Bigfoot - Extreme Giants

[Guest]

Sorry, but the posts here miss the elephant in the room. There are already stories of Giants in America, one town is actually named after the race of people, has lots of old 'mounds'. They have been identified in American history, and named. I did a post on this last year (which should have been stickied as this topic cimes up 3x a year here). As the pictures provided show, 'giants' are still around and or were a hundred years ago etc. So they got together and made a 'race' of really tall, large people.

 

NOT the same as a squatch, which is some kind of pre-human hominid derivative(s) off a different older branch of monkey.

 

 

Most 'myths' are based on some sort of 'reality'. For example, the Vikings talked about a 'deadly lizard'' that comes out of 'fire':

 

Of all the traits ascribed to salamanders, the ones relating to fire have stood out most prominently in salamander lore. This connection probably originates from a behavior common to many species of salamander: hibernating in and under rotting logs. When wood was brought indoors and put on the fire, the creatures "mysteriously" appeared from the flames. The 16th-century Italian artist Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571) famously recalled witnessing just such an appearance as a child in his autobiography.^[20] According to some writers, the milky substance that a salamander exudes when frightened and which makes its skin moist gave rise to the idea that the salamander could withstand any heat and even put out fires...

 

 

This maybe related or the origin of ''fire breathing dragons'', so reality is combined with fanciful imagination, or folklore, and you get the myth of the European 'dragon'.

 

The Griffin (eagle, lion, ?) may be based on dinosaur skulls found in China, hornless 'tricerotops'' types with the 'hood', with the beaked mouths. The SKULLS were real, denoting a hood (Lion/mane) and beak (eagle-) etc...

 

Not sure where the 'firebird' came from, but it probably has some sort of basis in reality.

 

So basicly, whatever your belief system is, it most likely has a ''mythological'' root tied into the truth.

 

An interesting note: All the 'Roman'' cable TV series have featured 'Giants' in minor roles, in the excellent ''Rome'' series, and the Sparticus'' series, and one other I think. Because of my research here, I was very entertained with their inclusion, because it 'could'' have been real, more or less. Nice research done for those series.

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by Wag

[ohiobill]

Thanks Wag, but we kinda already heard there were stories about giants in America, ThePhaige even posted a bunch of pics of tall people. What we haven't seen is proof that the stories are real.

[ThePhaige]

Thats right I did post a bunch of pics of really large people...good point there Bill

[AaronD]

But those were all photo shopped right?

He should be skeptical, you should too...ancient elephants on Crete aren't proof of hominid giants.

 

I am skeptical of a lot of things: "big bang" mysticism comes to mind,

[salubrious]

I don't think anyone has any idea how tall 20' is.  Even 10' is gargantuan.  Here's what 10' and 12' would look like.  

Actually that's probably more like 12 and 13/14 feet. 10 feet is not pictured.

 

Having seen one, 10 feet though is no worries- they get that big.

[Guest]

I personally just can't believe a bipedal animal over 8 or 9 ft tall exists. There just isn't a natural niche for it as far as I can tell.

 

What is the natural advantage in the Americas that would select for such a species?

If someone has answered this already feel free to disregard but giant specimens are not the norm in bigfoot reports but are exceptional. Most species have giant specimens as well as small specimens. A few random giants in a population would not need a niche per se. Most reports are of individuals between five and seven feet I'd wager. Of course, no one knows what would qualify as a standard size just yet. Juveniles are often reported and they are generally noted to be smaller or smallish. Regional variations would also make determining standard size difficult just as red deer from different parts of their range come in a range of sizes at adulthood.

 

My personal hypothesis is that they might be up to seven or even possibly eight feet tall at adulthood and that sometimes a form of gigantism might afflict an individual. I do not believe such an individual would be as healthy as his normal sized kin though. Most giant forms of humans have health issues and I don't see that bigfoot would necessarily be an exception there. Otherwise the reports would be more routinely giant.

Maybe not now, but what about during the last glacial maximum?   

 

I've often wondered whether BF is just a human megafauna.    The other megafauna died off (among other reasons) because they did not adapt biologically as fast as the climate changed.   If BFs are as intelligent as I think they are, they were not trapped by the limited rate of biological change, they were able to recognize the problem and deliberately adapt their behavior and location.

