I just read an "old" book (ISBN 3-930219-81-6) of mine for the second time. Although the interessting chapter isnt about BF its about giants and one part is about giants found in first nation peoples mounds (gravehills). The found skeletons are mentioned to be 7 to 12 feet tal. The autors got the stories from Vine Deloria, who is mentioned to be quite famous in the US. Anybody know more about him?
The cases described:

-1800; Williams County; White County; Tennessee - several skeletons found - 7 feet.
-1879; Brewersville; Indiana - one 11 feet skeleton found.
-1883; Lompock Rancho; Kalifornia - one male 12 feet skeleton found, it is mentioned to have had two rows of theeth.

This are just exampels. In the book it is mentioned that between 1800-1930 much more simular cases have been taken place. Most things found were sent to Smithsonian Institute. Inquiries by the autors werent answered.


Anybody know more about this cases, or their relation to BF?

Here are some I found online:

Giant Skeletons

* 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) click here for full article

* 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. click here for full article

* In Minnesota, 1888, were discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888)

* A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," and besides each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, Oct. 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978)

* The skeleton of a huge man was uncovered at the Beckley farm, Lake Koronis, Minnesota; while at Moose Island and Pine City, bones of other giants came to light. (St. Paul Globe, Aug. 12, 1896)

* 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. click here for the full article

* 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 similiar 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. click here for the full article

Here's an article referring to bf skeletons and picture...no idea how this turned out...

http://weeklyworldnews.com/mutants/11064/b...-burial-ground/

Here is a link to a website I found.

Yikes!!! Giant Devils?

http://krishnascience.com/files/Giant_Human.html

Bob

Thanks for the informative answers.
What Iam looking for is where this skeletons have gone. Maybe those could be the bones sience is "looking for".
As there are that many such cases it seems unlikly that all of the stories are fraud. Real or missidentified the bones have to be somewhere.

Who is Vine Deloria?

Here ya go. I knew I knew the name from my readings. Never read any of his stuff, but I do recall him being mentioned in a few books that I did read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_Deloria,_Jr.

THX DevouredbyVermn for the link but it didn´t work. Anyway, my big question basically is if he was ever related to BF research? In the book i red it was mentioned that there was a meeting of 15 elders of different tribes discussing "Giants and little People" or simular. And yes, it should realy have been about dwarfs to.

I just dont know how serious to take this.

Seems like I read that the skeletons were supposedly shipped to the Smithsonian way back when and never seen again.
So either the skeletons never existed or the Smithsonian lost/misplaced them.
Which I understand the Smithsonian has done before. Losing /misplacing things I mean.

Anymore information on this topic would be much appreciated. I've read through all of the links and want more! Years ago I heard about giants on the Solomon Islands that were supposedly over 20ft tall, anyone have any info on this area?

Cheers

try this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine_Deloria,_Jr.


didn't work either?
try clicking his name here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Vine_Deloria,_Jr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

I've never read any of Vine's stuff so I don't know if he mentions anything that could be Sasquatch related. The only book that comes to mind that was written by a N.A. author who mentions a Sasquatch-like creature is Russell Means book Where White Men Fear To Tread. There may have been a mention in Black Elk Speaks as well.
Now don't quote me, but I think Mr Means mentions a Sasquatch-ish type creature that comes around to warn us when we are really screwing up the planet. Course, seeing as how Mr Means is a Lakota Sioux, I'm sure he uses another name for it.
I'll check out the books I do have and see if anything is mentioned anywhere else.

I remember researching this awhile back. I also recall starting a topic here on the forums to get some feed-back on the subject. It was a few years ago so I dont recall what responses I got but I do believe that the thread/ threads could be found by searching "Serpent mounds" or possibly " The great Smithsonian coverup".

Hope this helps!

Angie

P.S. Two tribes, red-haired and black-haired giants is screaming in my mind also.

