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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.