Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Remains of giants along upper waters of Missouri, Mississippi?

Expand Messages
  • Susan
    Almost five years following your question about the ll Jan-Mar,1913 article in American Anthropologist: Petroglyphs Representing the Imprint of the Human
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 17, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Almost five years following your question about the 'll Jan-Mar,1913 article
       in American Anthropologist:
       
      "Petroglyphs Representing the Imprint of the Human Foot"

      Here is the link, reprinted in 2009:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/aa.1913.15.1.02a00030/abstract



    • C TRAYLOR
      Very interesting: That area, the falls, in 1711 the Crown tried to push the frontier westward. From England, about six hundred Huguenot refugees in three
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 18, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Very interesting:  That area, the falls, in 1711 the Crown tried to push the frontier westward.  From England, about six hundred Huguenot refugees in three ships from France were placed on the land between the fork of the river and above "falls."
         
        Important to the petroglyph subject:  This area had been an Indian town. 
         
        Within a few years the Huguenots learned of their companions in Charleston, SC, and slowly all relocated.  At about this time, the Huguenots of Charleston received their first ordained minister ... expelled from Calle, France..  Huguenots were pro-testants, protestants by faith, expelled by the Catholic king. 
         
        The river banks either side of the Falls rise about 50 feet to a plane, and then was wooded. It tends to be wooded today, even with homes in that area. 
         
        It might be an interesting project for locals of that area to try to locate these sites. 
         
        To add to the disruptive impact, during the Civil War there was a prisoner of war camp in the middle of the falls, that was near present downtown Richmond.  The "falls" is a rocky rapids over big boulders which ended the travel by ships.  A "ship" being designed for ocean use, a "boat" designed not for oceon use. 

        Cal 
        -- ================================

      • Ted Sojka
        My hometown of New Rochelle was settled by Hugenots who were excellent masons that built chruches, stone steeples, and some amazing roads across tidal areas
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 18, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          My hometown of New Rochelle was settled by Hugenots who were excellent masons that built chruches, stone steeples, and some amazing roads across tidal areas that have been there since the 1600's though inundated by incoming and outgoing tides for hundreds of years.  Though they maintained good relation with the native population, there was always some cause for fear, and these roads went to small islands just off shore a few hundred yards where the governor of the colony lived.  

          We had many officials from the sister city in La Rochelle visit over the years when I lived there.  My parents place had a stone wall that crossed several properties in the neighborhood that were dry laid with no mortar and they were still together when I was a child when we played on them daily. 

          Thanks for the information, Cal
          ted
          On Dec 18, 2012, at 6:19 AM, C TRAYLOR wrote:

           

          Very interesting:  That area, the falls, in 1711 the Crown tried to push the frontier westward.  From England, about six hundred Huguenot refugees in three ships from France were placed on the land between the fork of the river and above "falls."
           
          Important to the petroglyph subject:  This area had been an Indian town. 
           
          Within a few years the Huguenots learned of their companions in Charleston, SC, and slowly all relocated.  At about this time, the Huguenots of Charleston received their first ordained minister ... expelled from Calle, France..  Huguenots were pro-testants, protestants by faith, expelled by the Catholic king. 
           
          The river banks either side of the Falls rise about 50 feet to a plane, and then was wooded. It tends to be wooded today, even with homes in that area. 
           
          It might be an interesting project for locals of that area to try to locate these sites. 
           
          To add to the disruptive impact, during the Civil War there was a prisoner of war camp in the middle of the falls, that was near present downtown Richmond.  The "falls" is a rocky rapids over big boulders which ended the travel by ships.  A "ship" being designed for ocean use, a "boat" designed not for oceon use. 

          Cal 
          -- ================================



        • trayloroo
          In the Internet select IMAGES enter --- Giant Skeletons Found. Cal ... All, Chris, thank you for posting and updating us on The Equinox Project, and your
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 18, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            In the Internet select IMAGES enter --- Giant Skeletons Found.