I have heard many times that the Native Americans believe that these giants are their
ancestors, and quickly bring lawsuits if necessary to obtain the remains. They consider
it improper to examine or display them.

Recent examples are the skull found in the PNW, which even though it showed non native
characteristics, was claimed by them. Also here in Ohio at mound city national park, skeletons
of the mound builders were previously on display. But is no longer done because of NA claims.
And the Texas skeleton which recently showed preliminary dna results of Homo Erectus, similarly
disappeared.

Brian Dunning's essay on "strange skulls" addresses some of these cases: http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4144&comments=all.

Thanks for all the responses.
Although I understand the tribes doesnt want "their" dead displayed I cannot understand why special exampels (anormal) arent even studied by sience.
If anything Humanlike (a giant isnt just a human) is called first nations "property" how will we ever find something or better said get something analysed.

What theory starts to surface in my mind is that if all this special skeletons arent analysed we also dont know how old they are. Maybe we are finding BF remains on and on but they just dont reach sience. With all the reasons why proof of BF would be bad for some big industries it might fit the goverment quite well that those tribes claim this bones. It doesnt need the often discussed goverment conspiracy it might just be a random combination of interessts that blocks proving BF.

Are there some good reasons why tribes should keep BF a secret? I think that they should know something more in their inner circles as they shurlyf would wonder themself why there are such big tribes people found.

Thanks for that link on "stange skulls", Saskeptic. Well written and well reasoned. Nobody would love to see giant skulls more than me, or to even believe they exist and yet no pics, no drawings, no odd ball examples in collections...nuthin'. Stranger than strange, and in truth one of the phenomena in this area that is almost as interesting as the subject itself.
As for Vine DeLoria. I respect his activism regarding aboriginal rights and recognition of their history and past abuses but despite his numerous degrees, including one in Science, his interpretation of the natural and anthropological history of North America is driven by something other than fact, and as a result loses a lot of whatever validity it might have even as speculation on what has been recorded as "lore". Too bad.
For a while I used to hold out hopes that maybe some great cave in the Basin and Range area would be discovered. I know an avid amateur acheaologist who actually got his PhD in the field from Berkeley and did his thesis on the Lovelock cave, which reportedly had, prior to its being excavated for its bat guanao as fertilizer, held a number of odd and interesting human remains, but he never found any truth to 'em either..and if there were any truth to 'em this guy would have been delighted beyond words to have shared 'em...but again nuthin.
I fully recognize how poorly examined the landscape is when it comes to stuff like this and keep an open mind, and will look at any evidence, but don't let it get in the way of appreciating the modern scientific perspective. Cheers.

Good article Saskeptic, thanks.


FWIW, I had a double row of adult front teeth as a kid. Two of the front teeth didn't drop in completely and a couple were impacted in the roof of my mouth. I had to have surgery to get them out and remember walking out through the dentists office with my mouth full of gauze amidst whispers that I must have been in some sort of accident lol. I then got outside and passed out on the sidewalk...made for quite the dramatic story telling at school for a few days until Lisa cracked her skull on the monkey bars and got to ride out in an ambulance.

I also knew a girl in elementary school who had a complete double row of top teeth. I think that was a case where her adult teeth came in before her baby teeth fell out. Can't remember.

I don't think it's entirely uncommon.

RW

I have run across an example of drawings made of large skulls in Kansas. The skulls
sloped back more, and may be more elongated than Mod Human. Perhaps intermediate
between ancient and Mod Human. I cannot remember the details. A browser search
would probably turn it up.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

You mean the US government would loose something of such great historical value ?
The Smithsonian has some very special places where they store some items that the "Government" never wants to see the light of day again. The has been talked about about as long as the Smithsonian has been around.

