Possibility Of Large Bones Being Found In North America

[AaronD]

The photo in LarryP's post was included in the great smithsonian cover up book. Many findings were from the US, and I have heard first hand reports of local finds of giant skeletons in the 9-10' range. To the opponents, I apologize for not having the bones stored at my house for them to see and believe. If I ever find anything such as this I will keep it for myself I can promise you that.

[Incorrigible1]

Thanks for the info, but I seriously don't believe man and dinosaurs were contemporaries.

Edited June 16, 2014 by AaronD
removed mention of religious matter

[JDL]

Does the archeological report mention the bones or does it include any measurements.

I feel like there are two types of giants being discussed in this thread. A tribe of 6-7 foot humans seems very much in the realm of possibility.

 

It does mention measurements, but only of the remains left over when the study team arrived years after the initial find.  The report author notes that many of the original remains were taken as souvenirs, he then measures the remains that were not taken and finds that they were of relatively normal stature and concludes that the size of the remains when found was exaggerated.  He does not consider that the remarkably large remains were the ones pilfered, and that the unremarkable portion of the find was what was left over for him to examine.

 

I consider the Lovelock Cave episode to be one of the more credible descriptions of larger-than-typical skeletons, and with a back-story that jibes. As for some of these websites with obviously photo-shopped "proof"....eh, it would take reading Snopes.com most of a week before you got to the bottom of those.

 

I am always interested in primary sources over I-was-told-by-someone-who-I-was-told-talked-to-someone-who-knew-somebody-who-saw-it, and that is why JDL's statements pique my interest.

 

JDL, is there more you can share on this topic, or can you point me to where you might have discussed it already? I think your point about not being able to find appropriate materials to build larger bows is pretty insightful, one I would not have considered, but it is borne out by what I know about Native American weaponry in that climate. It also makes me consider just how much acceleration is possible for a being reported to have proportionally longer arms, even absent an atlatl. With one? Holy cow, I bet they could give Bob Gibson's fastball a run for its money.

 

Thanks.

 

I shared quite a bit in an earlier thread on this topic, including the original archeological report.  I believe I provided a link to that thread earlier in this one.  I'll see if I can dig up the link again.

[Guest]

What bones were you able to examine if all the large examples were looted? Was the museum somehow able to require them or purchase them back?

 

Thanks for the info, but I seriously don't believe man and dinosaurs were contemporaries.

IMO very dubious photos can be posted but the rules of the board prevent in depth discussion as to credibility and motivation.

Edited June 16, 2014 by AaronD
comment on moderation

[Guest Stan Norton]

What bones were you able to examine if all the large examples were looted? Was the museum somehow able to require them or purchase them back?

IMO very dubious photos can be posted but the rules of the board prevent in depth discussion as to credibility and motivation.

 

Yes it's an odd scenario when, in order to present a defence of the proven theory of evolution by natural selection on a forum dedicated to the understanding of what may well be the flesh and blood biological find of history, one is almost forced to invoke topics which are out of bounds. Not fair is it?

 

And just in case there is some misunderstanding, there were no humans alive in the Cretaceous. Nor dinosaurs within the last 65 million years. That's the truth.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Stan Norton
edited quote that was in violation

[Guest]

Ha

that post shouldn't exist

[AaronD]

Thanks for the info, but I seriously don't believe man and dinosaurs were contemporaries.

We're all allowed our opinions

[Incorrigible1]

Natch. Science backs one opinion, conspiracy theories, the other.

[AaronD]

Science as presented by humans containing many theories, opinions, assertions, "we believes" "thought to be's" and such supports one opinion.....still nothing leak proof

[Guest]

Science as presented by humans containing many theories, opinions, assertions, "we believes" "thought to be's" and such supports one opinion.....still nothing leak proof

leaky proof is never good

Edited June 17, 2014 by mbh

[JDL]

What bones were you able to examine if all the large examples were looted? Was the museum somehow able to require them or purchase them back?

 

IMO very dubious photos can be posted but the rules of the board prevent in depth discussion as to credibility and motivation.

 

Having trouble finding the thread where I posted the articles and reports.  Either it's in an archive i'm not picking up on or in a thread with a non-obvious title.  It was a fairly lengthy discussion.

 

I'll see if I can scrounge up the files themselves.  They were quite large, as I recall.

 

The archeological study was conducted at the Lovelock Cave in the '20's as I recall.

 

The remains on display in the Mark Twain Museum were not from the Lovelock Cave.  They were from a cave near Walker Lake, Nevada.  They were also found by guano miners.

[Incorrigible1]

Science as presented by humans containing many theories, opinions, assertions, "we believes" "thought to be's" and such supports one opinion.....still nothing leak proof

The Anti-science side has what? Old stories, not unlike that to which the forum is devoted. Both (Anti-science and bigfoot believers) have about the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof.

 

One side welcomes competing views, just provide the evidence or logic to supplement one's claim. The other side? Not so much.

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's wrong but everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

Science would be convinced of sasquatch's existence were it not a taboo topic to even discuss.  Anyone who says there is as much evidence for bigfoot as the anti-science people have for their case is blaring, over the loudest loudspeakers allowed on planet Earth, lack of acquaintance with the evidence.  We have far more evidence for bigfoot than we do for many things scientists accept.

 

You know who says that?  The scientists who apply science to the topic.  With zero exceptions.  The others, actually, are anti-science when it comes to this topic.  Thinking people - that is, those who have thought about this - don't care what uninformed people think.  No matter how many degrees they have.

 

Oh, gee.  Read that quote down there by a thinking person.  Bing.  And Go.

Edited June 17, 2014 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

Pleased to have DWA disagree with me!

[Guest dxm2]

"We have far more evidence for bigfoot than we do for many things scientists accept."

 

Name 10 things that science has less evidence for and accepts as existing.  I couldn't do it, can you?