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

Fwd: Tall Skeleton discussion

Expand Messages
  • Ted Sojka
    There is some more information on this topic I have been sharing with a researcher in Oregon who has sent some good sources for
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 4, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      There is some more information on this topic I have been sharing with a researcher in Oregon who has sent some good sources for 

      Begin forwarded message:

      From: Micah Ewers <contact.micah@...>
      Date: January 4, 2013 1:12:00 PM CST
      To: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
      Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons

      Hi Ted,

      The bones from the French giant were found at the bottom of a bronze age burial tumulus in the cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez just north of Montpellier. Prof. de Lapouge believed the giant was from the Neolithic period, perhaps even earlier. easily between 5,000 and 10,000 years old, probably older, because the bones are reported to have been fossilized and nearly crumbled when exposed, yet were taken out entire and preserved and studied for several years at Montpellier University. Other giants were reported in news accounts at and around Montpellier also from prehistoric cemeteries, so this leads me to believe there were more than just one giant in that vicinity.

      I tend to think there is a link, tentative link, between these dolmen culture people and the mound and stone builders of New England. That there were some giants among them may be a coincidence, also it may be more than coincidence. Most skeletons found in mounds were not gigantic, but quite a number were, it may have been royal or warrior class like you say-- kind of like our professional wrestlers, or athletes, only even bigger.

      I suspect DNA already exists on some of these large skeletons found in America and Europe. Smithsonian, and national museums in Spain and France probably do have some of that info.

      Cheers,

      Micah

      --- On Fri, 1/4/13, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

      From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
      Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons
      To: "Micah Ewers" <contact.micah@...>
      Cc: "ted sojka" <tedsojka@...>
      Date: Friday, January 4, 2013, 8:05 AM

      Was there any cultural remains with those skeletons in France to give any information on how old they might be?

      I am reminded of the fact that there is a video on line of Dennis Stanford from the Smithsonian speaking about Solutrian points being found off the East Coast and off shore at the mouths of what were rivers, now inundated by oceans.  One of the surprising finds was a point with mammoth bones that was dredged up by an oyster dredge on a sand bank miles off shore.  One of the reasons it has taken so long to find evidence of travel from East to West across the ice that many years ago when the sea was 200 feet lower, is that they are all covered by water.  There is a nearby site still on land along a riverbank that is being studied that has Solutrian type points and lithic technology.

      It would be a stretch to connect the tall men of France with tall men of indigenous people on this continent for any scientist, but it does make one wonder.   Too bad that those old accounts mention the bones turning to dust when exposed to air.  I wonder if the dust should it be found in a new dig could be tested for DNA?

      Ted





      On Dec 24, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Micah Ewers wrote:

      Hi Ted. 

      I usually go by a half dozen pseudonyms on the internet though. lol.

      That's cool about the prof. from Toledo. I agree with her and Mr. Ross Hamilton's theory that these were a special warrior class, or royal class of great stature. It's possible a skeleton might lengthen a few inches in a grave, but there are so many reports of six-six, seven foot, seven - six, eight foot, even nine, I mean, that's huge. I wanna think it's all an exaggeration, but some times the femur measurements, or skull sizes are given. There are even exceptional reports of people taller than ten and eleven feet...hard as that is to fathom. The best hard scientific data I have ever found for a man over ten feet tall was the giant from Castelnau, France. I unearthed that report from archives in August of 2009, and it's now all over the net. The bones of that individual has led to the tallest height estimate (3 m, 50)  I have ever come across in a peer reviewed journal, albeit it was 1890, and people didn't know as much about anatomy as they do today. Still, the measurements of the bones were all double the normal length and width; a 16 cm circ. femur mid shaft for instance. Kind of scary to think about a person even approximately that tall, and broad. There were at least a dozen other giants reported in that region in subsequent press accounts, so I don't think all of these stories were side show hoaxes.

      That's amazing info about the field plowed. I imagine a lot still has not been excavated. You wonder what the universities have collected over the years.

      I'd love to go visit out there in Iowa some time. Maybe if I can raise some money in the poor economy, I'll do it. ;) Sounds like an awesome place.

