Guest JiggyPotamus Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I actually believe that it is quite likely that some museum with a large influx of material could be sitting upon sasquatch bones. There are stories, at least one good one, that lead me to believe this may just be the case. However, I do not think there is any nefarious type of coverup going on in a situation like this. Merely oversight, laziness, lack of resources, etc. There would likely be very few bones, and if they were cataloged, they would probably be grouped with an already established species, although it would depend upon how old the bones were, if that information could be determined. I honestly do not believe however that any breakthrough in this field is going to come from something the Smithsonian did not know they even had. Rather, discovery will first come through DNA profiling, followed by intensive field work carried out by academia. Not many will succeed imo, but all it takes is one reputable group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I'm most interested in the subset of institutions that have both squatch remains gathering dust and doubtful faculty asking bigfooters "Where are the bones?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cowlitz2 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 These remains were discovered by Saudi oil industry technicians. He or she stood between 15 and 20 feet tall. The weathering on it is consistent with the technician's description that the skull was originally found partially uncovered by the winds. You can read the background details about the photo here. This giant footprint is more than a thousand feet up a rugged mountain in the Cleveland National Forest. This giant thumb bone section was found by Ron Wyatt near the Ark site. Giant femur on museum display On the left is a photo of a human thumb bone, called the Proxima Phalanx and which is the joint below the joint containing the thumbnail. Note that the size of this particular phalanx bone is at least twice the length of the gentleman's holding the fossil. An x-ray of a typical man's hand and the position of the bone in question is shown on the right. Just to make sure that we are clear, the bone joint in the photo is the middle joint of the thumb only. You can do your own math as to the possible size of the owner of the fossil thumb in life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yeah okay, lets go with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 ^ Why not, oral history is probably more accurate than most written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 A lot of southeastern tribes will tell you stories about how they use to be taller then today. The Creek, Chickasaw and Shawnee all talk about it and the Chickasaw say that it was common place for men in their tribe to be seven feet or taller as average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 See okiesquatchartist's post #43 in this thread, interesting link. Mound Builders, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_builder_(people) Seems to me, we used to hear much more about the Mound Builders and far less about Bigfoot when I was a kid ('50's). I never did acquaint myself with that history/archaeology. I post the wiki link because it has a good beginner's bibliography. These guys are Not News. Is there any relationship between the Mound Builders (technically advanced for the era) and Bigfoot (no apparent technology)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 That's an interesting question. I think its one we may never know. Its sad how much history was lost because Europeans thought of the native tribes as inferior and discounted most of what they thought of as myth. I know they've found a lot of weird stuff when they excavated a lot of the mounds, and if you listen to lore, there is an explanation to some of this stuff. Some of it is hard to believe, but some of it explains some BF evidence to a certain degree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) I'm most interested in the subset of institutions that have both squatch remains gathering dust and doubtful faculty asking bigfooters "Where are the bones?". So sasquatch has the bones of a human with gigantism? Edited December 12, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 So sasquatch has the bones of a human with gigantism? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 If you look at bones with gigantism, they tend to be kind of misformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) What makes you think these aren't? What analysis said that these skeletons have an otherwise normal condition? Edited December 13, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 What makes you think these aren't? What analysis said that these skeletons have an otherwise normal condition? ya know, I'm not sure? I do know that people who are super tall also have bone deformation too. I'm not a Dr. So I can't say for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mariner Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Some more links on the subject: http://greaterancestors.com/greater-humans/ http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/There%20Were%20Giants%20on%20the%20Earth.pdf both definitely worth a read. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 7' tall could just be a big dude, or even dudette...we have them today walking among us--refer to the NBA. But when I hear of a 10-14'skeleton, no way these are just regular people with a condition. People with giantism usually die before they have a chance to break the 9' mark--case in point Robert Wadlow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wadlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts