Sasquatch Coffee


Where Are The Bones? Any Giants In Those Days?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 16th, 2010

So, if there are forest giants out there, Sasquatch among us, and Bigfoot dying once in awhile, have contact with humans produced large skeletons being buried by Homo sapiens?

What do you think of this chart and what it conveys?

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


20 Responses to “Where Are The Bones? Any Giants In Those Days?”

  1. Tarzanboyy responds:

    Some of those I could buy. Others…not so much.
    I can believe that on very rare occasion, a human can reach over eight feet. Robert Wadlow is an example of someone who is well documented as being over 8 feet.

    A non-human Hominid over 10 feet? Possible. 12 feet is stretching it. Even non-human, anything taller than that strains credulity to the extreme and without any sort of compelling evidence, I would dismiss it as a hoax or a tall tale.

  2. Ragnar responds:

    And where are the skeletons? You find a human skeleton 25 feet tall and its not on display? Yeah. Right.

    Not buying the ancient finds. It wasn’t unusual even 150 years to mis-identify bones of mammoths and dinosaurs.

  3. geekomancer responds:

    I agree with Ragnar in part. I saw a special once where they talked about a mangled mammoth skeleton maybe giving rise to the legend of a cyclops.

    Maybe I’m being paranoid, but I think if they ever DID find a skeleton that big, we’d never see it. In these cases, we need to remember that there is a lot of revisionist history out there about crypto subjects. There’s tons of rumors of archaeological finds in the States that just… disappeared. I think it would be naive to call ALL of them hoaxes.

  4. eireman responds:

    What’s the “Mt. Blanco Institute of Omniology” anyway? Not to disparage anyone’s beliefs, but it sounds a lot like one of those “scientific institutes” that a program on TBN might look to for scientific support of Biblical claims. I note that many of these stories are from the Bible or from ancient times in Biblical locales. Besides weak science, I smell bias. Charts and anecdotes aren’t evidentiary. While a tale might be a good place to start when looking for evidence, it is by no means the final destination.

  5. Harold responds:

    I think they forgot to include the skeletons of Paul Bunyan and the giant from “Jack and the Beanstalk.” That chart conveys the impression that complete skeletons exist for each of those claims. I’d like to see references to any of the sources for these claims, and see what – if any – bones actually exist to back them up.

    Not that there’s any shame in claims based on partial skeletons. Many dinosaurs that you will see imaginatively illustrated are based on a few teeth, a piece of jawbone, a partial forearm, or some claws. But does even this much exist for any of these claims, aside from the leftmost skeleton?

    OG King of Bashan: The original Original Gangster.

  6. korollocke responds:

    The OG skeleton, is it by any chance the god king Angus OG?

  7. korollocke responds:

    Actually a primate the size of the 30′s King Kong could exist, though it would be pushing the limits of physical scaling (let’s not forget some dinosaurs were huge). He/it would have to knuckle walk to support his weight. His feet would definitely hurt and would go a long way to explain why he/it was prone to flying off the handle in rage at the drop of a hat. So the last skeleton could have been possible, but I would need to see it for myself.

  8. red_pill_junkie responds:

    It would be interesting to do a biomedic CGI study of how the human skeleton framework would have to change in order to accommodate a truly *functional* 20′ giant.

    Imagine the calorie intake of such a guy!

  9. Stephen Wagner responds:

    I believe some of the ideas about these giant skeletons came from the ancient discovery of dinosaur bones. In other words, they did not find complete human skeletons. They found, perhaps, the femur of a large dinosaur, saw that it resembled a human femur, then extrapolated that it must belong to a gigantic human being.

  10. wanderingman responds:

    This image is a hoax from a place in Texas called Mt Blanco Fossil Museum, a charlatan creationist “museum” run by non-scientists, and is trying to pawn off fabricated and misidentified fossils as coming from giant humans in order to promote their fundamental religious beliefs.

    Reminds me of another hoax that frequently makes it’s rounds on the Internet, consisting of Photoshopped images of giant skeletons being unearthed. http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

  11. stranger responds:

    The uniting theme of this chart seems to be a total lack of hard evidence. You can excuse to a degree the really ancient stuff considering the condition of the rest of their civilizations. The Roman emperor was reportedly (and rather conveniently) not entombed, but dumped in a river. That leaves 15th to 17th century European finds. Nobody could be bothered to save a sample as a curiosity? I find this unbelievable. The Turkish example is just a joke. I’ve seen people bring back pots from overseas larger than its skull would have been.