      Thanks for all that info. If you or your colleagues have any questions feel free and ask.

      Happy Holidays.

      Micah

      --- On Mon, 12/24/12, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:


    • Susan English
      Ted, all three pieces of correspondence by Micah Ewers and yourself within your last Post were very interesting. I am glad you shared this discussion with
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 4, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Ted, all three pieces of correspondence by Micah Ewers and yourself within your last Post were very interesting.  I am glad you shared this discussion with Ancient Waterways members.  
         
        I too always wondered if the reportedly many evidences of 'giant' human bones turning to dust are still stored somewhere and could be carbon-dated.

        Conversing on the phone with AWS member Jim Scherz recently, I mentioned the current  "TEDx: Jim Vieira on Stone Builders, Mound Builders and the Giants of Ancient America" matter.  
         Dr. Scherz reminded me again there was evidence uncovered and much data written of giants among the ancient Mountbuilders of the Wisconsin, Mississippi Riverways.  We have old Posts here that members sent long ago that support this.  Should not be difficult to Search our site for (though archives apparently no longer exist at YahooGroups prior to three or four years ago). 
        Otherwise, s/b easily retrievable if the Posts' Subject headings were specific.  As your last "Tall skeleton discussion" Post was, Ted.

        I emailed Ancient American editor, Larry Gallant in reply to his recent group post that I hope you, Ted, and others here...hopefully Micah Ewers included, will find time and engage in a little voluntary fieldwork (or investigate old historic texts) within their areas of residency or travel.  

        The Minnesota DNR newsletter I shared with this group earlier in the month about bones unearthed a decade or so ago of giant saber tooth cats and beavers the size of bears reportedly 13000-26000 years old found in S. Minnesota's glacial drift area.... Whether these creatures developed over time d/t climate, oxygen content, or other factors...why does anyone even balk at the idea that human beings living within the same time, space, and conditions in that area could also be of what we contemporaries call superhuman, giant stature?

        Susan English -- sent from my iPad

        On Jan 4, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

         

        There is some more information on this topic I have been sharing with a researcher in Oregon who has sent some good sources for 


        Begin forwarded message:

        From: Micah Ewers <contact.micah@...>
        Date: January 4, 2013 1:12:00 PM CST
        To: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
        Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons

        Hi Ted,

        The bones from the French giant were found at the bottom of a bronze age burial tumulus in the cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez just north of Montpellier. Prof. de Lapouge believed the giant was from the Neolithic period, perhaps even earlier. easily between 5,000 and 10,000 years old, probably older, because the bones are reported to have been fossilized and nearly crumbled when exposed, yet were taken out entire and preserved and studied for several years at Montpellier University. Other giants were reported in news accounts at and around Montpellier also from prehistoric cemeteries, so this leads me to believe there were more than just one giant in that vicinity.

        I tend to think there is a link, tentative link, between these dolmen culture people and the mound and stone builders of New England. That there were some giants among them may be a coincidence, also it may be more than coincidence. Most skeletons found in mounds were not gigantic, but quite a number were, it may have been royal or warrior class like you say-- kind of like our professional wrestlers, or athletes, only even bigger.

        I suspect DNA already exists on some of these large skeletons found in America and Europe. Smithsonian, and national museums in Spain and France probably do have some of that info.

        Cheers,

        Micah

        --- On Fri, 1/4/13, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

        From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
        Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons
        To: "Micah Ewers" <contact.micah@...>
        Cc: "ted sojka" <tedsojka@...>
        Date: Friday, January 4, 2013, 8:05 AM

        Was there any cultural remains with those skeletons in France to give any information on how old they might be?

        I am reminded of the fact that there is a video on line of Dennis Stanford from the Smithsonian speaking about Solutrian points being found off the East Coast and off shore at the mouths of what were rivers, now inundated by oceans.  One of the surprising finds was a point with mammoth bones that was dredged up by an oyster dredge on a sand bank miles off shore.  One of the reasons it has taken so long to find evidence of travel from East to West across the ice that many years ago when the sea was 200 feet lower, is that they are all covered by water.  There is a nearby site still on land along a riverbank that is being studied that has Solutrian type points and lithic technology.

