Watch: Hungry Wild Siberian Tiger Feeding On An Ox
Video footage released by China's Jilin Forestry Department shows a wild Siberian tiger feeding on an ox. On Tuesday, the day marking Global Tiger Day, the tiger was caught on camera using a far-infrared camera. It is the first time that China has caught the moment of a wild Siberian tiger feeding on its prey. The feeding happened near a pasture and the Hunchun National Siberian Tiger Nature Reserve in China's Hunchun City. Wildlife experts believe that the video shows the population of the tigers is increasing and the species' range of activity is expanding. Wild Siberian tigers are the first-class nationally-protected animals. Fewer than 500 are believed to survive in the wild, with an estimated 18 to 22 in the Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces in China. Report by Claire Lomas.
Mexican Bigfoot
ReplyDeleteis first in.
Deletethats a bloodless howler of iam a FOOL !!!
Deleteno worries Islamic hard-line militias have taken control of Libya's second largest city, Benghazi
Delete^ So what?
Deleteso what ! the end times is nigh....
DeletePeople have been saying that for centuries.
Deleteand now its all going according to the PLAN : )
DeleteLast.
ReplyDeleteHedging your bets?
DeleteAlways. Always.
DeleteSykes says no bigfoot
ReplyDeletebut grassmans ans yahoos be reel
DeleteMost scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, rather than a living animal, because of the lack of physical evidence and the large numbers of creatures that would be necessary to maintain a breeding population.
DeleteFunny that every scientists that's impartially looked at this physical evidence that's not supposed to be there, have concluded on the contrary?
DeleteJoe, that is canine crap, cow crap and porcupine crap. Plus horse crap and raccoon crap. Even synthetic crap.
DeleteBut no figboot.
The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.
Delete9:27... You must be confused... Those are the results of one study.
Delete9:28... Hair, tracks, footage and language all verified by science, says "no". It's ok, nothing will hurt you.
n a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."
DeleteThe best primatologist in the world says "no" to Crane, I'm afraid.
DeleteIn addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.
Delete9:44
DeleteDon't be afraid.
In addition to the taboo that is evidence, scientists, some of the best primatologists in the world, cite that there is nothing in the environment of Northern America to prohibit an unusually large, unknown primate to survive.
Delete9:54... I'm the one able to come to terms with it, remember.
The subject of Bigfoot is not considered an area of credible science and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.
DeleteYet... We have scientists covering fields like primatology, anthropology, conservation, genetics & wildlife biology concluding on the contrary.
DeleteSupposed evidence like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".
DeleteAs with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.
DeleteQuit beating up on Joe. He's the reason I still have faith in Bigfoot.
DeleteSupposed evidence like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film has been recommended for peer review by some of the most exclelled in all aforementioned fields.
DeleteYou have grizzlies who survive, it's not rocket science.
Great apes are not found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found.
DeleteWe only have a handful of teeth as a fossil trail for the six million years chimps and gorillas have been on the African continent.
DeleteThere is 150 years worth of giant skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US.
Chimps and gorillas are in zoos if you haven't noticed.
Delete150 years of giant skeleton finds-- as in dinosaurs? I'll alert the media.
In the 1970s, when Bigfoot "experts" were frequently given high-profile media coverage, the scientific community generally avoided lending credence to the theories by debating them.
None being caught, does not mean that none have been found.
DeleteThere is 150 years worth of giant human/hominid skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US.
In the 70's Bigfoot experts were looking for a bipedal gorilla. Those from the mainstream scientific community have some of the best scientists in their respected fields to contend with today.
Yes, it means none have been found.
DeleteThere are tall people alive today. Bid deal.
The first scientific study of available evidence was conducted by primatologist John Napier and published in his book, Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, in 1973. Napier wrote that if a conclusion is to be reached based on scant extant "'hard' evidence," science must declare "Bigfoot does not exist.
No, it means none have been caught. The clue's in the actual terminology.
Delete(Sigh)
There are tall people today, but none in their thousands with Neanderthal morpohology.
1973's a long time ago. Now, analysing the data accumilated since then, the best primatologists in the world say they're there.
like back in the NAM soliders seeing a bigfoot type critter deep in the jungles of the NAM
DeleteNo, none have been found. (sigh) If you find your lost dog you can produce him. Get it?
DeleteThey had tall people thousands of years ago. Many people today retain degrees of Neanderthal morphology. No big deal.
Jane Goodall loves the idea but is no fool..."Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist" "Why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to." "I'm fascinated and would actually love them to exist."
I, too, would love them to exist. Goodall and I, however, choose to live in the real world.
Some says it were the VC in tham jungles in NAM but there are NO 6 to 7 foot VCs that were covered in hair and once provoked they would throw rocks @ the troops
DeleteWATCH: HUNGRY WILD SIBERIAN FOOTER DEVOURS HAPLESS SCEPTARD
Delete('Delusion' and 'nothing more than' are both key standard terms out of the sceptard playbook. Stop being such a bloody stereotype.)
10:57... If you find your lost dog in the darkness of your back yard, but can't catch him, report then you've found him but merely not caught him yet.
Delete(Get it?)
They had tall people thousands of years ago, hairy ones too like today. Many people today retain degrees of Neanderthal morphology, but concentrated thousands do not retain exact morphology to that which has been documented and known to be exact traits of said hominid morphology.
"Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.
Ira Flatow: You are?
Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place..."
Find me a better primotologist that says they don't exist, and you have a point.
You don't "want them to exists", you're rhetorical and obvious.
"Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it.
DeleteDr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up."
Where is it? Where's Bigfoot? No Bigfoot found or caught. People claiming they've seen Bigfoot doesn't mean found.
Delete"Exact traits of said hominid morphology" ...What homidid morphology? Bigfoot? There have been no bigfoot bones found or collected.
Goodall was being whimsical when first asked about bigfoot. In 2012 quotes she said that she would like it to be so.
Leave Joe alone!
DeleteA 150 years worth of giant human/hominid skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US says "no"... And the reports of Neanderthal features match that to which professional consistency of reports adheres to.
DeleteI think you'll find those quotes from the very same time.
11:28
DeleteI don't care what you say. I'm still going to believe in bigfoot.
"And the reports of Neanderthal features match that to which professional consistency of reports adheres to. " ?????????????? WHAT?????
DeleteNow you're trolling. That makes no sense. That is your answer to no Bigfoot bones have been found?
Are there Bigfoot bones or not? There are not.
Of course Neanderthal bones have been found. That's not news. No Bigfoot bones have been found.
animulls eatin tham bigfoot bones lack tham bear bones lots of dead bears and other critters ans such but no bones
DeleteThank you for once again polluting the comment section with your crap Joe.
DeleteWhen someone reports that the subject they witnessed looked cave man like, prominent brow ridge, sloped forehead, big jaws, etc... These are traits of Neanderthal, if you didn't know.
Delete(Pfffffffft)
No, my answer is that Sasquatch skeletons have been documented because the remains are very large and have archaic features, like Neanderthals-type, that are in the reports of what Sasquatch facial features and body size are today.
Now I know I'm baby sitting... More like.
YES jist like WILD BILL always gits the JOB DONE !!!!!
