I've read a few accounts of how, at various points in the 19th century and early 20th, skeletal remains of extremely large (7 footers and larger) people have been found, sometimes not a single skeleton but several. Here's a link to some of the stories.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Races.html

Now, the pics prove nothing. In fact, I'm pretty sure the conehead they say is from Mexico is from Peru, in the desert region near the Nazca lines. I saw a documentary that said the people there bound the skulls of their infants so as they grew they'd have this conehead shape. The point is, the reports they mention are ones I've read before, in other places. I was wondering if anyone else has heard of these stories and, if they are more or less true, what the possibilities are of the remains being those of bigfoot? The remains were always allegedly discovered by laymen, not doctors or anatomists or scientists. They could easily mistake bigfoot bones for those of giant people, attributing the different skull to the features of an extinct race. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't put much credence to the claims in the link provided. Red flags pop up when I see statements like "Atop some of the skulls were perfectly formed protuberances of bones, apparently horns that had grown there naturally.", "were taken to the Museum, they claim to have no knowledge of them.", "It had a double row of teeth", and "Local law enforcement took the skeleton and said it was a hoax". The skulls pictured also lack characteristics that would be expected in BF skulls such as sagital crest, denser mandible, generally more robust features. It also seems to me that if so many of these giant skeletons were being dug up from 1800-1900 that a fair number would still be turning up in more recent times. I am sure that BF skeletons may have been unearthed, but I do not trust claims of abnormally large skeletons being discovered and then the bones being lost or discarded.

Yeah, I agree that the bit about the horns and double rows of teeth are hogwash. What I'm wondering is if these remains were found but over time all these stories were built up around them. Maybe they were misidentified as an extinct race of "giants." Of course, as you also pointed out, it's also got that notorious feature of evidence being lost.

Sorry about the 2 post messed up lol.

Well I am sort of still on the fence about this. I do however know that every now and then a human is born with a tail so who can really say horns could never show up ?
And about the teeth well I myself had 9 extra teeth when I was younger. They had to pull them out and I wore braces for a few years. I did have 2 rows of teeth in the front and the doctor told us that it does happen some times and is considered sort of normal like with the tail and such that can happen. Some places having a extra finger or toe is a common thing. I have seen someone that had a extra finger on each hand (Was like a extra pinkie on each hand). The person I seen was from Haiti.

I have read about the giant bones found many different places and they have been found many different places. The Native Americans when white people first came here had many story's about giant tribes that lived and some times still lived some place. I know a lot of it is based on legend and stuff but most times legends are based on facts.

And if you think about it like I am going to explain it just could have worked like that.
Now days even some times someone will just grow really tall. Take someone like Sauq and many of the other tall basket ball players. Now lets say a man and a woman was both really tall like that it is a good chance that they would be attracted to each other and have taller than normal kids as well.
If over a while the tell people kept meeting after a while they would be enough to have their own tribe and live away from the short people. After time passes they would become a different tribe all together and would start spreading out like other tribes did. 2000 or 3000 years of that and I can see how small tribes of them could have been living all over North America.

Now also some times people are covered with a lot of hair also. You all have seen them on TV or in a freak show as the wolf boy and such. Well let some of them tall people in the tall tribe also have that and all of a sudden you have really tall and really hairy people. Now what does that make you think of ?
Most times back when Native rules North America when someone was really different than the rest of the tribe be they hairy or like a giant they was run off and had to find for themselves. Well some meet and decide to stick together and make their own tribe and again you have a tribe of big hair people running around.

I know to some this would sound as a fantasy story but it could very well have happened like that. If you had never heard if it would you believe that humans could be born with a tail ? Or how about being born covered in hair just like what we think Bigfoot is ? Both of them are true. So how can we say that they could not have been a tribe of very tall natives ? How in the world honestly say that no way they could have had some sort of horn ?
Like I said above I used to have 9 extra teeth so I know for a fact that someone could have 2 rows of teeth as I used to. So who can say that way back when that was not a common thing in a tribe ?

Well I just hope that maybe I have made someone think a min and not just say no way that could be true. As you or I or anyone else can really say as no one knows every thing :-)

Oh and as far as the Museum saying they did not have something and never heard of it. It is a very well know thing that the Smithsonian has and still does have really big wear houses that they store stuff in. It is also a well know fact that many things has been turned over to them and they still will not admit that they ever seen or had it. Just do a fast google search about them and disappearing stuff and you will find lots of stuff about it and even sites and forums like this one on the subject.

There was a pair of eight-foot skeletons in the museum on Virginia City Nevada until repatriated recently. They survived only by happenstance--they might well have been discarded. Their reality, and the lack of care with which they were handled prior to their purchase by the museum, indicates that some of the other purported 19th century giant-bone discoveries might well have been real.