    It will be difficult to get me excited until some actual remains are turned up. You wouldn’t even have to have a full bone for DNA recovery. Unfortunately, these giants will likely remain relegated to tall tales. I actually believe in giants. My pet theory for Sasquatch is a degenerate descendant of some kind of giant. Logically, there should be bodies somewhere.

    If anyone wants to dig into this stuff, I am game as far as I am able. It would make an excellent TV series. Giants, ghosts, monsters, and treasure!!!

  12. TheForthcoming responds:

    Go to: http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=7307.0.126.0

    Were Neanderthals the Genesis “Giants”?

    The Bible describes a race of pre-Flood humans that grew to dominate the cultural landscape before being wiped out.

    Genesis 6:4 talks about “giants” in the land before the flood. The English word giants is translated from two original Hebrew words: Rephaim and Nephilim. The Rephaim are mentioned only after the Flood; they were tall men, like Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20).

    As Roy Shultz brings out in Exploring Ancient History, the word giant in Genesis 6:4 comes from the word Nephilim, which means “a feller,” or one who fells a tree because of his unusual strength. The term implies a “tough,” or a bully, an individual of great physical might. In other words, the pre-Flood Nephilim were giants in strength but not in tallness of stature.

  13. terry the censor responds:

    A few notes on Goliath. The story appears in Samuel, the Hebrew text of which came down to us in pretty rough shape. From this we get that Goliath was 6 cubits and a span (roughly 9’9″), and so we find it in the King James version, revered by fundamentalists. However, the textually superior and 1000 years older Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls give 4 cubits and a span (about 6’9″). But most literalists can’t doubt the KJV or they would go mad, so they have to think of wacky ways to support it, such as embracing extra-biblical legends and hoaxes.

    > I think it would be naive to call ALL of them hoaxes.

    Not so.

    Think of it this way: anybody out there hoaxing six-foot-tall giants?

  14. loopstheloop responds:

    Possibly slightly dubious of the historical accuracy of this document, considering the author misspelt Caesar. :-( D’oh.

  15. korollocke responds:

    I checked out that “Museum” in Texas as it’s called. Quite a propoganda show. I just don’t buy the Creationist bit. Theres nothing to back it up. The one thing I always bring up to them is this, why aren’t dinosaurs in the bible. Ziz,behemoth and the leviathon don’t count.

  16. phoenixrising responds:

    I think its completely possible for these giants to have existed. The fact that EVERY culture has histories of giant peoples should throw up a flag saying ” hmmm. There could be something to all this.” Its not that hard to believe when you stop and think that everything was bigger back then, from bugs to plants. Also the oxygen content in the atmosphere was much higher than today, so that could have something to do with the massive size of things back then. But im not a scientist. Just a thought. Also why wouldn’t behemoth and the leviathan count as dinos in the bible? you got two perfect cases staring at you but its not good enough lol. Just like a skeptic, always needing more “proof”.

  17. terry the censor responds:

    @phoenixrising Whoa, whoa, whoa! Everything was bigger then? More oxygen? You are going MUCH further back than the times of the figures in the chart. Setting that aside, keep in mind that we have ample physical evidence of giant mammals living during the time of modern humans — but no physical evidence of giant humans living at the time of giant mammals.

    > im not a scientist.

    I believe you.

    > Just like a skeptic, always needing more “proof”.

    How about we start with “some” proof? (No, misplaced sarcasm is not of evidentiary value.)

  18. mystery_man responds:

    The accounts of very large humans being from 8 to 10 feet tall could be attributable to several things. It could be that men such as the Roman Ceasar Maximinus Thrax were very large men, yet due to their power and influence, there was a bit of over exaggeration in historical accounts. It was not unusual at all for leaders of ancient times to have been said to be larger than they were, or to have had magical powers of some sort.

    While they may very well have been larger than average, those in power could have been made out to be much larger and more imposing than they actually were. They may even have had artifacts for the purpose of propagating these stories, such as larger than life weapons, utensils, or in the case of the King of Bashan, a bed.

    Also, there could have been other physical factors such as pitiutary gigantism, a condition caused by a condition known as acromegaly which often results in extremely large size due to an out of control release of growth hormone. This results in humans that are far larger than normal, while also exhibiting other physical abnormalities such as distorted facial features such as a bulging forehead, thick lips, thickened or flattened nose, and other abnormalities. Interestingly, some of the historical figures mentioned here such as Maximinus Thrax were often mentioned to have such features such as a prominent jaw and brow. Perhaps they exhibited some condition such as acromegaly?