            Cal

            ==========================

            --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" wrote:

            All,
            Chris, thank you for posting and updating us on The Equinox Project, and
            your thoughts and concerns in regard to the recent article Ted Sojka
            posted re: the total destruction of the particular California
            petroglyphs. I forwarded your post and TEP web site to several
            interested petroglyph preservation people and an active Facebook group
            in Minnesota who occasionally follow our group's posts.
            On a different matter .... a subject I have been intrigued without end
            that has been brought up many times under a variety of topic headings.
            I ran across an article from a Minnesota DNR publication about giant
            animal skeletal excavations and a discovery within a cave in Minnesota,
            all along or near the present Mississippi River. I take liberties here
            picking up a four year old series of AWS posts by several members re:
            giants, and particularly Steve Garcia's (bigalemc2) thought-provoking
            'Questions...' and things to ponder when looking at research claims,
            data, evidence for authenticity vs. 'fakery'. Such as giant human (and
            presumably animal skeletons). Steve's post from 2008 and others
            cascading below are what i am 'replying' from rather than starting
            another new topic heading. As one of your former co-founders and
            co-hosts here, i hope I may feel free to take such liberties, with the
            intent to continue possible thought/discussion many of you have started
            through the years, as members. We have many excellent multi-post themes
            from this group in our archives that are easily retrievable (for me), so
            please see some of the old posts below my current letter here, and
            Steve's letter about allegedly very, very old giant human skeletal
            remains he examined as a newcomer. AWS host Vince Barrows and Steve
            Garcia are both engineers, both grew up near Cahokia/St. Louis and the
            Mississippi River. And both inspire me to learn to think more
            scientifically, critically...
            What I wish to post that I ran across today is this, from a Minnesota
            DNR newsletter about an alleged 22,500 year old giant saber tooth cat
            skeleton found in the SE 'driftless' area of SE Minnesota. I know
            little of this driftless region not too far from where I live that was
            apparently unaffected by so-called glacial displacement, though I do not
            know uf that would include rebound or uplift. but even more
            intriguingly within that srticle, to me, was what may have been an
            approx. 250# or black bear-sized beaver which co-existed among modern
            beaver discovered approx. 10,000 years ago near the St. Paul,Minnesota
            area of the Mississippi River (practically in the neighborhood of where
            my son and his family live---they will find this fascinating, if none of
            you do !)
            http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/marapr09/megafauna_history.html
            Susan English, central Wisconsin
            --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" wrote:
            Susan - First of all, I see that you have learned to format your posts
            nicely. Excellent! As to this - mention of giants - I have a bit to
            say, nothing authoritative, but maybe worth throwing in here. I am not
            sure what your take on this extract was (did you read the entire
            article?), but I understood this specific mention to be somewhere along
            the James River in Virginia, but it seemed to me you are saying it was
            in the upper regions of the Missouri or Mississippi. Can you clarify
            which was intended by the author? The mention specifically of the
            'upper Missouri' along with 'giants' brought back a personal experience:
            In about 1978-9, I went to a traveling circus in Lake County, Illinois,
            somewhere near Gray's Lake or Wildwood. On the midway one of the
            exhibits was something touted as a 10-foot human skeleton. At the time
            I was not into any of this, but it was certainly worth 25 cents or so,
            so I went in and had a look. I was a newby at such things and don't
            pretend that my discernment was un-fool-able, but for all the close
            examination I could garner, I swear the thing was legitimate. Here is
            what I saw: I was expecting to see some really fake set of bones. I
            was wrong. As I recall, they claimed that the bones were found
            somewhere in the upper Missouri basin. I have a 'Steve's-mind-produced'
            memory from that time of picturing it somewhere in southern Montana or
            somewhere in Wyoming or western Nebraska. I saw a (complete, as I
