Giant skeletons in North America/Grand Canyon

[Mattshark]

outdated debate although we could trade views on potential experiences of 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions or do you hold that they do not exist either?

You do know the 4th dimension is time don't you. We live in about 11 dimensions.

[Rosiepuffs]

i have never heard bout dis wud luv 2 do sum research on it now tho.

[+DieChecker]

You may be thinking of the Ica stones, conveniently labelled a hoax and forgotten about.

Fraud.

When it comes to giants they could be reffering to a Cro Magnon remnant

I would like to see some giant bones, 'cause they might actually be bigfoot!

Do people think the photo from the newspaper that I posted is real? That would be some giant Native American. To my knowledge (After hours of posting on bigfoot.), there is no recorded Native Americans with gigantism before Europeans showed up. So how to explain the giant skull?

[Swede]

Here is one newspaper story that has a picture.

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/N.Am/Victoria.Cty.TX.giant.html

Did a cruise of the various Creationist Giant sites, but can not find any other pics. Just a lot of reports from 1930s and before. They had cameras back then. Why no pictures of these giant skeletons? They always seem to have been turned over to a local museum or expert, who somehow misplaced them and they got lost.

DieChecker - Thanks for posting the above, as it is a great example of dubious information. Nice find! As I have commented under other headings, I am always quite cautious about analysis based upon photos, especially ones of this quality. That said, let us examine the information presented.

1) The text clearly states that the researchers involved were in the process of determining whether or not the recovered remains belonged to a "tribe of extraordinarily large men" or a "case of giantism". Related genetic and/or thyroid related conditions are, of course, well documented.

2) The text misspells the name of Ales Hrdlika. This may seem to be rather trivial, but, at the time of the writing, Hrdlika was a well known and most influential figure in the field. While a number of his positions (and methodologies) have since been criticized and corrected, he was a force to be reckoned with.

3) The posing of the three skulls in the photo is interesting, as it would appear that the right example is placed in a forward position in order to influence depth-of-field perception. Rather like the old trick of holding your fishing "catch of the day" forward at arms length for the picture in order to exaggerate the size.

4) I present this last with admitted qualifications. Based on what would appear to be present in the photo, I would, based upon the mandibular structures, hazard to suggest the following;

l) The left skull would appear to be female.

m) The middle skull is at a decidedly poor angle, but, based on the gonion, could well be a male.

r) The left skull, based on the "squareness", robusticity, and gnathion, would lead one to favor classification as a male.

5) It should be noted that the generally utilized figure for sexual dimorphism in H.s.s. is 92%/100% Female/Male.

.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Swede

[jaylemurph]

Uh oh...

I think Jayle has a Law regarding Dimension Use...

...I do. I do. (Good memory, Ikki!)

And to be fair, Jim hasn't actually broken that law, since he's not using them (incorrectly) to explain something. He does, however, not seem to understand what a dimension actually is.

(For the record, Jaylemurph's Law of Dimension Use: if you don't understand what a dimension actually is, you can't use it in an explanation of something.)

--Jaylemurph

[jaylemurph]

That is the point I suppose. If me and my homeys turned up with shovels and a jcb would they let us investigate, the answer is no. If a scientist/archeologist posed a thesis that it warrants further study in 30,000 words, he doesn't pass peer review or get a grant or however it works.

Again, that's just not how it works. Theses -- or dissertations -- have nothing to do with access to sites. (Nor are they peer-reviewed. As part of getting a higher degree they are /superior/-reviewed, although that probably plays more into your nigh-conspiracy-theory take on the situation.) There can be a relation between grants and theses, but it's far more complex than this one-to-one relationship you lay out. Your idea of what's going on in the academic community is so uninformed and garbled that you cannot possibly expect anyone who knows it to any degree to take it as a serious critique. Or do you?

Do you understand that the current set for allowing people access to historical documents and archaeological sites is not to set up some cabal or enforce some sort of academic line to toe -- and if you think there /is/ one of those, you really, really haven't got the first clue about these fields -- but to protect the site/document. They are fragile and irreplaceable. Whether you like it or not, part of the training people receive in school is how to handle themselves in such situations. As both these fields were developing, countless documents were lost and archaeological finds and sites were destroyed by inept handling. We don't want to lose any more through accidents at the hands of well-meaning by unprofessional types (presumably like yourself in the above example). Does that make sense?

Have you read many celtic fairy tales? If you had you may have noticed that the anatomy of giants is very different to humans. They are usually depicted as extremely gangly with long sinew extremeties which could explain the non human femur bone. In many tales brave knights comfortably out wrestled giants so it is worth considering that they were not just very large men but a different species entirely.