One of the reasons I first started studying thermal imaging, was as part of my anthropological research in ancient humans, alledged in America. I was in contact with someone doing the same research for NASA, from the air, looking for caves and underground/buried tunnels, with a thermal camera, checking for anamalies in temperature in the surface of mountains and flatlands. NASA wanted examples to use for their Mars orbiters to look for. It does work, and I had wanted to check out the areas around my homeland of Indiana. My dad had several burial mounds in his area, as a kid. They're all gone now, to development. Singular mounds are out there, like in Central America, covered in forest after centuries. There are still groups who search for them, after the turn of the century farmers found them with hieroglyphics and full battle armour. The Smithsonian is the last place you want, to come check out your finds. They disappear forever, because they don't fit into the " out of africa " mold that they depend on. The Austrailian finds in granite and sandstone, millions of years old, are highlights to examples world wide, that get tossed out by scientists as forgeries, without even studying them. They get lost to private collectors, or buried in museum vaults, or grabbed up by local natives who just won't let anyone tell them that they weren't the first people in America. The Kennewick Man is one of the most frustrating one, here locally. Many examples have been lost to that crap, all over America.

BF or not, if you find a 12 foot skeleton, don't call a university to examine it, until you blast it all over the news and internet first. Full disclosure might stop scientists and " native americans " from burying the evidence forever.

Glad you found this article since the giant skeltons issue has come up before and even though fascinating, the evidence always seems to disappear. So far, the only bone evidnce of BF is the giant ape jawbone found in China.

In the Pacific Northwest, skeletons including possible BF skeletons dissolve in the acid soil quite rapidly which helps explain why BF bone evidence has not been found if BF exists. Eventually bone evidence of BF will appear, but it may be years and years from now, so don't be impatient.

I remember back when I was about fifteen I was at a large library and found a book that mentioned anomalous skeletons. I was interested because I remembered an old story my 83 year old grandpa used to tell me about two or three giant skeletons being found near us in Alabama when he was a boy. This would have been early 1900 around 1910-1920 I think. Anyway this book actually listed those skeletons. But years later when I really began to look into things of this nature I could never find a reference to the Alabama giant skeletons. If I remember right he said they were in stone slab coffins tucked under a large rock shelter that had been closed off with rocks in Blount County.

I think those stories is what got me into all of the bigfoot etc things I enjoy today.

If anyone knows where I can find the info on the Alabama skeletons Id appreciate it.

Which Australian finds?

Australian stuff:

In old river gravels near Bathurst, NSW, huge stone artifacts -- clubs, ponders, adzes, chisels, knives and hand axes -- all of tremendous weight, lie scattered over a wide area. These weigh anything from 8, 10, 15, to 21 and 25 pounds, implements which only men of tremendous proportions could possibly have made and used. Estimates for the actual size of these men range from 10 to 12 feet tall and over, weighing from 500 to 600 lbs. A fossicker searching the Winburndale River north of Bathurst discovered a large quartzitised fossil human molar tooth, far too big for any normal modern man. A similar find was made near Dubbo, N.S.W.


Prospectors working in the Bathurst district in the 1930´s frequently reported coming across numerous large human footprints fossilized in shoals of red jasper.


Even more impressive were fossil deposits found by naturalist Rex Gilroy around Bathurst. He excavated from a depth of 6 feet (2 m) below the surface a fossil lower back molar tooth measuring 67 mm. in length by 50mm. x 42 mm. across the crown. If his measurements are correct, the owner would have been at least 25 ft. tall, weighing well over 1,000 lbs!


At Gympie, Queensland, a farmer, Keith Walker, was ploughing his field when he turned up the large fragment of the back portion of a jaw which still possessed the hollow for a missing lower back molar tooth. This is now in Rex GiIroy´s possession. The owner of the tooth would have stood at 10 feet tall.


In the Megalong Valley in the Blue Mountains NSW, a Mr P. Holman found in ironstone protruding from a creek bank the deeply impressed print of a large human-like foot. The print was that of the instep, with all 5 toes clearly shown. This footprint measures 7 inches across the toes. Had the footprint been complete it would have been at least 2 feet (60 cm in length, appropriate to a 12 foot human. However, the largest footprint found on the Blue Mountains must have belonged to a man 20 feet tall!


