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

Re: [ancient_waterways_society] Re: Fwd: Tall Skeleton discussion

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Jan 6, 2013
    • 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 2 of 14 , Jan 7, 2013
      • 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.