        It would be a stretch to connect the tall men of France with tall men of indigenous people on this continent for any scientist, but it does make one wonder.   Too bad that those old accounts mention the bones turning to dust when exposed to air.  I wonder if the dust should it be found in a new dig could be tested for DNA?

        Ted





        On Dec 24, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Micah Ewers wrote:

        Hi Ted. 

        I usually go by a half dozen pseudonyms on the internet though. lol.

        That's cool about the prof. from Toledo. I agree with her and Mr. Ross Hamilton's theory that these were a special warrior class, or royal class of great stature. It's possible a skeleton might lengthen a few inches in a grave, but there are so many reports of six-six, seven foot, seven - six, eight foot, even nine, I mean, that's huge. I wanna think it's all an exaggeration, but some times the femur measurements, or skull sizes are given. There are even exceptional reports of people taller than ten and eleven feet...hard as that is to fathom. The best hard scientific data I have ever found for a man over ten feet tall was the giant from Castelnau, France. I unearthed that report from archives in August of 2009, and it's now all over the net. The bones of that individual has led to the tallest height estimate (3 m, 50)  I have ever come across in a peer reviewed journal, albeit it was 1890, and people didn't know as much about anatomy as they do today. Still, the measurements of the bones were all double the normal length and width; a 16 cm circ. femur mid shaft for instance. Kind of scary to think about a person even approximately that tall, and broad. There were at least a dozen other giants reported in that region in subsequent press accounts, so I don't think all of these stories were side show hoaxes.

        That's amazing info about the field plowed. I imagine a lot still has not been excavated. You wonder what the universities have collected over the years.

        I'd love to go visit out there in Iowa some time. Maybe if I can raise some money in the poor economy, I'll do it. ;) Sounds like an awesome place.

        Thanks for all that info. If you or your colleagues have any questions feel free and ask.

        Happy Holidays.

        Micah

        --- On Mon, 12/24/12, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:


      • C TRAYLOR
        The Library of Congress Chronicling America In their search window asking for giant skeletons
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 5, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
           
          In their search window asking for "giant skeletons" they gave me about 800 hits ... These are newspaper before about 1924 .... One quick look was a report about a cave in Hawaii. 
           
          The Library of Congress is partnering with other archives. When I copy an article, I also copy the source, and their source.  Apparently the National Archives info is not on copyright. 
           
          In the top right of their web page is a command that removes the color on the text word in your query.  Their copy process is not the best, but that is what they give us. 
           
          CAL

            ===========================
          On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:
           

          There is some more information on this topic I have been sharing with a researcher in Oregon who has sent some good sources for 


          Begin forwarded message:

          From: Micah Ewers <contact.micah@...>
          Date: January 4, 2013 1:12:00 PM CST
          To: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
          Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons

          Hi Ted,

          The bones from the French giant were found at the bottom of a bronze age burial tumulus in the cemetery of Castelnau-le-Lez just north of Montpellier. Prof. de Lapouge believed the giant was from the Neolithic period, perhaps even earlier. easily between 5,000 and 10,000 years old, probably older, because the bones are reported to have been fossilized and nearly crumbled when exposed, yet were taken out entire and preserved and studied for several years at Montpellier University. Other giants were reported in news accounts at and around Montpellier also from prehistoric cemeteries, so this leads me to believe there were more than just one giant in that vicinity.

          I tend to think there is a link, tentative link, between these dolmen culture people and the mound and stone builders of New England. That there were some giants among them may be a coincidence, also it may be more than coincidence. Most skeletons found in mounds were not gigantic, but quite a number were, it may have been royal or warrior class like you say-- kind of like our professional wrestlers, or athletes, only even bigger.

          I suspect DNA already exists on some of these large skeletons found in America and Europe. Smithsonian, and national museums in Spain and France probably do have some of that info.

          Cheers,

          Micah

          --- On Fri, 1/4/13, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

          From: Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...>
          Subject: Re: Tall Skeletons
          To: "Micah Ewers" <contact.micah@...>
          Cc: "ted sojka" <tedsojka@...>
          Date: Friday, January 4, 2013, 8:05 AM

          Was there any cultural remains with those skeletons in France to give any information on how old they might be?