A set of 3 huge footprints was discovered near Mulgoa, south of Penrith, N.S.W. These prints, each measuring 2 ft long and 7 inches across the toes, are 6 ft. apart, indicating the stride of the 12 ft. giant who left them. These prints were preserved by volcanic lava and ash flows which "occurred millions of years" before man is supposed to have appeared on the Australian continent (if one is to believe the evolutionary theory): Noel Reeves found monstrous footprints near Kempsey, N.S.W. in sandstone beds on the Upper Macleay River. One print shows toe 4 inches (10cm) long and the total toe-span is 10 inches (25cm) - suggesting that the owner of the print may have been 17 feet tall.


It is certain the Aborigines were not the first to reach Australia. Anthropologists maintain mainland Aborigines are in fact quite recent arrivals that ate their predecessors who were akin to the New Guinea natives. Aborigine themselves admit in their ancient folklore that this land was inhabited by several groups of men, as well as giants, before they settled here

I'm very skeptical about the validity of the "Australian stuff". Rex Gilroy makes a lot of claims about the alleged evidence he has collected but does not submit any of it for scientific verification. These claims are simply his interpretation which can be wildly speculative.

My understanding of the jaw bone is that it belongs to a Diprotodon optatum, a giant Wombat like marsupial up to twice the size of a Rhinoceros.

It is important to take what Gilroy says with a grain of salt.

Examples:


This small crude stone carving known as the "Iron Man" is currently on display in the Gold Museum in Gympie and is considered to be carved and left behind by Chinese prospectors in the 1800s. According to Gilroy, who calls it the "Gympie Ape": "The idol was later identified by me as the god Thoth [inventor of writing] in ape form. Carved between the legs was the papyrus flower symbol, denoting Thoth as the god of writing and knowledge. Thoth was depicted as an ape prior to around 1000 BC, when he became an Ibis-headed, human-bodied deity, who recorded the judgement of the dead in Amenti, the afterworld."

From the Rex Gilroy Hominid Skull Collection:


Three different views of what Gilroy claims is a proto-erectus skull turned to ironstone.


A late Homo erectus skull according to Gilroy.

Is science ignoring Gilroys amazing claims? Let's be realistic here...

Good information is coming up in this thread. Thanks to all.

What I found out is that giant skeletons or bones of allegedly human/giant origin were found all over the world. The ones found in central europa were later identified as mammoth. It is interessting that most of this european bones survived until they could be studied in the 19th century.
Such missidentification might very well fit lots of cases where the giants seem to be very big. Maybe the bones sent to the Smithsonian institute were identified mammoth or something else but as this wasnt to interessting for the papers the outcome wasnt puplished (Where does the "giant" stories originate? Newspapers?). It is likly that just over average skeletons were easely dismissed as first nation and the real big ones werent human at all. Also in this case we doesnt need a conspiracy theory to understand that the bones "gone missing" or better said "transformed" into not very special mammoth bones. Never to be found again under the description "giant".

More interessting to me are the ones of typical BF sice. 6-9 feet. Does anybody know if first nation people were "smaller" centuries ago as it was with europeans? Somewhere, maybe even on the forums here, I red about a tribe with exceptionally big people. Is there any thruth to it?

I know there are some researchers studying tribe cultures related to BF may somebody please give me some good links?

Lloyd Pye ..Everything You Know Is Wrong This video explains alot of things.

Thanks for the link, very informative, at least the BF related part.
But the BFF isnt the wright place to discuss alien intervention, I think. I personaly think that the waterape theory can be a very good explanation for many of the mentioned inperfections in the modern human. Living in an suportive medium will quite well lead to such inperfections as degraded build, balance and "ineffectiveness on the ground out of water".

Most interessting:
-No Chimp fosils found!
-Panda story!
-Neandertal footprints! - they realy look very BF like!