I haven't, no. You make a fair point, although I'd argue that anything with that sort of femur is unlikely to be successfully bipedal. Perhaps Matt could say something to that.

As far as all your flat earther points go, it is outdated debate although we could trade views on potential experiences of 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions or do you hold that they do not exist either?

Then you just don't get the analogy. Being topical or not has nothing to do with the argument itself.

--Jaylemurph

[TheSearcher]

We can lay the Ica stones to rest as a hoax.

Because

1)Scientists have been looking at theses stones and although no method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date. But ,in 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared, after four years of investigation, that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces

2) In 1973 Basilio Uschuya (one of the guys selling them to Cabrera) confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken. In 1977, during the BBC documentary "Pathway to the Gods", Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung(I allways thought there was a smell to them ). He continued to make and sell stones. In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying “Making these stones is easier than farming the land.” He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

Cabrera, the "finder" and "buyer" of the stones, says that he recognised an extinct fish on one stone and that's how he recognises them as genuine.

This is the stone :

Can Mattshark maybe enlighten me as to what species this fish belongs to? Because I ain't seeing it.

[jmccr8]

We can lay the Ica stones to rest as a hoax.

Because

1)Scientists have been looking at theses stones and although no method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date. But ,in 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared, after four years of investigation, that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces

2) In 1973 Basilio Uschuya (one of the guys selling them to Cabrera) confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken. In 1977, during the BBC documentary "Pathway to the Gods", Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung(I allways thought there was a smell to them ). He continued to make and sell stones. In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying “Making these stones is easier than farming the land.” He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

Cabrera, the "finder" and "buyer" of the stones, says that he recognised an extinct fish on one stone and that's how he recognises them as genuine.

This is the stone :

Can Mattshark maybe enlighten me as to what species this fish belongs to? Because I ain't seeing it.

Well if it had a hole drilled through it I would say that it is a puffer fish smoke stone.haha jmccr8

[TheSearcher]

Well if it had a hole drilled through it I would say that it is a puffer fish smoke stone.haha jmccr8

An antique bong, now there's an idea....

[SlimJim22]

You do know the 4th dimension is time don't you. We live in about 11 dimensions.

I do yes. I'm just getting my head around it but it seems for one to experience the 4th dimension you would indeed need to transcend time in some fashion. I've heard there is 11 so finding descriptions of them all isn't easy. Care to lend a hand.

My point with jayle was simply that offering an example based around flatearth is not as relevant now as decades before as our understanding has moved on that much more. I still don't get the point jayle was making so could you put it in laymans terms please?

[jules99]

We can lay the Ica stones to rest as a hoax.

Because

1)Scientists have been looking at theses stones and although no method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date. But ,in 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared, after four years of investigation, that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces

2) In 1973 Basilio Uschuya (one of the guys selling them to Cabrera) confirmed that he had forged the stones during an interview with Erich von Däniken. In 1977, during the BBC documentary "Pathway to the Gods", Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung(I allways thought there was a smell to them ). He continued to make and sell stones. In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes, saying “Making these stones is easier than farming the land.” He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

Cabrera, the "finder" and "buyer" of the stones, says that he recognised an extinct fish on one stone and that's how he recognises them as genuine.

This is the stone :

Can Mattshark maybe enlighten me as to what species this fish belongs to? Because I ain't seeing it.

Hi Searcher;

I thought the telescope stone looked OK...maybe fake I dunno...no doubt a lot or most are fake, but some may be genuine.

By labelling all of the stones as fake we could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I dont think we can wholly blame cabrera or the "makers" of the fake stones. Cabrera may initially have been duped, but may have got a few good stones in the mix. The makers no doubt needed the $$$ and may have pleaded guilty to a lesser charge to escape inprisonment, who knows.

Cheers....

[Harte]

I do yes. I'm just getting my head around it but it seems for one to experience the 4th dimension you would indeed need to transcend time in some fashion. I've heard there is 11 so finding descriptions of them all isn't easy. Care to lend a hand.

Jim,

The number 11 comes from string theory.

Eleven dimensions are required to make the math work out. IIRC, there are the usual four that have been mentioned, and then the rest are actual physical dimensions - that is, directions perpendicular to each other.

One explanation for why we don't see these other dimensions is that these directions are tightly curled uop. Curled up on the order of a Planck length or so.

The Planck length is the shortest distance that makes any scientific or logical sense to talk about. The limit itself is set by certain actualities found in quantum theory.

Harte

[SlimJim22]

Jim,

The number 11 comes from string theory.

Eleven dimensions are required to make the math work out. IIRC, there are the usual four that have been mentioned, and then the rest are actual physical dimensions - that is, directions perpendicular to each other.