            recall) skeleton that was seated on the floor of the exhibit up against
            what I remember as a decent replica of a cave wall. The knees were
            drawn up toward the chest somewhat. I do not recall the position of the
            arms. The shin bones were LONG, close to twice my own. Guesstimating
            the length, I would say they were around 40-45" long. The shoulders
            were at a height from the floor very close to the top of the knees,
            possibly a bit higher, possibly a bit lower, but certainly in
            proportion. How large the skull was I don't remember, but did not
            notice it being out of proportion. I estimated the height of the person
            at between 9'-6" and 11'-0". I do remember comparing shin lengths and
            torso lengths to people coming through the exhibit. The build of the
            skeleton was not robust, but was much more like a basketball player than
            a football lineman. (Later when I read Otto Muck's Secret's of
            Atlantis, my ears perked up when he said that Cromagnon man averaged
            6'-6" (Michael Jordan''s height), and that the women averaged 6'-0", and
            that they sometimes exceeded 8 feet, I thought back to that skeleton on
            the midway, and I wondered if Cromagnon man had lived in North America.)
            The coloration of the bones appeared as one might expect of ones that
            had been in the earth for some time, somewhat brown, with the coloration
            seeming to be absorbed into the bones to some extent. I looked long and
            hard to spot any obvious - to my then untrained eyes - fakery. I did
            not merely walk in and walk out, but spent a good 20 minutes or so
            looking for flaws in what they did. I don't recall my exact thoughts,
            but do remember coming out thinking that if it was a fake it sure was
            done so well I could not detect how they did it. Questions I had then
            (and still have now) were (assuming fakery): 1. Did they mold the
            bones out of plastic? (Answer then: that is a LOT of molds to create
            just to fake ONE skeleton!) 2. Were they made from larger bones
            carved down? (Answer then: The surface of bones is not the same as the
            underlying cellular structure, so it seemed that it would have shown up.
            But I could be fooled in this way.) 3. How did they keep all the
            bones in proportion and so well carved/molded? (Answer: They would have
            to be really expert in anatomy, plus be able to size all of them up to
            that scale from a normal sized skeleton. This was before 3D computer
            and CAT scans and MRIs, etc., not to mention tomography. Someone would
            have to be expert in anatomy AND sculpture - not likely, but not
            impossible.) 4. Motive: Why would anyone with any of the requisite
            skills to fake that spend their time on a 25-cent midway exhibit? Their
            talents and experience would seem to be worth a hell of a lot more in
            forensics or biology or in creating museum exhibits. So, Steve could
            have been fooled, but Steve was trying his best not to be fooled. If it
            was fake, I got taken in. My impression was that it was - even though
            in a carny atmosphere/presentation - somehow, unpredictably, genuine.
            I also recall back before then having heard that sometimes there are
            real finds that science hoots at (hence groups such as the present one),
            so the discoverers are left with no other way to capitalize on their
            finds other than to exhibit them in undignified ways. Ha, Ha! Even
            then, it seems, I didn't take "science's" word for it on what was
            legitimate and what was not. Well, that is it. Was it real? I imagine
            I will go to my grave not knowing. But I would sure like another go at
            it. With what I have learned in the 30 years since then, I would be able
            to form a much better opinion now... . . . . Steve I was doing a
            search for a couple of retired geologists and ran across the following
            articles; the first was from the upper waters of the Missouri and
            Mississippi Rivers. I haven't free access to JSTOR but perhaps some of
            you will be able to view the full Jan-Mar,1913 article in American
            Anthropologist: Petroglyphs Representing the Imprint of the Human Foot
            [Written before 1705, the pictographs are still recognizable and faintly
            visible century and a half later]: `By the Fall of James River upon
            Colonial Byrd's Land, there lyes a Rock which I have seen, about a Mile
            from the River, wherein are fairly imprest several Marks like the
            Footprints of a gigantic Man, each Step being about five Foot
            asunder....These they aver to be the Track of their God.' M. Susan
            English
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.