DeleteAnyone can report (say) anything.
DeleteAnyone can document (write) anything.
That's not proof. There has never been a Bigfoot found or caught by anyone. There have never been Bigfoot bones collected or examined by anyone.
We are not debating tall people or neanderthals.
Police officers are trained in the art of observation and attention to detail... Anyone?
DeleteWhen you find a subject multiple times in one area, then you've merely not caught it yet. The 150 years of archeological studies says "no".
No, we're debating relict hominids.
(Sigh)
Police are prone to misidentification as much as anyone. Anyone!
DeleteBigfoot has not been found multiple times in any area. There is no archeological evidence of Bigfoot.
We're debating Bigfoot. There is no evidence that Bigfoot is a relic hominid.
Joe's cool. Leave him alone.
Deletethe GRAYs wont leave Joe alone
DeleteIn the battle of the wits Joe is an unarmed man.
DeleteWhen you have many reports from the same profession... Anyone?
DeleteBigfoot has been encountered/found in many concentrated areas; go look at a sightings map. Giant hominid skeletons in burial areas native people's said they'd be.
Actually... There is ten thousand years of native culture that Bigfoot were human. It just so happens it has archaic features too... Some hominids had culture and therefore people.
It don't take Sherlock.
12:56... Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteThere is no evidence that anyone in law enforcement has ever seen a Bigfoot. No law enforcement organization has ever stated that any of their officers has seen an actual Bigfoot.
DeleteNessie has been sighted many times in a concentrated area? Your point? There has never been a Bigfoot skeleton retrieved from any Native American burial site.
There are people alive today with archaic features. Nothing new. We already know about them. What's new?
Wrong... Start off at the very basics and watch a Monsterquest or something, then when you're done trot on over to the BFRO.
DeleteNessie doesn't have physical and biological evidence to back up those concentrated sightings. There has never been native bones retrieved from native burial sites? The mounds excavated that have uncovered giant skeletons, that are the same as other native sites still existing today, that have documented in the 150 years of archeological studies says "no".
There is no concentration of thousands of civilised subjects yielding archaic features akin to early hominids, like what has been uncovered in the US. When they're giant remains, 9 foot some of them with Neanderthal features in high frequency... It don't take Sherlock.
Your understanding of the US is through TV shows. Crypto shows and blogs have a strong bias.
DeleteThere is no physical or biological evidence to back up Bigfoot. There is no skeletal evidence of Bigfoot from any burial site. If there were a body or skeleton it would be on the cover of National Geographic.
There are no nine foot tall skeletons. No scientist has ever produced a nine foot tall skeleton with Neanderthal characteristics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDon't make me post extracts from written media of the time.
DeleteNo, TV crypto shows are fantasy.
DeleteWrong. Useless. No organization, including the Smithsonian, houses any Bigfoot bones, skin, or DNA. There never were nine foot tall Native Americans.
I don't know what "years worth of skeletons" means. Just produce 1 nine foot skeleton.
Please don't waste my time by posting 100 year old tabloid articles. You have a fantasy view of the US, native Americans, history, and science organizations.
Crypto shows are a nice way for a kid to start off learning about this subject, they also have accounts of professional people, such as police officers declaring their encounters.
Delete150 years worth of skeletons, means 150 years worth of found skeletons, I would have thought you'd have had the imagination to understand what that means, I expected a bit too much from someone who can't think for himself.
"12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
(published in 1894)
(Kanawha County, West Virginia)
Spring Hill Inclosure, Kanawha County, West Virginia. In the bottom of Mound 11 (upper left) was found a skeleton "fully seven feet long."
Largest in the collective series of mounds, the Great Smith Mound yielded at least two large skeletons, but at different levels of its deconstruction by Thomas' agents. It was 35 feet in height and 175 feet in diameter, and was constructed in at least two stages, according to the report. The larger of the two skeletons represented a man conceivably approaching eight feet in height when living."
"On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large "pyramidal monuments" on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. "Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000," the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan. "In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones."
Delete"In 1888, seven skeletons, which had been placed in a sitting position, were uncovered from a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota. The highly unusual skulls of these beings had double rows of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. It was also noted that the foreheads were low and sloping, compared to “normal” human skulls, and had distinctly prominent brows."
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Neanderthal fossil record in America. And apparently a Neanderthal hybrid fossil record. No genetics publication has put all the evidence together: the genetics establishment is still in denial about most things Neanderthal. The evidence is scattered and mostly unrecognized, but, in our opinion, conclusive and compulsive. Consider the following article: Frank L'Engle Williams and Gail E. Krovitz, "Ontogenetic Migration of the Mental Foramen in Neanderthals and Modern Humans," Journal of Human Evolution 47/4 (Oct. 2004) 190-219. The mental foramen (literally "mind's little hole") is an anatomical trait very pronounced in Neanderthals, a small dimple in the lower jaw of the skull beneath the teeth, or mandible. It is found sporadically in humans, where it is classified as archaic. Among the places where it has been identified are the Oleniy Islands and Baltic region, Northwestern Russia in Cro-Magnon like Europoid and Mongoloid types, along with "large and massive" torus occipitalis or Anatolian bumps (Alexander Mongait, 1959; Marija Gimbutas, 1956); Bakhehisarai in the Crimea (Alexander Mongait, 1959); the Joman or Ainu of Japan (Carleton Stevens Coon, 1962); and the "race of giants" continually being unearthed in West Coast, Ohio Valley and New England archeological sites, caves and mounds. Archaic giant skeletons with mental foramina, occipital bumps, double rows of teeth and other Neanderthal features are reported, in fact, all over the Americas."
Evening News (Ada, Oklahoma), November 8, 1912. PRIMITIVE MEN OF GIGANTIC STATURE. Eleven skeletons of primitive men, with foreheads sloping directly back from the eyes and two rows of teeth in the front of the upper jaw, have been uncovered at Craigshill at Ellensburg, Washington. They were found about twenty feet below the surface, twenty feet back from the face of the slope, in a cement rock formation over which was a layer of shale. The rock was perfectly dry. The jawbones, which easily break, are so large that they will go around the face of a man today. The other bones are also much larger than those of the ordinary man. The femur is twenty inches long, indicating a man of eighty inches tall [6' 8"]. The teeth in front are worn almost down to the jawbones, due, it is believed, to eating uncooked foods and crushing substances with the teeth. The sloping skull shows an extreme low order of intelligence."
"History of Jefferson County, N.Y., 1878
DeleteOne of the most conclusive evidences of ancient military occupation and conflict, occurs in Rutland, near the residence of Abner Tamblin, one mile from the western line of the town, and two miles from the river. It is on the summit of the Trenton limestone terrace, which forms a bold escarpment, extending down the river, and passing across the southern part of Watertown. There here occurs a slight embankment, and ditch irregularly oval, with several gateways; and along the ditch, in several places, have been found great numbers of skeletons, almost entirely of males and lying in great confusion, as if they had been slain in defending it. Among these bones were those of a man of colossal size, and like nine-tenths of the others, furnished with a row of double teeth in each jaw. This singular peculiarity, with that of broad flat jaws, retreating forehead, and great prominence of the occiput, which was common to most of these skulls, may hereafter afford some clue to their history."
