Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest Llawgoch]

Would you consider the New York Times a tabloid?  How about Beloit College? 

 

 

"Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912. The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone's concept of a textbook standard. They were enormous. These were not average human beings. 

Strange Skulls 

First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features. 

Their heights ranged between 7.6ft and 10 feet and their skulls "presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day." They tend to have a double row of teeth, 6 fingers, 6 toes and like humans came in differant races. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars. Heads usually found are elongated believed due to longer than normal life span."

 

Giant Skeleton Discovered in Maple Creek, WI 

On December 20th, 1897 the New York Times reported that three large burial mounds had been discovered near Maple Creek, WI. Upon excavation, a skeleton measuring over nine feet from head to toe was discovered with finely tempered copper rods and other relics. 

 

 

Here is an image of the NYT article.

 

OK, so, the NYT may not cut it.  How about an official Smithsonian report?

 

"Twelfth Annual Report from the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology:  clipped for pertinent info:

So, I don't think it is semantics at all, you just raised the bar from "reports of giants" to "verifiable reports of giants", which I can only equate to proof.  Right?  b/c if the report is verifiable, it must mean there are the giant bones at the end of the process.

 

 

I can't really read the new York Times reports, but they seem just to reporting what people have claimed, not something that anyone has seen for themselves.

 

The Smithsonian report is just of a seven foot six skeleton.  Even if that isn't exaggerated,  there's no reason to believe that wasn't a human and every reason to believe it was.  Seven foot six is only a 'giant' in sideshow terms, it's hardly inexplicable.

Edited April 9, 2014 by salubrious
To edit previously-edited quote

[Guest Stan Norton]

@Cotter...

 

Thanks. Hate to appear to be a snitch but in my opinion there enough mumbo jumbo here about sasquatch without dragging in creationism too! It's a lesson to each of us to take care to follow links...fallen foul of it myself before.

 

There is an inevitability to this thread because the OP is predicated on an (understandable) assumption that maths may assist in addressing the 'why don't we have a body' argument. It's a dead cert win for the 'sceptical' because as they and indeed many proponents state, there is no reliable data upon which to base population assessments. Until we have a reliable census methodology (given all the claims of routine encounters and habituation you'd think someone would have sorted that out...) we will have no decent argument to counter the scofftical reasoning.

[dmaker]

nm

Edited April 9, 2014 by dmaker

[salubrious]

The bodies all start with a skull and that skull doesn't just disappear. You trying to tell me that 10's of thousands of years of buried Sasquatch bodies don't have heads to be found? While millions of acres of land all over the country are being cleared by ordinary people? Or that not even a single one of those people would decide to report or display one if found?

 

Most forested areas have acidic soil that will see to it that a body will only persist for a few weeks.

 

An accurate representation for some at the time, but certainly not all. It was also common practice for looters in those days to dig through burial mounds and take bones and other things to sell because they were worth money. So while some viewed the mounds as good farming land, others viewed them as gold. People would make knives and other things out of NA bones back then.

 

There is also the fact that land development never stopped and is still going on today. Let's not forget that.

 

Hm. Sounds like some of the bones in question may have been stolen by looters, if they were in burial mounds. So you seem to have provided a reason why such bones might be harder to find.

 

If we ever get to understand this species, I imagine this will be one of the big questions that we will really want to know- what happens to their dead? At any rate, just because it does not seem like we have found their bones does not mean that we have not, nor is it any sort of proof against BF's existence. Interesting question though!

[Guest]

As to the tall skeletal remains, they seem to be considered human, not ape. Seems that pre-colonization First Nations' peoples may have been quite tall, individually or as local groups.

Chief Tuskaloosa was said in some sources to be almost 7 ft. tall. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cmddlton/tusk.html

Other accounts: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/gigantes/GiantsNAm1.html#Anchor-California-14210

[MIB]

(1) There were no "apes" in North America to compare to so a "human, not ape" comparison was outside the paradigm.