Mmm...Actually the discovery of "giant" human remains was quite common in the late 1800s and early 1900s. A great many of them were found in Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and other states bordering the Mississippi river. Out of some of these, to the surprise of many, some were discovered to have double sets of teeth, and others were found to have small horny protrusions on their heads. For what reasons these served (if not in reality, some genetic bottle necking having taken place, as humans growing "horns" still occurs today in some places), is unknown. A few examples are listed below -


Human skulls with horns were found in a burial mound at Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the 1880s. Except for the horny protrusions some two inches above the eyebrows, the men to whom these skeletons belonged were anatomically normal, though at seven feet tall, well above average height. It was estimated that they were buried sometime about A.D. 1200.
The find was made by a reputable group of antiquarians, including a 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). Some of the bones were sent to the American Investigating Museum in Philidelphia, where there seem to have since disappeared.
(Pursuit, 6:69-70, July 1973)

At the center of one of the large Ohio burial mounds, excavators in 1891 found the skeleton of a massive man wrapped in copper armor. On the head was a copper cap, and copper moldings encased the jaws. The arms were clad in copper, and so were the chest and stomach. On either side if the head were wooden antlers encased in copper, and the mouth cavity was filled with immense but decayed pearls. Around the neck was a necklace of bears teeth inlaid with pearls. Beside the skeleton of the giant lay that of a woman.
The remains were found at a depth of 14ft in a mound 500ft long, 200ft wide, and 28ft high.
(Nature, 45.157, December 17, 1891)

A skeleton nine feet eight inches tall was recovered from a stone burial mound in Brewersville, Indiana, in 1879. A mica necklace was around the neck, and a crude human image of burnt clay embedded with pieces of flint stood at the feet. The mound, between 3 and 5 ft high and 71 ft in diameter, was excavated by Indiana archeologists, scientific observers from New York and Ohio, a local physician, Dr. Charles Green, and the owner of the property on which the mound stood, a Mr. Robinson.
The bones were kept by the Robinson family in a basket in a nearby grain mill. They were lost when a flood swept away the mill in 1937.
(The Indianapolis News, November 10, 1975)

Seven large skeletons were found in a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota, in 1888. They all had double rows of teeth in the upper and lower jaws and had been buried in a sitting position, facing a nearby lake. The foreheads were unusually low and sloping, with prominent brows.
(The Saint Paul and Minneapolis Pioneer Press, July 1, 1888)

Of course, this doesn't even scratch the proverbial surface, as a great many "giant" remains have been found over the years, primarily within Burial Mounds of one type or another. The most recent one I remember being talked about were found in Venesuala (I think, it was definatly one of those southern South America countries). Found inside the remains of a very old steppe pyramid, the remains found were of an immensly huge red haired individual whom they surmised was most likely a king or other person of great importance, due to the artifacts and servents he'd been buried with. If one pays attention, a great many times these giants remains (or atleast the mummified ones that have been found) are described as having red hair.
Now I, personally, don't believe these to be Bigfoot remains, as in almost all incidents they're described as looking completely human, except for their immense size and proportions. But, it makes You wonder just whom they may have been. As some know, many Native American tribes had legends of a race of giant red haired Indians whom were by all accounts ferocious and, in many tales, the sworn enemies of some tribes (the Paiute Indians of Nevada called them the "Si-te-cahs", for example).
Could there have been an, as yet, undiscovered (or unacknowledged) race of peoples in North America, in antiquity, that were responsible for all the different "giant" remains that are found in so many different locals? Could they have been a completely different race altogether, neither Native American or any other existing race that we know of today? Could they be the supposed "Nephilim" ("giants in those days", ect. ect.) spoken about in Biblical texts?
Who knows, and I doubt we ever will. Either way, very interesting material, if one ever looks into it...

VERY interesting topic and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Have any been found recently enough that tests have been conducted on them? Its funny how evidence can "disappear" completely when it comes to something like this. :rolleyes:
Frustrating.

I recently learned on my fourth grade daughter's field trip to St. Augustine, Florida, that the Timucua Indians encountered by the very first European settlers were on average 7 feet tall. This was because it was customary for the tallest female to mate with the tallest male of the tribe in order to purposely produce tall offspring! Ponce de Leon was said to be only 4'11" which was considered average height at his time. Therefore, the Timucua were considered giants.

The acquisition of primitive (former) features are called atavisms. We all have within us the genes necessary for growing tails or for that matter, gills. These genes have been masked by more recent mutations (adaptations) which generally prevent the development of these features. Ceasar was said to ride a horse with 5 toes on each foot (the same number of toes as an Eohippus, a horse ancestors). There are many other weird and interesting atavisms. The horns on the giant skeletons would be kind of hard to explain as atavisms because I know of no human ancestor (within the last 40 million years) which had horns, but who knows. I have wondered if bigfoot's supposed night vision might have resulted from an atavism. Some ancestors of humans and presumably bigfoot probably had the reflective tissue behind the retina useful in night vision and therefore bigfoot might aquire (or reaquire) that ability relatively quickly.

X-Project: Monsters of the Mound

Here is a link I was told about for some strange remains found in New York state.

When sasquatch is finally "discovered" and classified as a known creature, I would bet that many museums would realise that they had misidentified sasquatch bones already in their collections.

I am glad you brought up this thread Guy, for years I have wondered if any Scientist, Investigator, Crypto zoologist or anyone in the BF community, attempted to find out specifically if there could be BF bones, skeletal remains etc. that were misidentified etc. at different Museums. Yes it would be time consuming & the cost factor would be taken into consideration but again I wonder if anyone has heard or read someplace where anyone has attempted to do this?

It has been done for other animals and with results that have astounded the scientific community. See the recent Scientific American article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...15A809EC5880000

In specific I quote:





The evidence was waiting for him since 1950 !