"Lake County Illinois
Mr. W.B. Gray, of Highland Park, also mentions the discovery of a skull in a mound near Fox Lake, in Lake County, Illinois. This skull is certainly very remarkable; the frontal lobe or arch seems to be entirely wanting; the large projecting eye-brows, deep set eye sockets, the low, receding forehead, and the long, narrow and flat shape of the crown rendered it a very animal-looking skull. If it was not a posthumous deformation it certainly is a remarkable skull and might well pass for the "missing link."
Oakland Tribune, August 24, 1896
"SEVEN SKELETONS
A Remarkable Discovery Made at Shell Mound Park
SKULLS RESEMBLING APES
An interesting discovery has been made at Shell Mound Park, where the skeleton of a A prehistoric race of Indians was excavated. These skeletons are of a race unknown at present and are undoubtedly of great antiquity."
"Evening News, (Ada, Oklahoma) November 8, 1912
PRIMITIVE MEN OF GIGANTIC STATURE
Eleven skeletons of primitive men, with foreheads sloping directly back from the eyes, and two rows of teeth in the front of the upper jaw, have been uncovered at Craigshill, at Ellensburg, Wash. They were found about twenty feet below the surface, twenty feet back from the face of the slope, in a cement rock formation, over which was a layer of shale."
... I could go all day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBeyond silly. You get your news from Crypto TV shows and nineteenth century gossip/fiction publication. Neanderthal bones have not been discovered in the Americas. No nine foot tall human skeletons have ever been found. Your multiple posts of fictional news reports are meaningless.
Deletehttp://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=42999
DeleteGossip fiction?
"The December 17, 1891 issue of the respected journal Nature reported the discovery of a giant man buried 14 feet within the center of one of Ohio’s mysterious burial mounds. The enormous man’s arms, jaw, arms, chest and stomach were all clad in copper. Wooden antlers, also covered with copper, rested on either side of his head. His mouth was filled with large pearls, and a pearl-studded necklace of bear teeth hung around his neck. Who this man was, or to which race of people he belonged, is unknown."
Gossip fiction?
"Scientific American issue of August 14, 1880, page 106:
Ancient American Giants.
The Rev. Stephen Bowers notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science, the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. J. F. Everhart, of Zanesville. It measured sixty-four by thirty-five feet at the summit, gradually sloping in every direction, and was eight feet in height. There was found in it a sort of clay coffin including the skeleton of a woman measuring eight feet in length. Within this coffin was found also the skeleton of a child about three and a half feet in length, and an image that crumbled when exposed to the atmosphere. In another grave was found the skeleton of a man and woman, the former measuring nine and the latter eight feet in length. In a third grave occurred two other skeletons, male and female, measuring respectively nine feet four inches and eight feet. Seven other skeletons were found in the mound, the smallest of which measured eight feet, while others reached the enormous length of ten feet. They were buried singly, or each in separate graves. Resting against one of the coffins was an engraved stone tablet (now in Cincinnati), from the characters on which Dr. Everhart and Mr. Bowers are led to conclude that this giant race were sun worshipers."
Not Neanderthal, Neanderthal traits that are theorised to be hybrids with other achaic humans such as Cro-Magnon... You need to read properly bro.
It's weak to suggest three generations of scientists in a time where science and enlightenment excelled should be contributing to fiction... A leap of faith if you will.
"No nine foot tall human skeletons have ever been found."
It's like a therapy exercise or something. I tell you what... Prove me wrong, you've not achieved that once through this entire thread and have managed to get all your arguments shoved back at you. Simply saying things are fictional is as creative as a ten year old, expecially when you are presented with actual official documentation.
; )
In the US we have tabloids with headlines that say "Elvis still alive!" and "President Obama meets with aliens". You are quoting nineteenth and early twentieth century versions of those tabloids as your source of scientific information. For you it always boils down to giant stolen skeletons, but it's fiction. The best you have is fiction. Fictional news in the 1800s is still fiction. The passage of time doesn't make it real.
DeleteScientific American, Nature Journal and the Smithsonian says "no".
Delete: )
Scientific American, Nature Journal and the Smithsonian say there are no 9 foot tall skeletons.
DeleteCall the Smithsonian Institiution in Washington DC and ask if they know anything about 9 foot tall skeletons. Call, write or email Nature Journal and ask if they know anything about 9 foot tall skeletons.
Do the same with Scientific American. Actually do this and post their responses.
They'll answer "No",
Scientific American, Nature Journal and the Smithsonian are not, or have they ever been concerned with fictional gossip. The sources that have documented studies have no pepper trail of them ever having these in possession, with the exception of the Smithsonian to which there is a ridiculous about documented, I'm just schimint the surface.
DeleteThe Smithsonian actually has miles and miles worth of vaults, probably none alive know what's the contents of them. Over the generations, all knowledge of what's in half of them would either be archived away or forgotten.
At the end of the day, I have science journals and bureaus from the country's big hitters confirming exactly what I'm saying.
; )
Oh... And all those 'fictional newspaper reports'? Badked up with consistency from those three big names.
DeleteCue the therapy type denial...
Did you contact Scientific American, Nature Journal, and ask them?
DeleteDo you own research to back up your outrageous claims. You believe that they wrote those articles.. You are qualified to contact them and ask questions. You can do your own investigation.
Or do you prefer the mystery?
Contact those groups and ask them if they ever published those articles and the whereabouts of the bones.
Ask Shawn to post your results in a new blog entry.
You're not qualified to email those organizations?
You have to keep emailing or calling them until you get answers. Don't just make one email. Act like an investigator. Bother them until you get answers.
We're waiting.
Did someone get a little angwy?
DeleteYou learnt something man... See you around.
; )
Are you even paying attention?
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Afraid of the answers you'll get? Don't be angry.
Ha ha ha ha!!! Read my comments property bro, you might get to the bottom of why I'm not going to bother, ask a friend for help if you get stuck.
DeleteHa ha ha ha!!
You prefer mystery. You'll always be an arms length away from the truth. You don't want answers. You could investigate this as much as anyone but you prefer to feel helpless.
DeleteGo on. Complete the research. Contact the organizations. Pester them until you get answers.
Do you enjoy being in a dead end?
According to you, everything leads to these giant skeletons. You're at a dead end until you get answers. You can keep re-reading and regurgitating the same old stories from fringe websites or further the investigation yourself.
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteNo, not everything, just a 150 year window of paper trails.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Enjoy your confused state. Keep regurgitating mysterious fiction from a bygone era OR......
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Bro... You got smoked right through this thread and I'm satisfied.
DeleteAlso, I'm in a BBQ and got better things to do. Let me know how that quest for the truth goes for ya!
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
You're rationalizing. Ignorance and helplessness are never satisfying.
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Oooooh, posh words from someone who can't ascertain the fundemental message in a thread.
DeleteKeep doing your theory group proud bro.
You'll get nothing and like it.
You've reached a dead end. Cry, moan, remain helpless, sentimental, and nostalgic for 1800s fiction, re-read and re-post the same fiction over and over again OR...