 

MIB

Climate did not change that drastically that rapidly in the past. It was a slower process and while habitats were changing they were doing so at a more modest pace than is happening even today. Most of the mega-fauna appears to have more likely succumbed to human depredation and/or human altered environments. I suspect a large ape in the Americas would be more susceptible to human diseases perhaps but if sufficiently shy and cryptic, they could perhaps have survived. Intelligence would not necessarily benefit them any more than it did Neandertals or Denisovans. Orangs, chimps and gorillas continued to exist because they were largely separated from humans and especially so after humans began domesticating animals from which our most virulent diseases largely spring. The ancestors of native Americans brought dogs with them and humans had probably developed significant resistance to canine diseases and may well have spread such diseases to any primate populations they met in the new world. Bigfoot's main chance of survival would have been distance from humans and their things I suspect. Shy individuals would have been more successful and their genes would have spread more.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Climate change can be very rapid...

http://m.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

[Guest]

Well I can tell you such large bones do get unearthed and quickly covered back up by those who wish to keep us in the not-know. This I am sure of because some were found near my home. Sadly, those who find such artifacts have 2 choices: either call authorities and let the finds disappear or keep quiet and share with no one!

Conspiracist hogwash. There are many large femur bones to find in North America and Asia. Giant animals left them. No mystery. Giant camels used to live here and left large bones including femurs. So too did giant tapirs and horses and deer. Does a lack of evidence of Chesire cats mean there is a conspiracy to keep the public ignorant of their existence?

[Guest]

 

Here is a list of some interesting alleged finds with source information for most

 

 

In his book, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, author John Haywood describes "very large" bones in stone graves found in Williamson County, Tennessee, in 1821. In White County, Tennessee, an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length.

 

Giant skeletons were found in the mid-1800s near Rutland and Rodman, New York. J.N. DeHart, M.D. found vertebrae "larger than those of the present type" in Wisconsin mounds in 1876. W.H.R. Lykins uncovered skull bones "of great size and thickness" in mounds of Kansas City area in 1877.

 

George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. In 1879, a nine-foot, eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana (Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975).

 

A six foot, six inch skeleton was found in a Utah mound. This was at least a foot taller than the average Indian height in the area, and these natives – what few there were of them – were not mound builders.

 

"A skeleton which is reported to have been of enormous dimensions" was found in a clay coffin, with a sandstone slab containing hieroglyphics, during mound explorations by a Dr Everhart near Zanesville, Ohio. (American Antiquarian, v3, 1880, pg61).

 

Ten skeletons "of both sexes and of gigantic size" were taken from a mound at Warren, Minnesota, 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 23, 1883)

 

A skeleton 7 feet 6 inches long was found in a massive stone structure that was likened to a temple chamber within a mound in Kanawha County, West Virginia, in 1884. (American Antiquarian, v6, 1884 133f. Cyrus Thomas, Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12th Annual Report, Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91).

 

A large mound near Gasterville, Pennsylvania, contained a vault in which was found a skeleton measuring 7 feet 2 inches. Inscriptions were carved on the vault. (American Antiquarian, v7, 1885, 52f).

 

In 1885, miners discovered the mummified remains of woman measuring 6 feet 8 inches tall holding an infant. The mummies were found in a cave behind a wall of rock in the Yosemite Valley.

 

In 1911, several red-haired mummies ranging from 6 and a half feet to 8 feet tall were discovered in a cave in Lovelock, Nevada.

 

In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. The first of these two skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similar to the Egyptian manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long. (Review – Miner, June 19, 1931).

 

A 7 foot 7 inch skeleton was reported to have been found on the Friedman ranch, near Lovelock, Nevada, in 1939.(Review – Miner, Sept. 29, 1939) In 1965, a skeleton measuring 8 feet 9 inches was found buried under a rock ledge along the Holly Creek in east-central Kentucky.

 

There was a race or group of people found in Australia called "meganthropus" by anthropologists. These people were of very large size – estimated between 7 to 12 feet tall, depending on what source you read. These people were found with mega tool artifacts, so their humanness is difficult to question. Four jaw fragments and thousands of teeth have been found in China of "gigantopithecus blacki" – named after the discover. Based on the size of the teeth and deep jaws, its size has been estimated at around 10 feet and as tall as 12 feet, 1200 pounds.

 

Several human skulls with horns protruding from them were discovered in a burial mound at Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the 1880's. With the exception of the boney projections located about two inches above the eyebrows, the men whom these skeletons belonged to were anatomically normal, though at seven feet tall they were giants. It was estimated that the bodies had been buried around A.D. 1200. The find was made by a reputable group of antiquarians, including the Pennsylvania state historian and dignitary of the Presbyterian Church (Dr. G.P. Donehoo) and two professors, A.B. Skinner, of the American Investigating Museum, and W.K.Morehead, of Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. The bones were sent to the American Investigating Museum in Philadelphia, where like so many finds that question anthropology, they were stolen and never seen again.

 

It is also well documented that many such finds and many of those in other genres of study have been sent to the Smithsonian only to be lost, stolen or buried in the archives.

