Maybe some of you guys out west can give some info on this article.
Man-Eating Giants Discovered in Nevada Cave - Salem-News.Com
12-23-2010 08:10 AM
Very interesting article; but I would need to see some analysis on the mummies themselves before I bought into it completely. Early American archeology is replete with stories of giant human skeletons being unearthed, but very few of them have actually been analyzed. There was one "eight foot" skeleton supposedly unearthed at Spiro!
Tribal Council Member
Interesting, but . . . no discoveries more recent than 1947? Not a single one of these giant skulls or jawbones available for study today? Makes me wonder!
They were taking about this on a show on the History Channel a few days ago. Apparently aliens came down and populated the planet with giants. (According to them....lol) They did however get permission to film two of the skulls found in Lovelock Cave. They put the two skulls found in the cave next to two average size skulls. The two skulls found in the cave were a whole lot bigger.
I found a pic of one of the jaw bones found in Lovelock Cave compared to an average sized jawbone made from plaster.
Last edited by arrow719; 03-07-2011 at 10:00 PM.
Interesting article. The only thing that I can relate to this in modern day happenings is Barry Bonds being a San Francisco Giant. Do you think that there were steroids around during the times of these red-haired critters?
There is virtually no difference in size in the picture. What you are looking at is a complete lower jaw and an impression of a lower dental arch. The stone model doesn't show anything other than the size of the arch. If you overlap the two arches, you will find they are about the same. Hard to compare things that aren't the same. Jay
Originally Posted by arrow719
This is really gold-plated b.s. -- to put it nicely. I've been in Lovelock
Cave (many times) and I've examined the Lovelock cave artifacts in
detail, looked at the skeletal remains....NO giants.
And there are NO giants "world wide". Not one shred of archaeological
Sure, the 5'2" Spaniards through the 5'10" Karankawa were "giants" ---
probably due more to the alligator grease odor.
"Red" hair is often what happens to the hair of the dead...especially if
they've still got any (not me...) after 2000 years or so.
Lovelock skulls are the same size as other Great Basin skulls. Any biased
or numbskull photographer can manipulate skull photos.
This newspaper article (it can't be a real paper?) combines misunderstood
Northern Paiute mythology with absolute stupidity to come up with abject
Tribal Council Member
Mister Obnoxious here is provoked to point out that mockery and categorical dismissal are emotionally satisfying responses in the eyes of people whose objective is emotional gratification. Usually they are establishing (in their own minds, by simply announcing it) their categorical superiority to those who disagree. The problem of evidence to the contrary is conveniently disposed-of, in this procedure, by ruling out the possibility that it might even exist, in advance. By suggestion.
There has been no shortage of evidence of gigantic skeletons presented by credible witnesses over the last 150 years. Probably the best known of these is in the Cressap Mound site report of Don Dragoo (Canegie Institute). More than enough others are cited within some of the threads of the link I posted earlier that anyone so inclined can get down to reading and thinking.
Zoologists insisted for years that the platypus specimens that were coming from Australia were hoaxes, because nothing like a platypus could possibly exist. Such is the power of belief over inquiry. As is, to my feeble mind, the insistence by some that even one accidental sniff of second-hand tobacco smoke will inevitably prove fatal to the sniffer.
There is no reasoning with belief.