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
A dead end? Your failure for a counter argument isnt my dead end, you silly boy. The evidence has been presented and it's your job to test it, three generations of clear cut paper trails is what it is for me... Not my problem not mine.
Delete150 years worth of giant human/hominid skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US says "no".
Here's another one to send you over the edge;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
... Ha ha ha ha!!!
With your 'bros' and 'ha ha has' you sound juvenile.
DeleteThere were never any 9 foot tall human skeletons in the US or anywhere in the world. You look at the US especially as a fantasy place.
All you have to do is contact the 3 science organizations that you mentioned and get to the bottom of who has attributed the quotes to those organizations. They could tell you flat out that it is an internet hoax or whatever. They have records going back to the inception of the journals.
Contact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
"... There were never any 9 foot tall human skeletons in the US or anywhere in the world. You look at the US especially as a fantasy place."
DeleteRemember the breath... Over and over, but remember to breath and rock if it helps.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
^ You're the nut who believes in 9 foot tall Indians.
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Joe, I dare you to talk to a mental heath professional and tell them about the 9 foot tall stolen Indian conspiracy. In the time of those articles you cited you'd be put in facility with rubber walls. Do you take medication?
DeleteOh dear... Time to step away from the desktop, you're blood pressure's flying.
DeleteYou live in a fantasy world.
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
A 'fantasy world' that has paper trails that you're upset about.
DeleteDon't take it so personally bro, I think you need a rest though.
Be content with ignorance, confusion, and mystery OR...
DeleteContact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
Joe is safe in confusion. He lives in a fantasy world. No conclusions. Always something unsolvable in the distance. Others do research. Joe pastes 100 year old fiction.
DeleteMy conclusions are clear, precise and damning to your mental health it seems.
DeleteFiction? 150 years worth of giant human/hominid skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US, big hitters like Scientific American, Nature Journal and the Smithsonian... Says "no".
You're only angry cause you're backed into a corner you can't get out of.
A guy who believes in 9 foot tall stolen Indians talking about mental health.
DeleteFiction.
Talk about transference. You're backed into a corner. Contact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
A guy who believes the science journal Nature, Bureaus like the Smithsonian, a science article magazine such as Scientific American, and 150 years worth of printed media that have documented giant skeletons, who's talking about the mental health of some out of options Anon who's got his idea of the subject put back in the box.
DeleteFiction? 150 years worth of giant human/hominid skeleton finds in archeological studies in the US, big hitters like Scientific American, Nature Journal and the Smithsonian... Says "no".
It's fiction when you can put yor money where your mouth is, but you're too dumb and too angry. Ha ha ha ha!!!
"I'm no cornered, you are..." Oh dear, I probably expected a little to much from someone with the creative intelligence of a child. It's not my problem, my conclusions are based upon those documents being legitimate. It's our problem because there is documented biological evidence for giant skeletons, and since you are the one requiring a contrary viewpoint, it is you that requires contacting people... Do you see how this works? Are you sure?? I think you're about 16 or something, that's what I think.
Let me put things into perspective for you again... You got smashed with giant skeletal documentation, from three of the very most reliable sources in science publication. I could post you another ten, fifteen Smithsonian Bureaus if I wanted to. You have no counter argument, other than a claim you need to back up... It you can't, you lose and to be honest, look a little angry and silly.
I'd get cracking if I were you.
: )
Have you ever been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?
DeleteThe Smithsonian Institution, Nature Journal, and Scientific Journal do not believe in your 9 foot tall Indian claims.
You've never bothered to investigate where the articles did come from.
Contact them. Ask them. Here's what you do in 3 steps:
Contact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers.
The articles come from Nature, Scientific American and the Smithsonian.
Delete(Duh?)
Here's what someone challenging my claims should do; contact those organizations, ask those questions, and post the answers. I am at peace and have total satisfaction with those sources. There are none alive today affiliated with those older articles to either condemn or confirm their legitimacy. What lends credence to their legitimacy is consistency; the reports in the thousands of giant skeletal remains from native mounds that are still around the US today. This is nothing new, more and more researchers are uncovering mounds worth of reliable sources from science journals, anthropological and archeological studies going right up to the mid 20th century. You are the one requiring a source to the contrary and you sir... Whoever you claim you are, are well and truly done like a cipper. You can post all the 'fiction' comments that you like, you will not get any closer to your claims being proven and it's suddenly my job to do your work?
You're a joke and clearly don't understand how debate works, see you around. At least you've learnt something from this thread.
Frustrated? Make yourself whole again in 3 easy steps.
Delete1.Contact those organizations.
2, Ask if they know anything about articles on 9 foot tall Indian skeletons.
3. Post their reply here.
If you have been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic it is no laughing matter. If you're surprised I knew about it I'm not in on any grand conspiracy. Your ramblings provide the clue. They're symptomatic.
By the way, you don't have to bring up things that everyone knows about like the existence of Indian mounds being still around today. You're clouding the issue. The issue is the 9 foot tall Indian skeletons.
DeleteFurthermore, yes, Joe, the articles have been "attributed" to those journals by people on the internet. There are also photos on the internet of Civil War soldiers with pterodactyls.
DeleteFrustrated? I've won a debate you silly boy, ha ha ha!!! Your short comings aren't anybody's else's problem, this is damage control boyo... You haven't got a means of debunking science journals. Ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteFurther evidence that you're a little too young for adult debate? The mounds that are described in those journals are the exact same types existing today that have native legends of sharing such with giant tribes. Just to fill you in a little more, every native tribe in North America referred to the Sasquatch as another tribe of humans. Even more back up evidence;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
... Here is a study on a giant skull with links to canniblistic giants, 1967. To fill you in further... The same tribes that have Sasquatch as tribes also refer to them as cannibals.
This study was 'archived' away and not shown to the scientific community... Where it would grace any science journal today as a very significant find.
Using words like 'attributed' and 'fiction' are futile... Those science journals didn't think so, and you're case is getting even more desperate it seems. Ring up your teacher and ask for help, anything... It's getting too hot for you bro.
The study is from 1967, the skull is from Lovelock cave in Nevada.
DeleteAnd again... You not having a counter argument to scientific publications and journals, is not my problem. This is your job to do, I am satisfied; partly because we have more examples as late as 1967 showing the exact same pattern of events... The study from 1967 also has photographs, whilst the giant skulls are on the internet where they were kept at one of the museums in Nevada until very, very recently.
There is nothing on the internet that has been used to manipulate information coming your way. All this information I use has been accumulated from libraries all across the US and is available today for you, anybody to access.
Lastly now... I'll say it one more time, as it's apparent you are more concerned with having the last word as opposed to bringing any form of adult, mature counter argument that is the accepted next step for this exchange... You must bring a means, not your opinion, a source to prove your points, or the default position is those journals that have documented giant skeletal remains... That isn't my short comings, my frustration, my job to do because that means I win. This is how it works, old boy. Bring something substantial to the table... I've lowered myself wasting my time lecturing the likes of you long enough.