Lots of stuff to discuss and the film realy is worth watching, at least to part no 8/12.

I'd have to find my sources to accurately quote, but two things happened with those ancient giant bones found. 1) The first was the Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act that returned collections to their rightful places. 2) Back in the 1800s, these findings were spread out geographically and since many institutions didn't exist yet, they were local news and whomever found them kept them and eventually lost them over time.

I've always been intrigued by this excerpt from Antiquities of Wisconsin by Lapham:

Source: Chapter 7 Antiquities of Wisconsin

Any links?



Ah yes, Kinnewok Man...not only were the remains seized and returned, the Park Service bulldozed the recovery site and dumped 10+ tons of rock and soil over it.

Kennewick Man is still being studied. An injunction was set, stopping the "repatriation" suit by the local "natives". They don't get how a white man got over here in Washington.

To date, scientific studies of the Kennewick Man have yet to be formally published, although the most recent findings were reported in an informal address by National Museum of Natural History archaeologist Douglas Owsley to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, in March of 2006. In depth news stories are listed below and will be periodically updated.


Latest Information
According to the news reports of March 2006, there is evidence that:
•Kennewick Man was purposefully buried near the river bank, where his skeleton eroded out some six months before his discovery in 1996. There may have been other burials, but since the area has been buried by rock, it is impossible to say for sure.
•He was 5 foot nine inches tall, right-handed, and probably between 38 and 55 when he died.
•He was a quite muscular man who during his life sustained many injuries, including a spear point shot from several yards away and embedded in his hip, and several fractures including depression fractures of the skull. He survived from all of them, and his cause of death is not yet known.
•He also suffered from arthritis in his vertebrae, knees and elbows, but not at a crippling level.
•Radiocarbon dates on the skeletal material indicate he died about 9,400 years ago

. . . that are wrong. Mr. Pye's hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin to our species is simply not supported by the evidence, like all that DNA we share with chimps.

Not picking on you J_Rocco but offering a general comment on the thread:

The greatest achievement of a scientist's career is to affect a "paradigm shift" in a discipline. This generally involves development of an entirely new theory with extraordinary explanatory power that tosses previously held ideas aside (see Darwin/Wallace for evolution via natural selection, Wegener on plate tectonics, Copernicus on our heliocentric solar system, etc).

Some scientists will rigidly defend their pet theory in the face of competing claims, but if it's only a "pet" theory, then they won't be able to keep it up for long. A theory can be tossed aside based on new evidence, and a new theory can arise in its place. But the evidence is the key. If the evidence from the competing claim is strong enough to effectively counter the prevailing theory, then the natural response is not to squelch the evidence, but to jump on the bandwagon!

The most interesting thing about science is that rare case in which some new evidence challenges an established theory. Why would any scientist not want to be party to that new evidence and work to found that new paradigm shift? It's what we live for!

But we're also pragmatists. We know that theories don't just pop out of thin air. The new evidence, therefore, must be very carefully scrutinized to make sure that it's what it's supposed to be. The problem is that when the media (like sensationalist 19th Century newspapers) get ahold of some weird story, but the scrutiny applied by the scientists in vetting the evidence doesn't match the story, people who go back and find those references are puzzled. Where are all those giant skeletons?!

The X-Filers among us assume that those evil government scientists must have buried the startling new evidence. The reality can be far more mundane: misidentifications of purported "giant" bones or stories that were never really founded on any truth to begin with.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardt...al_coverups.htm

Well, that link didn't work.....

Google.....Archaelogical Cover-ups......

Did a quick scan thru Russell Means book and didn't find where he mentioned anything Sasquatch related. I did however find a couple of references in In The Spirit of Crazyhorse. Nothing Earth shattering though.
I know that it's mentioned alot that some of the first stories about a Sasquatch-type creature are from NA lore, and thats all well and good, but they also have stories about huge flying birds, animals that talk, and animals that turn into people. So, NA references to the Sas are good and all, but must be taken with a grain of salt.