One explanation for why we don't see these other dimensions is that these directions are tightly curled uop. Curled up on the order of a Planck length or so.

The Planck length is the shortest distance that makes any scientific or logical sense to talk about. The limit itself is set by certain actualities found in quantum theory.

Harte

Thanks Harte,

I get the need for curled up dimensions but it doesn't fit all that well for me personally. I am no scientist but I enjoy thinking about this sort of thing for fictional purposes so believe me when I say I don't take this kind of thing too seriously. I have read a little on Platonic solids and this would seem to have more relevance to me. Internal - Extrenal, hyperspace, spacetime, those sort of concepts but I'm not saying I understand them they are just the things I am drawn to researching. It's the wrong thread for a detailed discussion but check this link and tell me what you think of the explanation. http://4dimensionalafterlife.org/page4.htm

Back to the topic, if everything I have raised is dismissed as hoax then may I ask how much archeological evidence has been found for cro magnons? I understand they were in Africa with homo erectus and homo sapiens but I suppose they could have survived into biblical times as well as early hellenic period as Pelagasians. How much has been found proving the existance? How does it fit with fringe theories and why is more research not done or publicaized? Do they restrict the info because they think people will take from it what they will? Even if that is false.

[Harte]

Back to the topic, if everything I have raised is dismissed as hoax then may I ask how much archeological evidence has been found for cro magnons? I understand they were in Africa with homo erectus and homo sapiens but I suppose they could have survived into biblical times as well as early hellenic period as Pelagasians. How much has been found proving the existance? How does it fit with fringe theories and why is more research not done or publicaized? Do they restrict the info because they think people will take from it what they will? Even if that is false.

Jim,

The Cro Magnon peoples were Homo Sapiens just like the other H. Sapiens in that time.

They have (had, actually) a different name for a while because it was thought that they might be a subspecies of H. Sapiens.

The name Cro Magnon comes from the location where their remains were found.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Jim,

The Cro Magnon peoples were Homo Sapiens just like the other H. Sapiens in that time.

They have (had, actually) a different name for a while because it was thought that they might be a subspecies of H. Sapiens.

The name Cro Magnon comes from the location where their remains were found.

Harte

Just to add to what Harte said nobody is restricting any info as, after all, they are us. And people have taken away much from many discoveries, regardless of the facts, so doing so with Cro-magnon wouldn't be a first.

cormac

[SlimJim22]

Just to add to what Harte said nobody is restricting any info as, after all, they are us. And people have taken away much from many discoveries, regardless of the facts, so doing so with Cro-magnon wouldn't be a first.

cormac

Ok so, Cro Magnons are the big guys with the cave art in France. They came out of Africa 30,000-10,000 years ago like us?

Wiped out the time of the Great Deluge which is interesting or a coincidence but that's not what I'd like to discuss. Firstly, is it possible that there are more species of homo sapiens that have not been discovered?

Also, I have read that according to some myths the moon may have been closer in prehistory. If this was true then would it affect gravity enough to bring about giantism mutations? I know probably not as normal size man was also around at the time but I suppose gravity could explain why there were rodents the size of cows.

[cormac mac airt]

They came out of Africa 30,000-10,000 years ago like us?

No, as the migration out of Africa, by anatomically modern humans, occurred c.70,000 BP.

Add to this that a 2002 DNA study determined that the Cro-magnon samples tested fell into mitochondrial (mtDNA) haplogroup N, which again is a section of current human haplogroups. They were never a separate species.

Evidence for a genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans

Firstly, is it possible that there are more species of homo sapiens that have not been discovered?

Possible, Yes. However there is no evidence, physically or genetically speaking AFAIK, that would suggest such.

Also, I have read that according to some myths the moon may have been closer in prehistory.

What’s known of the distance increasing between the earth and moon tends to show that the moon was just under 5 miles closer to earth c.200,000 BP than it is today. That’s not a significant increase, so wouldn’t be useful to any literal interpretation to myth.

If this was true then would it affect gravity enough to bring about giantism mutations?

There is no evidence that the moons influence has anything to do with giantism NOW, and no reason to think it had anything to do with that in prehistoric times?

I know probably not as normal size man was also around at the time but I suppose gravity could explain why there were rodents the size of cows.

Why would gravity explain that? The capybara, from South America, are usually well over 100 lbs and are the largest living rodents in the world. There is nothing to suggest that gravity had anything to do with their size.

cormac

[Swede]

Ok so, Cro Magnons are the big guys with the cave art in France. They came out of Africa 30,000-10,000 years ago like us?