"M.J. Ewers Thursday, July 17, 2014 at 12:49:00 PM PDT
DeleteI am a co-researcher of Jim Vieira, Ross Hamilton, Chris Lesely and about dozen other authors and lecturers. We've compiled somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 accounts of giant burials in America, Europe, and Asia of skeletons 6-1/2 to about 9 ft, and sometimes as tall as 12 ft- reported between 1700's and present day... Quite a number however can be traced to primary sources, field journals, anthropological papers, museum inventory records, or science papers.
Who were the giants?. The skeletons of the 7 to 8 foot tall men tend to have been warriors buried in single or some times multiple burials, an honored class described in detail by Dragoo, Silverberg and others in the case of Adena culture mounds. Several sites into the 1950's and 60's yielded credible finds of 7 foot men at Dover Mound and Cresap mound by the Univ. of Kentucky and Carnegie museum of Penn. This tends to support at least some of the voluminous claims of extremely tall warrior types encountered by pioneers in early mound plundering.
But bare in mind the average Adena male was 5 ft 6 to 5 ft 8 inches tall, these taller skeletons seem to have been of a tribal elite, and not the usual run of the mill individual.
Similar burials of strikingly tall 6 ft 6 to 7 ft 3 skeletons are reportedly unearthed to the present day in Kurgan mounds of Ukraine, Russia, the Caucasus and central Asia."
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRemember, we're debating 9 foot tall skeletons in the US. You mentioned giants in Europe. Didn't you say something along the lines that white scientists or leaders didn't want the Indian evidence getting public exposure so they hid the bones. So, white scientists also hid bones in Europe? There are no 9 foot tall human bones anywhere. Trying to back up your argument with missing bones all over the world doesn't help..
DeleteYou are either trolling or are too stupid to realize that this giant thing is promoted by religious nuts to back up biblical passages.
You can cut and paste 100 year old fiction all day long. Why don't you paste the script for 'Bigfoot Wars' or 'Transformers' as well.
Don't feel too bad. You have an impossible task trying to defend Jack and the Beanstalk's veracity. You thing pasting gobs of fiction is selling your viewpoints? Quantities of BS does not equal quality of truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlso... Trolling? Are you a narcissist as well as a literary primitive? Look at the quality of my comments, look at the evidence I've put forward... Then look at the quality of your comments.
Delete(Sigh)
You'll notice something... You have nothing but troll dung to throw because it's becoming rather clear that's the level I'm stooping to.
Go on... Be brave... Open the links;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
... Come from behind the couch, nothing will hurt you...
; )
You are insane. You are obviously trolling.
DeleteThose Lovelock skulls fall within normal ranges height-wise. Look at the video that YOU have a link to. They show 3 skulls. They don't belong to 9 foot tall beings. We're not debating whether old skulls exist. I won't bother with the MK Davis BS.
These is something psychological about you that just isn't functioning correctly. This is total nonsense.
THAT was the best you had??!!! LOL!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere's another scale comparison;
Deletehttp://www.parahauntpost.com/2013/01/lovelock-nv-red-haired-giants.html
... There's loads of these scale comparisons on Google, but as I'm baby sitting, I really don't mind doing your homework for you.
; )
Helloooooooooo??? Anybody there??? Has meltdown mode taken over????
DeleteHa ha ha ha ha ha!!!
(Tumbleweed goes by...)
DeleteYou IDIOT. You are looking at the teeth. In the one photo that shows the Lovelock jaw they are comparing it to "A" set of teeth. Get it, Joe? A set of teeth. There are many size of bites. They compared it to one. Did they compare it to all 6 billion humans? Did they compare it to the biggest humans? Etc.... Furthermore, they are comparing the teeth to an entire jaw, which is deceptive.
DeleteFurthermore, in the video you(Joe) can see the skulls. You can tell with your own eyes that they don't belong to a 9 foot tall giant. Look at that link that has the 3 Lovelock skulls in a cabinet. They are clearly of normal height. Look at them.
Furthermore, one of your new examples is a Lovelock skull next to a line drawing of a modern skull. A drawing! A drawing?! Are you that stupid?
IDIOT. FOOL. MORON. Look at the damn video of the 3 skulls in the cabinet. They are normal range height-wise.
Seriously. You are an idiot. THAT is the ace up your sleeve? THAt is what this has been about?!!!
In all seriousness. The more you go on the more idiotic you come off. You are best sticking with cryptic old cut and pastes. Stay cryptic and mysterious. When you get into modern evidence you fall apart. How can you possibly look at those skulls in a cabinet and say they belonged on a 9 foot tall body or any type of giant? Your whole argument falls apart when anyone sees the skulls in comparison to a modern human like the guy in the video. You can't see that? Seriously?
DeleteEvery link that tries to tie in the Lovelock skulls to giants is an Alien, UFO, paranormal BS site. Haven't you picked up on that? That's not science. Those are people trying to suck in fools like you. Giants, bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, werewolves. You are living in a fantasy world. I wasn't kidding before. You are very weak when presenting real evidence. Keep it hazy and in the unclear past and you'll do better. Modern and science aren't your friends in this BS. You look bad.
DeleteHa ha ha ha!!! No, no, no, no... You will deny what's in front of your very eyes and then call someone else schitzophrenic? Ha ha ha!!
DeleteLook at the scale and the width of the teeth arch... Look at the size of the teeth; this is very, very, very basic anthropology, you silly boy. You can compare that to 6 billion other people (moving the goal posts a tad eh?), they won't have a series of all other morphological archaic traits that this skull has... Let alone the size.
Yes... In the video, you can see that David Hatcher Childress addresses as a deceiving sized skull until you get comparitive size. You're getting desperate now boyo, I've got you on the ropes, ha ha ha!!
Yes, the drawing is comparitive scale, it's what's archeologists do a lot of... This might be news to you also. Since we don't have access to the skulls at Nevada, this is what people tend to do. People aren't conspiring a little plot in a smoky room to conjur up a conspiracy, they do what comes naturally with the evidence... Sounds like you're climbing down a bit of a rabbit hole there, boyo.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
But hey... You can call me names and say 'fiction' and million times until you're blue in the face... You have giant skulls in front of yor eyes dear boy. Ha ha ha!!
You want science? Here's science;
Deletehttp://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
Ha ha ha!!!
"Miscellaneous Paper #18: An Unusual Human Skull From Near Lovelock, Nevada" by Erik K. Reed - Photographic work from the paper one by Dennis Van Gerven.
DeleteA skull was found in the Humboldt Sink Flats about 2-1/2 to 3 miles southwest of Lovelock Cave in Nevada. This was turned into the University of Nevada in 1967 by a student who discovered it. It was found near a site with stone tools that appeared to be Paiute in nature. This site had previously been partially excavated in 1965 by the University of California. Other items were found such as numerous Pinto points.
This item had some unusual features including a very prominent brow ridge, a markedly developed protruding nuchal crest with a distinct inion process, and a true os inca or interparietal bone. The skull was large, ovoid, with high vault but low retreating forehead and marked postorbital constriction with a massive occipital torus or crest. The mastoic processes were quite large and the supramastoid crests were well developed.
Sutural complexity was high with several Wormian bones in the lambdoid suture. The occipital was divided by an intricate suture just above the torus from asterion to asterion; a true interparietal bone. The pterion area is arranged in a fairly narrow H. There were broad supraorbital notches and infraorbital foramina were moderately large.