          I am reminded of the fact that there is a video on line of Dennis Stanford from the Smithsonian speaking about Solutrian points being found off the East Coast and off shore at the mouths of what were rivers, now inundated by oceans.  One of the surprising finds was a point with mammoth bones that was dredged up by an oyster dredge on a sand bank miles off shore.  One of the reasons it has taken so long to find evidence of travel from East to West across the ice that many years ago when the sea was 200 feet lower, is that they are all covered by water.  There is a nearby site still on land along a riverbank that is being studied that has Solutrian type points and lithic technology.

          It would be a stretch to connect the tall men of France with tall men of indigenous people on this continent for any scientist, but it does make one wonder.   Too bad that those old accounts mention the bones turning to dust when exposed to air.  I wonder if the dust should it be found in a new dig could be tested for DNA?

          Ted





          On Dec 24, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Micah Ewers wrote:

          Hi Ted. 

          I usually go by a half dozen pseudonyms on the internet though. lol.

          That's cool about the prof. from Toledo. I agree with her and Mr. Ross Hamilton's theory that these were a special warrior class, or royal class of great stature. It's possible a skeleton might lengthen a few inches in a grave, but there are so many reports of six-six, seven foot, seven - six, eight foot, even nine, I mean, that's huge. I wanna think it's all an exaggeration, but some times the femur measurements, or skull sizes are given. There are even exceptional reports of people taller than ten and eleven feet...hard as that is to fathom. The best hard scientific data I have ever found for a man over ten feet tall was the giant from Castelnau, France. I unearthed that report from archives in August of 2009, and it's now all over the net. The bones of that individual has led to the tallest height estimate (3 m, 50)  I have ever come across in a peer reviewed journal, albeit it was 1890, and people didn't know as much about anatomy as they do today. Still, the measurements of the bones were all double the normal length and width; a 16 cm circ. femur mid shaft for instance. Kind of scary to think about a person even approximately that tall, and broad. There were at least a dozen other giants reported in that region in subsequent press accounts, so I don't think all of these stories were side show hoaxes.

          That's amazing info about the field plowed. I imagine a lot still has not been excavated. You wonder what the universities have collected over the years.

          I'd love to go visit out there in Iowa some time. Maybe if I can raise some money in the poor economy, I'll do it. ;) Sounds like an awesome place.

          Thanks for all that info. If you or your colleagues have any questions feel free and ask.

          Happy Holidays.

          Micah

          --- On Mon, 12/24/12, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:





          --
               N  
           

          This message is in English, thank our veterans

          for keeping the front lines .... over there.

        • C TRAYLOR
          -- * Also, even better is .... Google Books Search ....* * Many books are over 100 years old that address the subject of .... giant skeletons .... That is all
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 5, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            --
             Also, even better is .... Google Books Search ....   Many books are over 100 years old that address the subject of .... giant skeletons .... That is all I enter tn the search window for books.   I use a "snipper" tool clip passeges, or pages.   
             
            CAL  ====================
             
          • Ted Sojka
            Thanks Cal for your help. There are several people working on projects on this topic for film or books on this subject. What is your opinion on the Hrdlicka
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Cal for your help. There are several people working on projects on this topic for film or books on this subject.  What is your opinion on the Hrdlicka era at the Smithsonian? 
              ted
              On Jan 5, 2013, at 7:01 PM, C TRAYLOR wrote:

               


              --
               Also, even better is .... Google Books Search ....   Many books are over 100 years old that address the subject of .... giant skeletons .... That is all I enter tn the search window for books.   I use a "snipper" tool clip passeges, or pages.   
               