Iam absolutly with you regarding misidentification. Thats the reason why Iam more after "just above" the usual. Misidentification is very likly for 10 feet up, but isnt realy logic at just 7 feet. Its just that misidentification can also ocure the other way around. Just a strange, big human or bigfoot?!

In the Film by Pye:
What can you say, from your quite professional standpoint as it seems, regarding Remains vanashing/disolving in special regions/forests?
Also whats your take on the waterape theory. Shurly it isnt realy taken serious but has more to offer than alien intervention?

Regarding "paradigm shift". I think what should be added is:
-Is the sientist specialised enough to realise the discovery if he sees it?
-If he is specialised enough. How importent was the work he published earlier, based on the established theory. What can he lose?
-Is it realistic for him to proof his initial findings any further. Funds etc.

Any theory should be discussed and any part of the discription analysed. Maybe the theory is wrong but that doesnt mean that the initial findings werent.

What you describe are exaggerations and special powers, but they are based on real living animals/lifeforms.
The questions are:
-Is BF an exageration (strengh, sice) of a human?
-If yes, why tells one tribe they are basicaly good/nice creatures while others say they are evil? Bouth look the same. Why if they arent based on real living creatures?
-As they call them their ancestores. Why, without any modern knowledge, do they think (if BF isnt real) their ancestores were bigger and more powerful? An expected evolution would start smal and grows bigger. That is also what they would have done reagarding inteligence because BF isnt as inteligent as we are.

I'd like to see a source for this, though I have extreme doubts about it. I've heard of attempts to acquire erectus DNA from fossils but haven't heard of this successfully being done. Without that, how could they positively identify erectus DNA?

Most if not all of this stuff on giant skeletons and a conspiracy be native tribes is baloney. People keep mentioning stuff from the 19th century (when Barnum was spotlighting his mermaid) with no evidence and a lot of paranoia.

Don't know as I didn't watch beyond the first 10 minutes. I assume the point is that he presents data on remains that vanished from certain areas, with the implication that aliens retrieved them? Or that "men in black" retrieved them? If the former, then a little too bat-sh*& crazy for my taste; if the latter, then a little too garden variety paranoid for my taste.



Fun, but ultimately pseudoscientific. We humans aren't as hairless as proponents like to admit- maybe folks from the Baltic, but not folks from around the Mediterranean. But even if you consider us "hairless," there are multiple examples of non-aquatic mammals with as little hair (or less) than we have: aardvarks, warthogs, rhinos, elephants, etc. Our allegedly water-adapted skin also gets pretty wrinkly in the water too long.

Subcutaneous fat? We pudgy westerners may have it, but good luck finding an insulating layer of subcutaneous fat as a universal human character. Our fat deposition is not remarkable. It's the same thing you see on overfed chimps.

Also, we tend to drown pretty easily . . .



Let's say that I'm a physical anthropologist with a big research program devoted to the Bering Land Bridge model of human colonization of the Americas that began about, what, 14,000 years ago?

A new excavation in western Mexico reveals a series of skeletons with genetic signatures distinct from other Native Americans, and those skeletons are associated with artifacts consistent with ocean-faring boats and both boats and skeletons are dated to 50,000 years ago.

If accurate, this excavation would turn on its ear our current accepted idea of how the Americas were first colonized. So the accuracy of the claims would need to be very carefully substantiated. So a series of papers should examine things like (1) how genetically distinct were these people? (2) How sure are we that those relics are parts of boats capable of ocean crossing? (3) How sure are we about the dates attributed to the remains?

Answering questions like these would take years, and probably a few dozen papers published back and forth in top journals. Whether I accepted the claims or refuted them, the issue would be a tremendous boon to my research program - it wouldn't shut it down, not by a longshot. So there is NO JUSTIFICATION for me or my colleagues to somehow bury the data, conveniently "lose" the specimens or anything silly like that.