Glabella prominence was very strong with a large continuous brow ridge over the medial halves of the orbits which were squarish and horizontal. The malars were large and prominent with moderately developed zygomaxillary tuberosities. The suborbital areas were nearly flat. The root of the nose was high and narrow.
The mandible was large, strong, masculine and square. The teeth were very severely worn with no signs of cavities or crowding. It was believed to be an adult male, but not elderly.
The skull is categorized as "New World Material," a general archaic type referred to by Georg Neumann's term "Otamid variety." It resembled early period central California material from the lower Sacramento Valley (Neumann 1957) and from Tranquility in the San Joaquin Valley (Angel, 1966). It also resembles the the Ophir cranium from Virginia City , Nevada (Reichlen and Heizer 1966) - even having the strange os inca."
"As it turns out, Otamids are defined as long and low headed with elongate distal limbs (ie. they were hunters like Late Pleistocene Europeans), are present right into the eastern Archaic and Middle Woodlands periods and are described simply as plesiomorphic (meaning primitive ancestral or primitive character) relative to 'derived' Americoids, resembling similar populations in Europe and Siberia and lacking Mongoloid features in their cranium and face (so, these slope-headed ones were found in Europe and Siberia and interestingly those are regions where light hair was found in the population correlating with reports of red-haired and blond-haired giants)."
Deletehttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AGkucy3ddLE/Ux82fn4aS5I/AAAAAAAArTg/xzOnTJFiMzA/s1600/south+txas+skulls.jpg
DeleteHere's another example! Ha ha ha ha!!
The reports say nothing of those skulls belonging to 9 foot tall beings. Indians, on average, are much shorter than Europeans. You can clearly see that today in the US. Europeans are "giants" in comparison. In comparison.....but they are NOT EVEN CLOSE to 9 feet tall.
DeleteUse your eyes, Joe. Those skulls in the cabinet are within normal height range. True or false?
Look at the cabinet Lovelace skull video again. They are within normal height range. True or false? I'm not talking about having a little more brow or mastoid process. HEIGHT RANGE. Take the time to look at the video again. They are of normal height range in that video.
Judge by that video alone. Not drawings, etc... In the cabinet video those skulls are within normal height range. True or false?
Here's another comparison shot!
Deletehttp://s8int.com/images8/giant-skull-trio.jpg
... Wow, your blood pressure must be flying.
Now you're talking about European giants. I thought Europeans were suppressing Indian giants because they were racists? So Europeans are suppressing European giants too because they are racist against themselves? You are mixing conspiracies so much you are contradicting yourself. You don't know what ends up. I'm debating a mental patient. LOL
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNope! Be scientist obviously had a very comprehensive undertanding of the morphology of Cro-Magnon skeletal finds to which is easily attainable on the Internet.
DeleteI've never stated that Europeans have concerned anything up, I think you're resorting to baiting now, more evidence that you're running out of ideas.
Ha ha ha ha!!!
You're are a moron. 3 grainy skulls. You can post 3 modern skulls with even more variation. You can take a photo of 3 exact skulls and make them look different sizes. So what? That's not science.
DeleteJoe, seriously. You're plain stupid.
Yes, you did post that whites hid the alleged 9 foot tall Indian skeletons because they were afraid that taller meant superior.
DeleteNow, you're lying.
Joe, you are either trolling, mentally ill, or an idiot.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"... B-b-but the cabinet?!"
DeleteHa ha ha!!!
Semantics. People in the US Call white people "European" as well as "white".
DeleteYou're not addressing the fact that you can also put 3 modern skulls on a table and have the same variation in size. So what?
Yes, you did say they were covering up giants in the US. You also said there were giants in Europe. Where are they? Where are the 9 foot tall Europe giants? Another cover up by whites?
You never did address the skulls in the cabinet. Look at them in comparison to the modern human right next to them. They are not giant skulls.
You keep trying to get around the fact that the modern guy has the skulls in his hands. They are very average.
I'm debating a moron.
They guy has one of the skulls in his hands. Can't you see that? They are average height.
I get it with your last comment:
Delete""... B-b-but the cabinet?!"
Ha ha ha!!!""
You're a child trolling.
You've Fizzed out. Joe Fizz.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteJoe Fizz. LOL
^ Smoked!
Delete: )
Joe 'giant tribes but no evidence' Fizz
DeleteJoe 'Facial tissue adds height to the skull.' Fizz
Joe 'Giant human evidence all over the world but no skeletons' Fizz
Joe 'back to the 1800s' Fizz
Joe Fizz LOL
"At least two notable gigantic skeletons of Saxon men, towering 7 ft, to 7 feet 4 inches tall have been documented from 6th and 7th century A.D. Saxon graves in the 20th century at two independent sites in Northern, and Eastern Britain.
DeleteFirst is the “Burgh Castle giant.” On Display in the Royal Ontario Museum in 2012 (Apparently no longer on display as of Oct. 2013). Acquired in 1967 – 68, this skeleton was found near a Roman Fort in a 7th century Saxon Castle in Norfolk, England.The height of the man was approximately 7 feet 4 inches (2 m, 23 ) and his age was around 40 years at death."
"The second find of Saxon giantism is evidenced from the year 1994 near Castle Garth, when the bones of a man 7 feet tall, and a woman over 6 feet tall were found in a 6th century Saxon cemetery. Evidently a population of “Saxon giants” once lived in the area.
DeleteFrom the “The Independent / London / By Robert Mendick – March 12, 2000.”
“Archaeologist Demands Respect for Giants’ Bones
Bones pointing to the existence of a community of “Saxon giants” in north Yorkshire go on display next month despite a protest from the archaeologist who found them.
The part-skeletons are an extraordinary find. Dug up from a sixth-century Saxon cemetery discovered beneath the ruins of Thirsk Castle, they indicate a seven-foot-tall man and a woman more than six feet in height. A number of children were also buried there.
“These bones could explain why there are quite a number of hefty Yorkshiremen about,” said Cooper Harding, curator at Thirsk Museum, where the remains will be displayed.
“You can imagine the terror of the native Celtic farmers, who were quite short, when confronted by these giants.”
9 Foot Tall Indians is the topic, Joe Fizz
DeleteThere are 7' people alive today. They are rare just like 7 foot tall skeletons, Joe Fizz.
Keep your eye on the ball, Joe Fizz.
9 Foot tall Indians, Joe Fizz.
Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old too? Serious question.
When I say too, I mean in addition to your other beliefs.
DeleteAnd you've been given Smithsonian Buereas that have documented nine foot skeletal remains, you didn't have so much as a whisper of a counter argument against it. When the average height of a human in those days is 5.5 feet, that's a giant, dear boy.
DeleteI think you're at the limits of yor worming. The debate was won comments ago, but I'm about to call you well and truly done like a cipper.
Joe - 'giant tribes' - photographs of a giant skull with archaic features - schooled.
DeleteJoe - Facial tissue does not account for perspective to a skull - schooled.
Joe - Giant human evidence all over the world - schooled.
Joe - back to the 1800s... Where 150 years worth of scientific publications say "no".
... Bro, you've been bullied and shown your just a cynical little person with not much else.