              CAL  ====================
               


            • C TRAYLOR
              -- * This problem has been outside my area, but biographers seem to agree that he made a great contribution with his collections. But .... he was biased and
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment


                --
                  This problem has been outside my area, but biographers seem to agree that he made a great contribution with his collections.  But .... he was biased and blindly defended his theses that all humans in the Americas came from Europe.  To compound that bias, he apparently would not discuss science with a woman. Using this in your Internet search window, you get numerous responses that he was "biased:"    Hrdlicka era at the Smithsonian was biased 
                 
                Example = 
                His strong bias in this regard and ...   (Pages IX and X) 
                  
                 =================== Cal     
                 

                 

              • Ted Sojka
                Cal, You are a real pro. I am glad for the encouragement to keep this site going. Ted
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Cal,
                  You are a real pro.  I am glad for the encouragement to keep this site going.  

                  Ted
                  On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:27 AM, C TRAYLOR wrote:

                   



                  --
                    This problem has been outside my area, but biographers seem to agree that he made a great contribution with his collections.  But .... he was biased and blindly defended his theses that all humans in the Americas came from Europe.  To compound that bias, he apparently would not discuss science with a woman. Using this in your Internet search window, you get numerous responses that he was "biased:"    Hrdlicka era at the Smithsonian was biased 
                   
                  Example = 
                  His strong bias in this regard and ...   (Pages IX and X) 
                    
                   =================== Cal     
                   

                   



                • bigalemc2
                  I found this NY Time article (pdf of the original article):Giant Skeletons Found [Feb 11, 1902]
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I found this NY Time article (pdf of the original article):

                    about giant skeletons found buried on a ranch in New Mexico.

                    "...not less than 12 feet tall..."

                    "...forearm was 4 feet long..." [including the hand? Otherwise this one sounds bogus on a 12 foot human --- WAY out of proportion...]

                    "...chest is reported to have a circumference of seven feet..."  [84" ! ! !]

                    Steve Garcia




                  • Susan
                    You too, Ted. Very good submissions, both of you gentlemen. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You too, Ted. Very good submissions, both of you gentlemen. Thank you!

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On Jan 6, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Ted Sojka <tedsojka@...> wrote:

                       

                      Cal,

                      You are a real pro.  I am glad for the encouragement to keep this site going.  

                      Ted
                      On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:27 AM, C TRAYLOR wrote:

                       



                      --
                        This problem has been outside my area, but biographers seem to agree that he made a great contribution with his collections.  But .... he was biased and blindly defended his theses that all humans in the Americas came from Europe.  To compound that bias, he apparently would not discuss science with a woman. Using this in your Internet search window, you get numerous responses that he was "biased:"    Hrdlicka era at the Smithsonian was biased 
                       
                      Example = 
                      His strong bias in this regard and ...   (Pages IX and X) 
                        
                       =================== Cal     
                       

                       



                    • C TRAYLOR
                      48 - Ooparts
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment

                        48 - Ooparts

                        You +1'd this publicly. Undo
                        Giant Skeletons Found Archeologists

                          The above web site has numerous clippings about giants. The one in Guadalupe, New Mew Mexico is included, about 1/3 down the list.  There may be some confusion, for in Mexico there also is a Guadalupe. === in this collection is another find in Mexico in which the giant skeletons were packed in leather bags, in a cave.  
                         
                        Cal  
                          ============   
                         

                         

                      • C TRAYLOR
                        -- * THANKS ... comment is much appreciated. * ** *I have been out of the main stream of this subject for many years. I received my enlightenment at a
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment


                          --
                            THANKS ... comment is much appreciated.  
                           
                          I have been out of the main stream of this subject for many years.  I received my "enlightenment" at a five-day retreat in a village, Quebec, Canada; speakers included two U.S. Ph.D.  One spoke on the history of language,  which supported the other subject. The other used "America B.C." by Barry Fell.  Later, Barry and I corresponded by letter and phone.  Knowing him was surely a great experience for me. He was so humble and helpful .... even to us beginners.  
                           
                          Again, thank you,
                           
                          Cal
                           
                           

                           

                        • bigalemc2
                          Here is one of those things that gives the Internet a bad name: At Archeologists to Send Expedition to Explore Graveyards in New Mexico
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Here is one of those things that gives the Internet a bad name:


                            I found an undated "report" that giant skeletons had been found near Guadalupe, NM.  The text is EXACTLY the same as the text of the NY Times report I linked to today.