    The thing is we have scant evidence that these sizes were real. There are obviously no photographs from the time and we are forced to go mostly on records of the time, which are not always reliable. We just don’t know what the deal was.

    As for the more outlandish claims of 20 foot plus giant humans, I find these claims dubious and highly unlikely. We can see huge sizes in many extinct giant mammals but it must be remembered that these were generally quadrupeds, and thus were able to evenly distribute more of their weight. A biped of this size has all of that weight on just two limbs. With something like a human, our spine, pelvic structure, and head placement are all arranged in such a way that our weight bears down directly on our legs.

    Considering the massive increase in weight as these huge sizes are achieved, factor in the strength of bones and the proportional power of the muscles’ ability to pull this weight and it seems that anything bipedal approaching 20 feet in height would likely be unable to stand up, let alone stomp dramatically through the countryside. As far as a true biped goes, it seems that humans such as Robert Wadlow are likely approaching the size limits of what our particular bipedal body structure is able to handle. Even in these documented extreme cases, the subjects often had a plethora of health and mobility problems due to their size.

    Add to these physical problems the scant evidence for anything like 20 foot tall humans, and the chances of these accounts being based in reality seem unlikely. I would need more evidence that this is not only possible, but that something even remotely like a 20 foot tall humanoid existed at any time for me to really give much weight to these particular accounts. As has already been mentioned, it is quite possible that fossils of dinosaurs and other outsized prehistoric animals were mistaken as being the remains of giants. This sort of thing quite probably contributed to many legends and myths of giants.

    This is fascinating to discuss but the reality of 20, 25, 30 foot tall human giants seems quite unlikely. I would say that even accounts of 10 foot tall humans have quite possibly undergone some amount of exaggeration.

  19. kryptos006 responds:

    I know I am finding out about this post well after it was posted, but that is because I am writing a chapter in my book on True Giants. This seems absurd. I thought that a sighting of a 13′ tall Bigfoot was way too far-fetched, but a 36′ tall skeleton is impossible.

  20. Rexious responds:

    There actually is a jaw bone on record that is so huge that the hominid (Named Gigantopithecus) in question is believed by some Paleontologists to have been around 10 ft tall when standing upright. But other than this and a few scattered bones, there is little properly accepted proof to support this fantastical theory. The jaw bone was very similar to that of an orangutang, so the model given is based on one. Having said this it is openly admitted that there is no real way of knowing what it looked like without more solid evidence something which is mentioned by the Paleontologists who have observed it.
    For hundreds of years people thought that Mammoth bones where giant bones.

    I am not saying there where no ‘giants’ around, but a think that some of the skeletons shown are far fetched and clutching at straws unless there is real evidence to observe. I don’t think it is inconceivable at all that out of the 6 billion+ people we have on earth today, there are some hoaxes out there, even in the thousands.

    If evidence is not around today and someone claims it was burned down does not prove that it ever actually existed, or, god forbid, maybe they made a mistake during analysis, something which was very easy to do the further back in time we go. Hoaxes would have also been easier to pull off the further we go back. Why not? A believed hoax can make the finder instantly famous.

    Any skeleton claimed to be a giant human is not a provable reliable source of information unless it is still here today for us to look at it, especially when we know now that before we realized that some of the Mammoth bones we found were mammoth bones, we often mistook them as giant humans. Most of the Mammoth, Wooly Rhino and Mastodon fossils found did not have skulls, so this is why they were often mistaken as giants.

    It just seems that a lot of people that believe in this kind of thing with ‘one eye on the prize’ are going on blind faith rather than solid proof. History is written by the victors. In Ancient Greece, we would have been laughed at if we told people back then that some of the bones found where not their creatures of myth after all.

    Compare this to the way Paleontologists in general are dealing with the issue, which requires (here that dirty word again) solid evidence to support a conclusive theory, I would rather look at what they have unearthed so to speak. Forget the PC (popular choice) claims we like to believe in, the majority of them know that we just don’t know everything about it yet, there are thousands of viable theories out there with what we have to look at today, and none of it is conclusive. I’d rather listen to those who are open minded enough to know that they don’t know yet than those that think they know based on fables and lost so called proof before we could even examine the proof properly.

    Don’t believe it till you see it, otherwise it’s that other dirty word, conjecture



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.