission from God or somebody that he must go forth and 'spice up' history. It was just to boring as it was. Real NUT. Okay writer but anything he puts on paper is put there when he is in full crank mode. He and I use to discuss just what Corliss actually said in his book. He always took the 'it must be true because I like it' approach. Harry find the old Corliss books which have a lot of documentation on this and other fringy subjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Corliss Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts (1978) Strange Phenomena: A Sourcebook of Unusual Natural Phenomena (1974) Strange Artifacts: A Sourcebook on Ancient Man (1974) The Unexplained (1976) https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=william+R.+Corliss https://archive.org/details/CorlissAncientMan1978 (free pdf) Edited August 1, 2017 by Hanslune 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now