                            The worst aspect of this is tthat the headline suggests that there is some CURRENT archaeological activity.  An uninformed reader would read this that way.

                            This site - GiantHumanSkeletons.blogspot.com - has no mechanism for commenting, and it also has no "About" link, so there is no way to point out to the reading public nor to the author that it is entirely disingenuous to post this as if it is a new report.  

                            This is the height of irresponsible blogging.

                            The original news report has nothing in it to suggest that it is bogus, but THIS blog post is bogus because it is directly and intentionally plagiarizing a New York Times article from 1902.

                            Steve Garcia



                            --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" wrote:
                            >
                            > I found this NY Time article (pdf of the original article):Giant
                            > Skeletons Found [Feb 11, 1902]
                            >
                            2C1A9649C946397D6CF>
                            > about giant skeletons found buried on a ranch in New Mexico.
                            > "...not less than 12 feet tall..."
                            > "...forearm was 4 feet long..." [including the hand? Otherwise this one
                            > sounds bogus on a 12 foot human --- WAY out of proportion...]
                            > "...chest is reported to have a circumference of seven feet..." [84" !
                            > ! !]
                            > Steve Garcia
                            >
                          • Ted Sojka
                            Thanks Steve. I did not see the blog myself, but I am trying to show that there are many reports from around the country since the Pilgrims dug up some
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks Steve.   I did not see the blog myself, but I am trying to show that there are many reports from around the country since the Pilgrims dug up some pottery filled with corn in a grave on the Massachusetts coast.  (According to Zinn)  I have read that the first thanksgiving was an attempt to feed the struggling colonists with gifts of deer and turkey, to suggest to the new immigrants that they did not have to disturb the dead.  

                              Ted
                              On Jan 6, 2013, at 5:29 PM, bigalemc2 wrote:

                               

                              Here is one of those things that gives the Internet a bad name:


                              I found an undated "report" that giant skeletons had been found near Guadalupe, NM.  The text is EXACTLY the same as the text of the NY Times report I linked to today.

                              The worst aspect of this is tthat the headline suggests that there is some CURRENT archaeological activity.  An uninformed reader would read this that way.

                              This site - GiantHumanSkeletons.blogspot.com - has no mechanism for commenting, and it also has no "About" link, so there is no way to point out to the reading public nor to the author that it is entirely disingenuous to post this as if it is a new report.  

                              This is the height of irresponsible blogging.

                              The original news report has nothing in it to suggest that it is bogus, but THIS blog post is bogus because it is directly and intentionally plagiarizing a New York Times article from 1902.

                              Steve Garcia



                              --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" wrote:
                              >
                              > I found this NY Time article (pdf of the original article):Giant
                              > Skeletons Found [Feb 11, 1902]
                              >
                              2C1A9649C946397D6CF>
                              > about giant skeletons found buried on a ranch in New Mexico.
                              > "...not less than 12 feet tall..."
                              > "...forearm was 4 feet long..." [including the hand? Otherwise this one
                              > sounds bogus on a 12 foot human --- WAY out of proportion...]
                              > "...chest is reported to have a circumference of seven feet..." [84" !
                              > ! !]
                              > Steve Garcia
                              >


                            • Rick O
                              Angus McGaskill had an 80 chest in life and he was only 7 9 . Of course, having meat on the bones would make a big difference... ... 2C1A9649C946397D6CF ...
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 7, 2013
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Angus McGaskill had an 80 chest in life and he was "only" 7'9". Of course, having meat on the bones would make a big difference...


                                --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" wrote:
                                >
                                > I found this NY Time article (pdf of the original article):Giant
                                > Skeletons Found [Feb 11, 1902]
                                >
                                2C1A9649C946397D6CF>
                                > about giant skeletons found buried on a ranch in New Mexico.
                                > "...not less than 12 feet tall..."
                                > "...forearm was 4 feet long..." [including the hand? Otherwise this one
                                > sounds bogus on a 12 foot human --- WAY out of proportion...]
                                > "...chest is reported to have a circumference of seven feet..." [84" !
                                > ! !]
                                > Steve Garcia
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.