And if the evidence was ultimately judged to be legit, i.e., the Bering Land Bridge dispersal model was no longer considered the prevailing theory of how humans first colonized the western hemisphere, that'd be good for science too. We'd need new textbooks, and I'd be first in line to write one! And ultimately, the new theory might not affect my original research program at all. It'd still be cool to do research on Pleistocene "PaleoIndians" even if we no longer consider them to have gotten here first.

So paradigm shifts are a win-win for science. We don't run from them, even if we tend to be really skeptical at first.

I wouldn't call it "conspiracy" per se. More like wildly conflicting interests. They aren't setting out to say "We must cover up this Sasquatch evidence." They're simply hearing "remains" and "maybe human" and jumping to the conclusion that it's more "grave robbing" by the "white man" and responding accordingly.

Maybe human? do you have any reliable source of this happening?

If you wrote my post you see that there is also the possibility that there is no conspiracy but a combination of interessts with the same outcome as the conspiracy would have.
Someone finds a skeleton, the NA claims it (because of understandable moral), get it because it is not to much out of the ordinary and it is buried where it never is dug up again. Maybe not a single sientist sees this skeletons as nearly anybody can identify a human skeleton. The averadge policeman or simular doesnt know the difference between homo sapiens and erectus or neanderthal.
This whole thread should be more about possible misidentification of skeletons and interesst systems.

@saskeptic:
As your nick says skeptic towards BF and you seem to have a quite serious viewpoint, I have some questions. Is it realy that sientific to call all footprints an sightings fake or misidentification? For me, with just little sientific background, it seems that to achive this kind of outcome you need a hell of a conspiracy. This specialy regarding the fact mentioned in Pyes film, that it took decades to find the pandabear, a not exactly low-key animal. Where can I find/What can I search for more information why the human has the mentioned backdraws?

I think the film has more to tell than just the alien thing. And no he not claims aliens hiding skeletons. For a usual man it is quite interessting and earthbound until the alien intervention comes up in part 9/12.

If it were animal bones or whatever, the NAs wouldn't care one way or the other, it's only when there's an ID of "human or potentially human" in conjunction with "remains" that they go apesh*t and start making demands.

Try this one, Data: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...ve%20footprints

It's got an awesome debate between myself and Gigantofootecus, Apeman keeping us honest on "normal" distirbutions, the rise of GorillaGirl, and Huntster wailing against SETI. It's a thread for the ages.

So you guys don't really have anything factual to base this on, it's just something you're making up as you go along, and worse relying on a stereotype.

Let me fill you guys in on a little something that will break this offensive delusion of yours. My wife and family is Native American. When we have land, before we can build on it, we need to have an archeologist survey it. If human remains or near human remains are found, an expert in identifying those remains and their affinity is called in. Near human remains such as Erectus or Neanderthal have traits that are identifiable and are different from modern humans, and a physical anthropologist is trained to recognize these traits. If they are found to not be human, then they would be removed from the area for scientific study. And that would make huge news.

And you people trying to use Kennewick man as an example of Native people just taking remains before they could be studied, Kennewick man is being held at the Burke Museum in WA state.

Know your facts, people, you are embarrassing yourselves.

http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/Jan98/1-98a3.htm
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/

If I remember that thread correctly, it's one of the ones where you LT and I went round and round with your "it ain't evidence if I dont approve of the type of evidence " dance.

getting back to what started this thread, there is a LOT of information out there regarding giant bones being found when settling this nation........

try this one for starters, I have posted this a few times before in other threads

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/N.Am/N.Am.War2.html

I live in western ny , and it is interesting what you can find in local small town libraries......not to mention what else you can find online......
as I have found out, its nearly impossible to do it all in the computer chair, lol........

there is a great magazine out there also with people studying this stuff too , I hope its ok to post this, its not a plug, but very good reading, I have had a subscription to this for at least 4 years.....

http://www.ancientamerican.com/

enjoy

These procedures were not in place during the 1800's.