Joe Fizz. You're regurgitating something another internet guy attributed to the Smithsonian about 9 foot tall Indians. The Smithsonian would like to set you straight. Contact them.
DeleteNow you're talking rare 7 foot giant skeletons in Europe. There have always been rare 7 foot tall homo sapiens. There still are. Big deal.
Stay on topic. There have never been 9 foot tall Indian skeletons or any 9 foot tall human skeletons.
You're skirting the issue, Joe Fizz.
Your best evidence was normal size skulls in a cupboard. LOL. Joe Fizz strikes again.
Joe "normal size skulls in a cupboard" Fizz
DeleteNo, no, no... You're making little things up bro... Those are Smithsonian Bureaus, they weren't made up on the Internet, you laughably dim individual. You've shown this right the way through your comments, when you don't spot mere cynicism, you'll apply bent logic and lies. What's audacious, is you'll fling around accusations like you're exempt from backing up your points, you've shown a very limited capacity to debate properly.
DeleteAgain... It's not my call to find a counter source to your arguments, you're making yourself look silly. Stop moving the goal posts, to wanted giant skeletons in Europe; you got them. 7.5 foot plus skeletons in the droves is what you've been presented with, concentrated burial areas that suggest anything but a rarity. At best you have a theory exercise.
Stay on topic? Bro... You've been trying literary acrobats for two days and yore nowhere near proving me wrong.
"... There have never been 9 foot tall Indian skeletons or any 9 foot tall human skeletons."
Are you suggesting Indians are not humans? What are you taking about? I don't think you know anymore, do you??
That's all you've done right through this thread is maintain studies that are there aren't, and a comparitive scale for normal homo sapien skulls isn't... I've got you in my pocket bro.
Here's a pro tip... Start proving your points, you're with the big boys now.
Contact the Smithsonian and ask them, Joe Fizz.
DeleteIf you don't believe me, believe them. Afraid of the truth? Enjoy the haze?
Like I said, your best "real" evidence were normal size skulls in a cupboard.
Now you're reverting back to the 1800s. I say contact the Smithsonian to verify. You won't.
...and you wonder why you're Joe Fizz.
People on the internet attributes fake quotes to all kinds of people including Abraham Lincoln. Fortunately, the Smithsonian is still around today. Contact them to verify.
DeleteYou're fizzing. Don't Fizz out on me, Joe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteStart proving your points bro, ha ha ha ha!!
DeleteJoe ' but I can't contact the Smithsonian and ask them if they're a bunch of racist covering up superior 9 foot tall Indian bones' Fizz.
DeleteYou're making the claim, numbskull. You can't back it up. The people you're making the claim against disagree with you.
Average size skulls in a cupboard, Fizzy.
Joe 'but someone on the internet attributed a 10 foot tall human skeleton to an 1830s gentlman so it has to be true' Fizz
Fizz Fuzz You're out like a light LOL
Your money needs to be where your mouth is, you need to prove our points.
DeleteTest my sources, it's how things work.
Basic debate I'm afraid.
Backwards. You're the one making racist claims against the Smithsonian institution. You're the one that need to provide the proof. That's libel, pal. It's illegal. They can sue you.
DeleteJoe 'makes racist claims against US organization and says its up to others to prove otherwise' Fizz
You fizzed out a long time ago.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou're in over your head, boy. I hope that isn't your real name, son.
DeleteHa ha ha!!
DeleteMan up... Test the points.
"Man up" .....The irony. LOL
DeleteJoe "The Smithsonian is Racist" Fizz
Face it. Your best evidence is still average size skulls in a cupboard.
Joe "But, but someone on the internet said that someone in 1930s said that Smithsonian hides 9 foot tall Indians. It must be true cause I read it" Fizz
Joe 'Libels the Smithsonian' Fizz
Do you believe the world is 6000 years old as well? I'm trying to determine how much of a nut I'm dealing with LOL
Grow a pair... Test me, should be easy right?
DeleteThe Irony.
DeleteThe Smithsonian says you're a liar.
Do you believe the world is 6000 years old?
Do you, Fizz?.
You've been shown a teeth arching that's twice as big of a normal skull, you've been shown photographic comparison for scale... You have to counter those points and you haven't... You also make claims you can't back up. This is what stage we're at.
DeleteTest me, it should be easy.
Has the Smithsonian said I'm a liar now; yeah?
Delete"Cuckoo!!"
Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
DeleteThat skull is not twice as big as a normal skull. It is the same height.
DeleteDo you believe the earth is 6000 years old?
Do you believe in string theory?
DeleteSorry, that's your perception of it, it's a bi*ch. the teeth arching is twice as big. This is reality.
DeleteThe photographs I've shown you... Are not the same height.
Man up, your pathetic.
You're a nut. The world is 6000 years old. The government is covering up 9 foot tall Indian bones, plus you believe in bigfoot.
DeleteCase Closed.
More baiting... But know testing. Do you believe in string theory? I think you've yet to test my points.
DeleteMan up.
Denial... Baiting... Perceptions...
DeleteMan up.
You're a nut.
DeleteNo... I've stooped to a new low entertaining you, when you grow up and realise how to debate as an adult, let me know.
DeleteTest the points.
You're a nut.
DeleteWhat a loser, ha!
DeleteThank you. All in good fun. No hard feelings.
DeleteDANG old WILD BILL bear huntin sesshun comin in Sept sos hes gots some time to gits his scoutin done ans gos shoots tham bears
ReplyDeleteSomewhere maybe a third down the page.
ReplyDeleteans WILD BILL gots that BIG KNIFE
DeleteReal Unemployment Hangs at 18%
ReplyDeleteWHAT THE !!!
Deletewait a tick -
ReplyDeleteLabor Department reported said the unemployment rate rose to 6.2%.
so its all good : )
That tiger goes staight for the TATER
ReplyDeleteHOLE
DeleteGeorge Bush !!!
DeleteOK havent found reruns of Mountain Monsters YET !!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm feeling kind of distressed after watching that video. Who can I sue for me suffering this distress? This just ain't right that I should be distressed like this, and not be given some money for suffering this distress. Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
ReplyDeleteBoy,we really did it now!!! we influenced to be wanting other species
ReplyDeleteanal pleasures...