 

(2) The First Nations' peoples generally considered BF to be another tribe of people because that's all they had within their paradigm.

 

So ... what's your point?

 

MIB

[AaronD]

For what it's worth, I believe squatches are people as well---perhaps hybridized and often much larger than us.....

....and, I know people who have personally seen the giant skeletons. A bunch were found not far from my home, 9-10' tall. Some believe they were Native Americans, who knows.....but I do know the Smithsonian will avidly ****** them up and play dumb thereafter---why? There's this place called the Tar Pit......

[roguefooter]

Would you consider the New York Times a tabloid?  How about Beloit College? 

 

 

OK, so, the NYT may not cut it.  How about an official Smithsonian report?

 

"Twelfth Annual Report from the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology:  clipped for pertinent info:  

 

 

 

So, I don't think it is semantics at all, you just raised the bar from "reports of giants" to "verifiable reports of giants", which I can only equate to proof.  Right?  b/c if the report is verifiable, it must mean there are the giant bones at the end of the process.

 

Those skeletal measurements correlate with the Karankawa Native aboriginal people which I already mentioned, so yes it would verify their existence. It's not the 'giants' from the newspapers that measured 12+ feet tall.

 

Yes all newspapers back then had a mix of tabloid. I have several papers from back then and you could tell they got most of their info through gossip and not actual sources. They also liked to just take stories from other papers so these things became widespread. There was really no way to verify anything back then.

 

 

Hm. Sounds like some of the bones in question may have been stolen by looters, if they were in burial mounds. So you seem to have provided a reason why such bones might be harder to find.

 

 

 

Actually it would make them much easier to find because all of those bones ended up in the hands of collectors- not buried or destroyed. Those preserved artifacts are now found in museums and private collections all over.

Edited April 10, 2014 by roguefooter

[salubrious]

Then that is where to look.

[roguefooter]

^Well that's the thing- no giant bones or skulls in museums, no reported giant skulls in any private collection, just normal human ones.

 

I want to believe as much as the next guy but when there are supposed to be 1000's of generations of bigfoot remains around, and nobody can present a single one, then of course skepticism comes into play.

 

Most forested areas have acidic soil that will see to it that a body will only persist for a few weeks.

 

 

If they can find ancient NA bones in forested areas and old swampland then I don't see a reason Bigfoot bones can't be found.

[AaronD]

^^ Then the smithsonianites have succeedd in their plight to suppress evidence. But there are some who KNOW better.

[roguefooter]

^I don't buy the conspiracy theories at all. There is no hard evidence for any of it, just old newspaper articles based on he said/she said, stories of written letters, assumptions, speculation, etc.

 

The reasons for these conspiracy theories are always about a threat or prevention of the rewriting of history or beliefs. Yet things like the Heavener Runestones in Oklahoma, Kennewick Man, Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which are highly controversial, are available for anybody to see.

 

Do a Google search for "Smithsonian controversy" and you'll see that they have been under fire for controversial displays and content many times over the years, hardly some Men In Black institute of controversial cover ups.

 

People want to believe there's some Indiana Jones giant warehouse full of secrets run by the Smithsonian or the Vatican, but really they're just people that need that mystery in their lives. Even our own Government can't keep it's secrets nowadays because it only takes one single employee to think something is so important that the people should know.

Edited April 10, 2014 by roguefooter

[salubrious]

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that one museum in the SW had a giant skeleton on display clear into the early 1980s.

 

By that time though, the NA repatriation thing had started.  To go any further with that should be discussed in the Tar Pit...

[JDL]

It was the Mark Twain Museum in Virginia City, Nevada.  The remains were from a cave near Walker Lake.  Same scenario as the Lovelock Cave find.  Guano miners found them.  For a long time I thought the Paiutes had repatriated the remains, but finally learned that BLM has the remains now.

[Guest LarryP]

Let me ask: Do you propose we "believe" Bigfoot exists on the basis of the purported evidence as it is now constituted, and without a body?

 

Who is this "we" you're referring to?