Jump to content

Possibility Of Large Bones Being Found In North America


Guest JiggyPotamus

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the links Bonehead!  Plussed!

 

This, from your second link:

 

"We then decided to do a careful review of the Smithsonian’s two major reports that detailed their mound investigations (the 1887 and 1894 Bureau of Ethnology Annual Reports). We used original publications for our search and went through them page-by-page. The 1894 report contained 742-pages detailing the mound investigations and the 1887 report had 100 pages. We found that the Smithsonian’s field agents found 17 skeletons in mounds that were close to 7 feet or taller. The largest they reported was just under 8-feet in length. The main concentration of these was in West Virginia’s Kanawha Valley, which I then visited along with Brent and Joan Raynes. 

I performed two statistical analyses on the “giant†skeletons found in West Virginia to determine the probability that the large skeletons excavated there could simply be due to chance. The first analysis assumed that the skeletons were measured correctly and it showed that the statistical probability of finding so many tall skeletons in the West Virginia mounds was well beyond chance: the actual results were as close to zero as it gets statistically. The second analysis assumed that all of the skeletons were measured incorrectly because of “spreading,†which can occur to skeletons as falling stone and ground cause pressure to push apart skeletons. This analysis essentially reduced the height of all the skeletons by about 7.5%. The resulting statistical analysis also showed that the probability of finding so many tall skeletons in West Virginia mounds were far blow what might be found by chance (p > .01). I also found that American archaeologists have actually termed skeletons about 5 feet 10 inches tall in Moche pyramids as “giants.†This is important because the skeptics have derided others for calling skeletal remains 7 to 8 feet tall “giants.†In essence, for the Smithsonian to have found 17 skeletons that were 7 feet tall by chance alone, they would have had to excavate 2.5 million skeletons. (That statistic utilizes modern height statistics, not the smaller heights known to have existed in ancient Native American populations.) In sum, there is a genuine mystery here. The height of many of the individuals entombed in ancient American mounds was far taller than the general populace—far beyond what could be explained by simple chance. Skeptics have related that the disorder gigantism probably was the cause of many reports, but they actually cite no evidence for this assertion. It is a weak attempt to explain away and dismiss the issue. Gigantism is exceedingly rare, so rare that there is no actual incidence statistic for it. America has less than 100 cases of gigantism recoded in its history. In fact, the overwhelmingly vast majority of tall people today, those reaching or approaching 7 feet, do not have the disorder of gigantism. The actual percentage of modern humans who reach 7 feet in height is 0.000007%. In the ancient world of America’s Mound Builders, the percentage of the population that reached 7 feet in height would have been even lower. "

At the Smithsonian - see above.

 

:-)

yeah, that second link definitely isn't from a crackpot UFO site

This thread is eye opening. I don't care for the direction this place sees to be going in, not that anyone cares what I think. There are a lot of great members on both sides of the BF issue, but some of the silliness thrown around in here is too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonehead74

mbh,

I guess my mistake is that I have enough respect for others to trust them to weigh all the arguments and evidence for themselves and make their own decision. Upon reflection, it would be much easier for others to simply think what you think without the inconvenience of being personally responsible enough to formulate their own views on the issue by reviewing the claims from all sides. My apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't directed at you. I know you included sources on both sides of the issue.

My whining about this forum was a totally different thought. I should have added a note to indicate that..my fault.

I've literally never remembered reading a post from you before that link, so it wasn't aimed at you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Yep, everything on the internet must be true.

So, no rebuttal to the comments made?  THAT'S your response?  There's even math and all that in there.  There's even a path you can follow to look at the reports.

And that's the comment you make?  The first time in 3 months I view a response from you and this is what it is.

 

I chose wisely putting you on the short list of folks I ignore.

^better yet a book sold on the internet! Maybe I should write a fake book to sell to fruits, nuts, and footers. Probably no money in it tho.

 

So now a book sold on the internet is instantly non-credible?

 

Care to rebut the findings?  Say, by reading the reports and conducting your own statistical analysis?

yeah, that second link definitely isn't from a crackpot UFO site

This thread is eye opening. I don't care for the direction this place sees to be going in, not that anyone cares what I think. There are a lot of great members on both sides of the BF issue, but some of the silliness thrown around in here is too much.

 

The 'silliness' of the website should not take away from the 'facts' that were presented in this excerpt.