Were causin' a ruckus in the world...
joe fitzgerald:
ReplyDeleteI believe you quoted me earlier. Yes, I do put some stock into the "theory" that some of the Sasquatch mythology and legends of literal, giant wild men, might have been based in part, on real Native Americans of great stature, possessing upper-peolithic cranial features, or perhaps outliers of a tribe who dwelt in the forest and badlands. The Karankawa tribe, as well as Seri Indians, and legendary "Si-Te-Cah" all were reported to have had very tall men, and practiced occasional cannibalism. I have spoken to one anthropologist off the record who confirmed that cannibalism had been confirmed among some tribes in the American S.W. I actually visited Lovelock Cave earlier this year, and several museums. It was interesting that several series of fiber sandals were found in the cave, some reported in the press in the 1950's at 15 to 16 inches long (size 18 to 22 US men's). I was not able to confirm the size 20 sandals, but did confirm that size 15 U.S. Men's (about 13 inches) sandal was found in the cave, as well as size 11 and size 12 sandals. So there may well have been some tall 6 to 7 foot men in that cave, which is much greater than the historic average for Paiute or Washoe which was around 5'5" or so. Loud and Harrington (1929) did find evidence of possible cannibalism in the cave, as a series of human bones were cut or split open to extract the marrow. I was not able to view the 3 skulls which are housed at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, but was told by the curator they are in no way giant's skulls- she was adamant about that. However, I remain curious as to their precise size, as Clarence Stoker, who donated almost the entire Museum's inventory, was a local historian and claimed to have excavated a 6-1/2 to 7 foot tall Indian outside of Lovelock cave, not far from where he found the skulls he donated to the Winnemucca museum. Also interesting is that 2 skulls of very unusual archaic form were found in 1967, 2 miles from Lovelock cave at the Humboldt sink, displaying very rare features, dolycocephalic, strong jaw, pronounced brow ridge, and an occipital bun which is found in over 80% of Neanderthals, but 60% of upper Paleolithic types, and rare in modern humans. The skull which was published in a science paper in 1967, also shared similarities to those of the Karankawa and Pericu Indians (both tribes were documented to have practiced cannibalism).
It is interesting to note that local legends from various tribes of the red haired "giants" and cannibals of Nevada, can be found among the Washoe, Paiute, and even Ute Indians under various names. Some of these may be fireside "boogey man" tales, but I sense a possible kernel of reality in these oral traditions.
ReplyDeleteAs concerns the giant skeletons, those mound burial skeletons which have been documented in the 7 to 8 feet high range, tended to be of special individuals buried with ornate copper spearheads or axes, beads, and obsidian and stone implements. These exceptional burials which have been documented by Smithsonian agents in their ethnology reports from the 1880's to 1890's, and subsequent digs by the Carnegie and University of Kentucky in the 1950's and 60's might suggest that there were cans or rulers of giant stature. Quite a few finds of tall Adena skeletal type have been documented, and there have been reports of skeletons as tall as 9 feet in the press reports, but the tallest actual official measurements on file in the Smithsonian's field reports, and later excavations I have been able to read in actual book archives are from seven to about eight feet tall - which is extraordinary. There is certainly some good documentary evidence for very tall Native Americans, but not all the giant skeleton reports are what they seem however, and there have been a number of hoaxes and pranks by 19th century charlatans, gelatine mummies, and stone carved gaffs. These might represent a small percent of the total dataset, but I think even at the end of the day, if we threw out half the dataset of the 1,500 plus reports I and Jim Vieira, Ross Hamilton, and a dozen other co-researchers, have all compiled, we are still left with a great deal of interesting anomalies in the collective human closet. Maybe these were genetic mutations??, recessive markers of stature and strength which were selected over time? That might make some sense for some of thsoe reports of six fingers, extra sets of teeth and other deformities which some times accompany the giant skeleton reports, possibly suggesting interbreeding --not so unlike inbred classes among certain elites families of the Watusi or Dinka tribes in Africa who reach phenomenal heights some times approaching 8 feet.
It should be noted that Martin & Saller in 1957 categorized human stature of recent and ancient periods. They found that the global mean stature of recent Homo Sapien males was 1.65 meters, or 5 ft 5 to 5 ft 6, and any man or woman over 1.7 meters, or 5 ft 7 was relatively tall, anyone over 1.8 meters, or 5 ft 11 and up was "very tall." If a person was 2 meters (6 ft 7) or taller, they were classed as a "giant." Martin & Saller's categorization matches the approximate designation threshold modern medical science recognizes for "giant" humans, and those who possess the disease "gigantism" who can reach documented statures of 7 to 9 feet (2.1 to 2.72 meters)
ReplyDeleteIf any outliers or sub-groups of a given tribe had such large men, well over 6 feet, and even 7 feet tall, and they clothed themselves in skins of animals, possessed strong archaic features reminiscent of Heidelbergensis, or Neanderthals & or, upper-Paleo types, living on the fringes of the forest, swamps, caves and bad lands, occasionally raiding local farmers etc.-- and eating "man flesh"... Such types may well have helped in the dissemination of "Bigfoot" legends, Not unlike the famed Shoshone chief "Nampuh" of Idaho, who stood near 7 feet tall, wore a size 18 moccasin and was called "chief Bigfoot" by the locals in the 1860's. Known for his violent raids, and scalping, he had the quintessential makings of a giant who would be remembered in legend and lore for centuries-- even the city of "Nampa" Idaho is named after him.
But these are all fun theories, and I regard all of my research as a form of entertainment. Everyone should do their own research, and reach their own conclusions.
I have only now come accross these comments and I must thank you whole heartedly for taking the time to write that... I learnt a lot from you the first time you posted, but this has truly been an education.
DeleteIf it would be at all possible, I would very much like to email you at a later time if I had any small questions... I would be forever grateful. Hopefully I can catch you at a later date should you post here, and I can post you my email address.
Thanks again for taking the time, it's rare that people of your knowledge post here and when they do, it's a serious treat.
Peace.
Reposting my first comment.
ReplyDeleteJ-o-e,
I believe you quoted me earlier. Yes, I do put some stock into the "theory" that some of the Sasquatch mythology and legends of literal, giant wild men, might have been based in part, on real Native Americans of great stature, possessing upper-peolithic cranial features, or perhaps outliers of a tribe who dwelt in the forest and badlands. The Karankawa tribe, as well as Seri Indians, and legendary "Si-Te-Cah" all were reported to have had very tall men, and practiced occasional cannibalism. I have spoken to one anthropologist off the record who confirmed that cannibalism had been confirmed among some tribes in the American S.W. I actually visited Lovelock Cave earlier this year, and several museums. It was interesting that several series of fiber sandals were found in the cave, some reported in the press in the 1950's at 15 to 16 inches long (size 18 to 22 US men's). I was not able to confirm the size 20 sandals, but did confirm that size 15 U.S. Men's (about 13 inches) sandal was found in the cave, as well as size 11 and size 12 sandals. So there may well have been some tall 6 to 7 foot men in that cave, which is much greater than the historic average for Paiute or Washoe which was around 5'5" or so. Loud and Harrington (1929) did find evidence of possible cannibalism in the cave, as a series of human bones were cut or split open to extract the marrow. I was not able to view the 3 skulls which are housed at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, but was told by the curator they are in no way giant's skulls- she was adamant about that. However, I remain curious as to their precise size, as Clarence Stoker, who donated almost the entire Museum's inventory, was a local historian and claimed to have excavated a 6-1/2 to 7 foot tall Indian outside of Lovelock cave, not far from where he found the skulls he donated to the Winnemucca museum. Also interesting is that 2 skulls of very unusual archaic form were found in 1967, 2 miles from Lovelock cave at the Humboldt sink, displaying very rare features, dolycocephalic, strong jaw, pronounced brow ridge, and an occipital bun which is found in over 80% of Neanderthals, but 60% of upper Paleolithic types, and rare in modern humans. The skull which was published in a science paper in 1967, also shared similarities to those of the Karankawa and Pericu Indians (both tribes were documented to have practiced cannibalism).