Wiped out the time of the Great Deluge which is interesting or a coincidence but that's not what I'd like to discuss. Firstly, is it possible that there are more species of homo sapiens that have not been discovered?

Also, I have read that according to some myths the moon may have been closer in prehistory. If this was true then would it affect gravity enough to bring about giantism mutations? I know probably not as normal size man was also around at the time but I suppose gravity could explain why there were rodents the size of cows.

Jim - Just some background;

1) Cro-Magnon (as pointed out) is an outdated term.

2) "Cro-magnon" was modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Essentially, you. You are a direct descendant of this line.

3) H.s.s. was creating art in Europe by at least 35,000 > 36,000 BP. They were not particularly large at all.

4) While still being refined, it would appear that H.s.s. emerged from Africa circa 50,000 > 70,000 BP.

5) "Cro-Magnon" was obviously not wiped out by the "great deluge".

6) To attempt to draw a connection between gravitational pull and genetic mutation is highly flawed at best.

7) While the mega-fauna of the latter Pleistocene present some interesting species, I am unaware of any rodents the size of cows. Ancestral beaver did reach some 300-400 lbs, the size of an average to large black bear, but far shy of most modern bovines. The giant ground sloth is, of course, not a rodent. Did you have some other species in mind?

[Black Hound]

Never has a clearer example of "verbal m********ion" been demonstrated than what has been cited above.As in rambling in a nonsense mammer just to make oneself feel good.

[jaylemurph]

Never has a clearer example of "verbal m********ion" been demonstrated than what has been cited above.As in rambling in a nonsense mammer just to make oneself feel good.

Now, now.

It's far more important to make people feel good about whatever it is they believe, no matter how wrong or self-serving, than to be historically or scientifically correct. Ignorance -- intentional, militant, accidental or whatever -- is every bit as good and useful as knowledge, and you are a bad person for even hinting otherwise.

--Jaylemurph

[Ikki]

Never has a clearer example of "verbal m********ion" been demonstrated than what has been cited above.As in rambling in a nonsense mammer just to make oneself feel good.

Yeah, I hate it when these facts are just waiting for you behind couches, leaping up and yelling 'BOO!' as you walk past. B*tches, those facts.

[ShadowSot]

Good debate but can you give your opinion on the guy holding a 3 foot long femur bone and also the Moberly mine finds? If you think they are total fabrications I would be interested to hear either way.

In regards to the femur:

It doesn't match a human femur, so how did they determine it's from a primate?

They say it was found in India, fine and dandy.

Where are the other photo's of it?

Why isn't it in situ?

How come the only photo we have, is of a fellow who seems remarkably clean to have worked on the dig, holding the bone by the top, with one hand?

Preserved bones are very fragile, and even bones with a good deal of durability should be treated carefully.

[SlimJim22]

In regards to the femur:

It doesn't match a human femur, so how did they determine it's from a primate?

They say it was found in India, fine and dandy.

Where are the other photo's of it?

Why isn't it in situ?

How come the only photo we have, is of a fellow who seems remarkably clean to have worked on the dig, holding the bone by the top, with one hand?

Preserved bones are very fragile, and even bones with a good deal of durability should be treated carefully.

Very good points Shadow. What are the alternatives? Could it be giraffe, bear, elephant or something? Or could it have been manufactured somehow? It is unlikely that it was intercepted by MIB's or anything so likelihood is it was all a sham, otheriwse the findings would have been recorded in a journal somewhere. If it was genuine then why not submit it for testing. I stand corrected and will hastily retreat to my drawing board.

[ShadowSot]

Very good points Shadow. What are the alternatives? Could it be giraffe, bear, elephant or something? Or could it have been manufactured somehow? It is unlikely that it was intercepted by MIB's or anything so likelihood is it was all a sham, otheriwse the findings would have been recorded in a journal somewhere. If it was genuine then why not submit it for testing. I stand corrected and will hastily retreat to my drawing board.

The last time I saw one like that, it was a mock up, with the exact same features. No other explanation was provided, except this one was a copy of one supposedly found in Texas. Still makes me wonder why only femurs are found.

It could be a quadruped of some kind, I know deer femurs look very similar, as my uncles dog had one as a chew toy last night.

It could have been made, it could have been a bone from some ancient fauna, I really don't know. Except that earlier as I said, I've seen one that was just a mock up, that looked very much like a real bone.

[Black Hound]

The issue I have, and what I've come across frequently, like in the example above, most presented "OOPARTs" tend to be fairly mundane in origin, or have a reasonable explanation instead of the more incredible claims.

What about the 7 foot skeletons, the ones with horns, that were disccovered. Don't hear much about them, do you?