 

 

   

 

Due to unreliable honesty in journalism of the nineteenth century, one should take every story from the 1800s with some salt and a couple of beers. Early twentieth is better but still a lot of sensationalist garbage was out there. 1965 finding of a 7'7" skeleton is not outside of human range. No documented race called meganthropus is shown to have existed.

 

Every time someone tells me the evidence is hidden or secret, I groan. How do "we" know this story then? How reliable the source? who vetted it? Without anything unequivocal such stories are nothing more than hear say. If it's not allowed in court why should it be allowed in science?

[SWWASAS]

Conspiracist hogwash. There are many large femur bones to find in North America and Asia. Giant animals left them. No mystery. Giant camels used to live here and left large bones including femurs. So too did giant tapirs and horses and deer. Does a lack of evidence of Chesire cats mean there is a conspiracy to keep the public ignorant of their existence?

The conspiracy must have gone all the way back to the late 1800s for there to be all of those period newspaper articles detailing how giant human like bones were collected by the Smithsonian. That is 100 years of conspiracist hogwash. And how did the conspirators get the newspapers to publish that the Smithsonian took the bones and show the pictures in many cases? A conspiracy of that nature would have required a time machine. Why would the Smithsonian collect normal size human bones? There had to be something special about them.

Edited January 21, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest]

Thought I heard of a recent sightings in the Four Corners area on one of the cryptid blogtalk shows, na couldn't be, people just don't see Greek myths running around now a days.

 

http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2011/01/humanoid-cryptid-encounter-reports-32.html

Not so sure about that : https://monstersandmagic.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/centaur-sightings/

 

I actually found a few others. I know I read one a year or so ago of a centaur sighting from Turkey.

[Guest]

The conspiracy must have gone all the way back to the late 1800s for there to be all of those period newspaper articles detailing how giant human like bones were collected by the Smithsonian. That is 100 years of conspiracist hogwash. And how did the conspirators get the newspapers to publish that the Smithsonian took the bones and show the pictures in many cases? A conspiracy of that nature would have required a time machine. Why would the Smithsonian collect normal size human bones? There had to be something special about them.

um most of the bones the Smithsonian collects are normal human bones. giant bones would attract visitors. We know this because dinosaur bones attract a lot of visitors. It was easy to attribute a lack of evidence to someone else taking the materials. I think most children could come up with that one.

[Guest]

Conspiracist hogwash. There are many large femur bones to find in North America and Asia. Giant animals left them. No mystery. Giant camels used to live here and left large bones including femurs. So too did giant tapirs and horses and deer. Does a lack of evidence of Chesire cats mean there is a conspiracy to keep the public ignorant of their existence?

 

 

I don’t not see Aaron D disputing the existence of giant bones in the message you quoted at all. What he suggests is what many people do, and that is they call authorities when they discover something exceptional, and he goes further adding, or they can keep it themselves and there has been plenty of stories of items such as bones, hair and blood specimen turning up lost or misplaced over the years. It is what it is. There is rarely a motive given for the disappearances, just excuses if one was fortunate.

[Guest]

The fact that many if not most of these giant bones are reported refutes what he says: that people don't report them or that they covered up by the authorities.

[Guest]

Climate change can be very rapid...

http://m.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full

Okay perhaps changes can happen quickly in Greenland and other polar and high mountain areas. From what I gathered from what I read, these areas are all pretty much the same areas that are suffering most from modern global warming. Other areas yield little to no data with the same level of confidence as the Greenland and South American data. If I am incorrect, please point me to the part that disagrees. Quoting will be sufficient. As with modern global warming, these fast events are most keenly felt in some regions but not in all to the same degree or even at all. My last two winters have been decidedly unwarm despite the fact that overall temperatures around the globe are rising. This winter is shaping up to be just as bitter. This would have been the same during the ending of the last ice age. Climate is not a sheet of one cloth but is more digital. One area experiences extreme changes while others experience less extreme and even perhaps the exact opposite in change.

 

Over the vast wilderness inhabited by mammoths for instance, not all locations experienced the same degree of change. Populations suffered in one locale and flourished in another. With modern warming trends and other human caused changes such as pollution, hunting, diseases, and roads modern species are disappearing faster than they did at the end of the last ice age but they disappeared faster at the end of the last ice age than they did after the previous ice ages. Elephants and other large mammals are fairly resistant to such changes in the climate. While favored foods may have disappeared from some locations, these animals would easily have eaten other plants. Elephants are especially adaptable. And where elephants thrive other species usually do well also. Humans are the most obvious and apparent change to come along during the last ice age and where they arrive, large mammals and birds disappear at pretty much the same time with minimal overlap. True this is circumstantial evidence but there is a great deal of it.