 

There were 2 Smithsonian reports evaluated and statistical methods applied to determine the probabilities of a population like this existing.

 

I don't care what speculations are produced by the author regarding this finding, other than the finding itself is there and intriguing.

 

It shows that not only large bones being found in America is possible, it's beyond probable as it has been shown to happen.

 

It directly answer's the OP's question and shows that this phenom has happened.

 

So far, the rebuttals from Bonehead's links are "crackpot UFO sight", "everything on the internet is true", and "it's a book on the internet".

 

Excellent skepticism there.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no rebuttal to the comments made?  THAT'S your response?  There's even math and all that in there.  There's even a path you can follow to look at the reports.

And that's the comment you make?  The first time in 3 months I view a response from you and this is what it is.

 

I chose wisely putting you on the short list of folks I ignore.

 

So now a book sold on the internet is instantly non-credible?

 

Care to rebut the findings?  Say, by reading the reports and conducting your own statistical analysis?

 

The 'silliness' of the website should not take away from the 'facts' that were presented in this excerpt.

 

There were 2 Smithsonian reports evaluated and statistical methods applied to determine the probabilities of a population like this existing.

 

I don't care what speculations are produced by the author regarding this finding, other than the finding itself is there and intriguing.

 

It shows that not only large bones being found in America is possible, it's beyond probable as it has been shown to happen.

 

It directly answer's the OP's question and shows that this phenom has happened.

 

So far, the rebuttals from Bonehead's links are "crackpot UFO sight", "everything on the internet is true", and "it's a book on the internet".

 

Excellent skepticism there.

thank you

The silliness comment was not directed at that web page. I do have my questions about the credibility of some of the other content, which makes me wonder...

I can't debunk the analysis, so it is interesting to me. This again goes back to the term "giants" though. I think we all have different views of what that means. 7 foot humans in NA is a possibility to me. But that's not the only thing being discussed in here.

I'm not buying the obviously manipulated photos from very dubious sources or the cast of a bone from a written description or a grand conspiracy to hide giants from the public.

But this remains only in the "interesting" category for me, until those bones turn up and can be examined.

Edited by mbh
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonehead74

That wasn't directed at you. I know you included sources on both sides of the issue.

My whining about this forum was a totally different thought. I should have added a note to indicate that..my fault.

I've literally never remembered reading a post from you before that link, so it wasn't aimed at you.

No problem. My post rereads a bit harsher than I intended it to be! :pardon: 

 

I still think it best to put all the info in front of people and let them decide. Not everyone agrees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well when you can tell me where some of them giant bones are I'll remain a tad skeptical.

 

BLM has the three from the Walker Lake Cave that were on display in the Mark Twain Museum fin the 60's and 70's.

 

Good enough?

Edited by JDL
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

thank you

The silliness comment was not directed at that web page. I do have my questions about the credibility of some of the other content, which makes me wonder...

I can't debunk the analysis, so it is interesting to me. This again goes back to the term "giants" though. I think we all have different views of what that means. 7 foot humans in NA is a possibility to me. But that's not the only thing being discussed in here.

I'm not buying the obviously manipulated photos from very dubious sources or the cast of a bone from a written description or a grand conspiracy to hide giants from the public.

But this remains only in the "interesting" category for me, until those bones turn up and can be examined.

 

^Can't say as I disagree at all.  And I apologize....I snipped a bit there.

 

If there is verifiable evidence presented (as supposedly there is), it should be pretty easy to debunk.  Someone would just need to find the Smithsonian reports and show where they were wrong.

 

And there is this term 'giant' being thrown around, but I've been personally trying to hold tight the thread title which only suggests large bones.

 

A population of 7 foot tall folks is certainly worthy of examination.  Giants?  Not to many these days, but who the heck knows 100 years or so ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody can make claims on the internet, even with math.

 

And "close to 7 feet or more" that's pretty general. Look at the NBA or pro wrestling and you'll found many people close to 7 feet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 7' tall human is an outlier.

 

http://sucolex.blogspot.com/2011/11/human-height-and-weight.html

 

This blog has a scatter chart of a large sample of humans, you can see that the 7' tall end of the scale is a small outlier percentage of the graph.

 

 

 

700

 

 

600                                         A 7'6" 600lb Bigfoot?    -->            o

 

 

500

 

bodies.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...