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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.