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

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

Expand Messages
  • bigalemc2
    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
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 17, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Susan
      Steve G., All, Snowed-in again here yesterday and today, about a foot more. Even Hillary s pre-primary visit to our town was cancelled and she spent another
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 18, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        Steve G., All,

        Snowed-in again here yesterday and today, about  a foot more. Even Hillary's pre-primary visit to our town  was cancelled and she spent another night in Milwaukee. Thanks Steve for the earlier assist with Beta-Text formatting. Oz too. It makes reading these posts so much easier. 

        The first web article I sent referring to evidence of large humans/'giants I did not have access to beyond the first page but will ask the librarian if it is available without the $12 JSTOR  fee.   In the David Bushnell, Jr.  article "Petroglyphys Representing the Imprint of the Human Foot", it  looks as though the James River refers to Richmond, VA. I copied this following  paragraphwhich is  above the one I cited and it looks as though one would have to see the entire article to see what is referred to of footprints or remains near the upper waters of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers:

        "Footprints" are usually found near water-courses. The best examples are isolated, dissociated from other figures. Again they are mingled with a group of carvings. But the first class appear to constitute a distinct type.  These curious figures have been found from below the falls of Jame river, near Richmond, across the mountains and down the valley of the Ohio to the Mississippi. Crossing the Mississippi, they are found in Missouri and Oklahoma. Other examples ahve been discovered near athe upper waterws of the Missouri and the Mississippi.

        Especially appropriate here at our site,  the JSTOR  article stated that  'footprints' were usually found near waterways.   My second link  sent earlier had dozens of 1800's references to human skeletal remains ranging from 7-13 feet or longer.  No scientific evidence was  indicated, but do we have to believe all were hoaxes?  I recall photos of such skeletons during the 40's, 50's when it would be less likely that photos could have been faked. Again, 1800's  written reports from the Ohio Valley:   http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.html 

        Below is  another site,  not sure again  how credible the source. Anything that deviates from the 'norm' seems to be only accessible by way of such avenues as  paranormal, Biblical,  UFO sites, and, of course, circuses and carnival side shows.  Surely they are not all fakes, but there is no scientific avenue for legitimate, beyond-the-ordinary evidence.  Does anyone know of scientific studies w/mapping of  giant human skeletal remains in the Americas? Following the reports from these  two or three web links, isn't it intriguing that the reportings follow many of  the Mississippi, Missouri, Illinios, Ohio river courses we oftentimes talk about at this list?

        http://www.geocities.com/age_of_giants/ancient_giants/mound_builders.html

        Steve, I  enjoyed your experience at the circus from an area where I grew up.  That experience must have also sparked your curiousity in your future interests in things ancient.  I wonder how many of us here have had bizaar experiences of this sort which influenced future pursuits.

        As in many of Steve's  posts, the logical ordering of questions/considerations during his inquiries I find helpful.  Makes a  good reference post for our archives for those who will be listing future web links or doing  further inquiries on the subject.   PreColumbian Inscriptions  also has  numerous posts which refer to giants,  accessible too via their archives.  I refer back to posts by many of you members here via the Search box  or Message #  box above the messages.

        hile online here, I wonder how Georgian member, Jamie Clark is doing working with landowners who have discovered countless ancient giant animal bones and stone bird figures in sinkholes and  Tennessee caves along the Highland Rim? That are also is very much a Mississippi River tributary.

         Susan


        --- In ancient_waterways_society@yahoogroups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> 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
        >

      • Vincent Barrows
        An interesting account of the Cooper Mound recounts the excavation from 1879. ...he says they have exhumed twenty-three skeletons, some of which were eight
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 18, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          An interesting account of the "Cooper Mound" recounts the excavation from 1879. "...he says they have exhumed twenty-three skeletons, some of which were eight to nine feet long, and one eleven (!) feet! The skeletons were encased in peculiar putty-colored cement which exposure to the air reduces to a very fine powder.  This cement seems to have preserved the bones, except the parts near and at the joints."
          That has to be either the biggest skeleton ever found or an exaggeration.
          Thanks;
          Vince


          Susan <beldingenglish@...> wrote:
          Steve G., All,
          Snowed-in again here yesterday and today, about  a foot more. Even Hillary's pre-primary visit to our town  was cancelled and she spent another night in Milwaukee. Thanks Steve for the earlier assist with Beta-Text formatting. Oz too. It makes reading these posts so much easier. 
          The first web article I sent referring to evidence of large humans/'giants I did not have access to beyond the first page but will ask the librarian if it is available without the $12 JSTOR  fee.   In the David Bushnell, Jr.  article "Petroglyphys Representing the Imprint of the Human Foot", it  looks as though the James River refers to Richmond, VA. I copied this following  paragraphwhich is  above the one I cited and it looks as though one would have to see the entire article to see what is referred to of footprints or remains near the upper waters of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers:
          "Footprints" are usually found near water-courses. The best examples are isolated, dissociated from other figures. Again they are mingled with a group of carvings. But the first class appear to constitute a distinct type.  These curious figures have been found from below the falls of Jame river, near Richmond, across the mountains and down the valley of the Ohio to the Mississippi. Crossing the Mississippi, they are found in Missouri and Oklahoma. Other examples ahve been discovered near athe upper waterws of the Missouri and the Mississippi.
          Especially appropriate here at our site,  the JSTOR  article stated that  'footprints' were usually found near waterways.   My second link  sent earlier had dozens of 1800's references to human skeletal remains ranging from 7-13 feet or longer.  No scientific evidence was  indicated, but do we have to believe all were hoaxes?  I recall photos of such skeletons during the 40's, 50's when it would be less likely that photos could have been faked. Again, 1800's  written reports from the Ohio Valley:   http://www.geocitie s.com/saqatchr/ page46.html 
          Below is  another site,  not sure again  how credible the source. Anything that deviates from the 'norm' seems to be only accessible by way of such avenues as  paranormal, Biblical,  UFO sites, and, of course, circuses and carnival side shows.  Surely they are not all fakes, but there is no scientific avenue for legitimate, beyond-the-ordinary evidence.  Does anyone know of scientific studies w/mapping of  giant human skeletal remains in the Americas? Following the reports from these  two or three web links, isn't it intriguing that the reportings follow many of  the Mississippi, Missouri, Illinios, Ohio river courses we oftentimes talk about at this list?
          Steve, I  enjoyed your experience at the circus from an area where I grew up.  That experience must have also sparked your curiousity in your future interests in things ancient.  I wonder how many of us here have had bizaar experiences of this sort which influenced future pursuits.
          As in many of Steve's  posts, the logical ordering of questions/considera tions during his inquiries I find helpful.  Makes a  good reference post for our archives for those who will be listing future web links or doing  further inquiries on the subject.   PreColumbian Inscriptions  also has  numerous posts which refer to giants,  accessible too via their archives.  I refer back to posts by many of you members here via the Search box  or Message #  box above the messages.
          hile online here, I wonder how Georgian member, Jamie Clark is doing working with landowners who have discovered countless ancient giant animal bones and stone bird figures in sinkholes and  Tennessee caves along the Highland Rim? That are also is very much a Mississippi River tributary.
           Susan

          --- In ancient_waterways_ society@yahoogro ups.com, "bigalemc2" <puppet@...> 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/presenta tion - 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
          >


          Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

        • bigalemc2
          Susan - As to this: The first web article I sent referring to evidence of large humans/ giants I did not have access to beyond the first page but will ask the
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 18, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Susan - As to this:
            The first web article I sent referring to evidence of large humans/'giants I did not have access to beyond the first page but will ask the librarian if it is available without the $12 JSTOR fee.
            My son is in college and I will ask him if he can access that article.  I think he can.

            . . . . Steve
          • minnesotastan
            The shin bones were LONG, close to twice my own. Guesstimating the length, I would say they were around 40-45 long. The first thought that comes to my mind is
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 20, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              The shin bones were LONG, close to twice my own. Guesstimating the
              length, I would say they were around 40-45"long.

              The first thought that comes to my mind is that perhaps the exhibitors
              used real bones, but not human bones, to modify a human skeleton.
              Shin bone morphology might not be that different among species, though
              I can't be certain of that. I do remember that it was the discovery
              of dinosaur bones in Greece that led the ancients to postulate a
              preexistent race of giants.
            • Susan
              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:
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 17, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                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 

              • 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.