Author of the Month :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
Join us at this forum every month for a discussion with famous popular authors from around the world. 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Greg Little Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I haven't posted here in years and I seldom post
> anywhere. But the question about "Public
> Archaeology" (doing archaeological surveys before
> roads and buildings are constructed) is a good
> one. All of the 17 skeletons that were from 7 to 8
> feet in height and reported by the Smithsonian
> were excavated from mounds. Virtually all of the
> others mentioned by Hugh (and found by
> academic-affiliated archaeologists) were excavated
> from mounds. All of these findings were published
> in either journals or institutional (Smithsonian,
> Carnegie, U. of Kentucky) issued volumes. Today it
> is virtually impossible to excavate a mound in the
> US. It is virtually impossible to build a road or
> a building on a mound site in the US. (The
> exception is on private land especially if the
> landowner doesn't notify the officials about his
> or her plans.) I know of one set of credible
> reports of "giant" skeletons found when a road was
> built. It is the Chickasawba site in Arkansas.
> Numerous 7-foot skeletons were found there in the
> 1800s at a large mound. In the late 1970's a
> 7-foot skeleton was found during roadwork adjacent
> to the mound. All of that information was
> published in The Arkansas Archaeologist in an
> article written by two academic archaeologists.
> They simply wrote the facts about it without any
> comments. All of the skeletal remains were given
> to tribes after 1990. They were burned or reburied
> on reservations.

Do you have links to those reports?

Here's the problem with mounds. In northern states like PA and Ohio, we have numerous freeze/thaw cycles every year. It's why our roads are in such terrible shape. Ice crystals can make bones appear larger through expansion than they are...until they shatter. Even in the southern states there's the problem of water and thermal expansion.

Now, that wouldn't add a foot or two, but it would add inches. And it's those inches that matter. There's a very predictable distribution for human height--a standard deviation is 3 inches (2 in females). Those few inches could mean the difference between +2 to +3 standard deviations up to 6'7"...for 7 feet you're talking +5 standard deviations. I'll leave it to you to calculate that.

There are fewer than 3,000 recorded people in the world over 7 feet tall, men and women. Globally. The tallest woman currently is 7'3". There are only 3 over 8 feet (none are women at present). In fact, there are only 16 people ever recorded to reach 8 feet. Only one of them was a woman and she died at the tender age of 17.

Now, I'm not saying there were NO 7 footers in antiquity in the Americas and that there never were. But without a skeleton, this is all just academic. There is no way to prove any of it.

> The Smithsonian received over 100,000 skeletons
> starting in the 1800s but nearly always stored
> them in sealed boxes and bags. They simply had too
> many to display. When they started their mound
> survey project they specifically ordered the
> excavators to find 2 things: skulls for display
> and good artifacts for display. They got far more
> than they could ever examine or display. A 1989
> law specific to the Smithsonian caused them to get
> rid of all of the skeletons found in mounds as
> well as any artifacts that were associated with
> burials. A 1990 law (NAGPRA) led to the same for
> all of the other museums and institutions that
> received any government funds. Thus, all of the
> large skeletons found in mounds by the Smithsonian
> were either cremated by Native American Tribes or
> reburied in secret sites on reservations.

Or dumped overboard into the ocean? I've seen that claim, too.

Is there any confirmation from the Native Americans themselves that the skeletons they received for reburial included giants?

The
> boxes of remains were shipped to tribes that
> officially claimed them or the tribes closest to
> the excavated site listed on the sealed
> boxes/bags. The same was done with hundreds of
> thousands of burial artifacts. In essence, other
> than the written reports and the photographs and
> illustrations of the excavations, nothing else
> remains. If one doubts that any of these were
> "giant" (7-8 feet in height) because the skeletons
> no longer can be examined, then you should also
> doubt that the Smithsonian and the many other
> university-affiliated archaeologists who recovered
> the large skeletons even did the work they
> reported.

Even if they did have bones of all descriptions, do we know that they carried out accurate measurements and testing (for the time)? Granted, I don't expect their work to be as precise as it would be today for a variety of reasons, but do we know it was accurately done?

Also, how do we know that those bones were accurately identified as human? This was a time when people were digging up bones all over the place. Many of the people digging them up probably couldn't tell the difference between a human and animal bone. Shades of Cuvier and his tooth. :))

None other burial artifacts are in
> existence either.

And this is another problem. You probably wouldn't have outsized weapons or anything for 7 footers. But for anything larger, you would. Size alone would dictate that.

Perhaps the alternative is that
> all of these archaeologists just took the money
> for the work but they never really did anything
> other than just "claim" they performed
> excavations.

Personally I know they excavated them
> and reported their findings accurately. But
> unfortunately American laws, no matter how strange
> they may seem, forced the evidence to be put out
> of sight and beyond research.

You do? How? Were you there?

Today there is
> virtually no DNA analysis done on Native American
> burial remains. Keep in mind that the famous
> Kennewick Man case took 9 years of legal work. Jim
> and Hugh have put together a great synopsis about
> this in their book. They included some of the
> hoaxes and identified them as hoaxes to put the
> whole thing into perspective. Last, if you
> actually read the archaeological reports regarding
> the giant skeletons you will see that they were
> nearly always found to be shaman or tribal
> leaders. Some were female.

There is virtually no DNA analysis done on living Native Americans, period. Generally speaking, they don't allow it.

What happened with Kennewick was a travesty.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04-Nov-15 17:44 by Aine.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 2138 Graham Hancock 02-Nov-15 08:09
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 568 Misterx 02-Nov-15 13:04
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 652 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 14:53
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 491 Aine 02-Nov-15 19:10
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 598 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 21:41
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 455 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:03
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 480 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:21
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 463 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:38
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 508 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:46
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 435 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:15
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 448 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:02
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 483 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:13
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 412 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:29
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 423 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:37
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 494 carolb 03-Nov-15 17:26
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 616 Hugh Newman 03-Nov-15 18:09
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 417 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:49
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 486 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:11
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 486 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:15
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 425 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:20
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 408 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:30
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 473 Misterx 02-Nov-15 22:37
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 425 dong 03-Nov-15 22:59
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 435 Jim Vieira 04-Nov-15 19:21
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 460 robert2467 02-Nov-15 19:31
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 584 Hugh Newman 02-Nov-15 21:36
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 547 carolb 03-Nov-15 00:03
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 418 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:08
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 493 carolb 03-Nov-15 17:14
Karankawa 474 Dr. Troglodyte 04-Nov-15 00:57
Re: Karankawa 398 Aine 04-Nov-15 01:17
Re: Karankawa 439 Dr. Troglodyte 05-Nov-15 17:10
Re: Karankawa 422 thirdpal 05-Nov-15 20:29
Re: Karankawa 462 Dr. Troglodyte 06-Nov-15 00:46
Re: Karankawa 404 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:36
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 546 Greg Little 04-Nov-15 16:39
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 440 Aine 04-Nov-15 17:40
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 443 thirdpal 06-Nov-15 15:18
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 460 Aine 06-Nov-15 19:17
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 424 thirdpal 05-Nov-15 19:27
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 512 Aine 04-Nov-15 00:22
Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 479 Ratcho 03-Nov-15 06:32
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 422 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:09
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 510 Ratcho 03-Nov-15 16:21
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 466 Aine 03-Nov-15 16:38
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 442 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 403 Aine 03-Nov-15 19:39
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 429 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 19:53
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 444 Aine 03-Nov-15 20:03
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 451 thirdpal 03-Nov-15 20:22
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 433 Aine 03-Nov-15 20:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 409 laughin 06-Nov-15 00:49
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 467 Aine 06-Nov-15 14:33
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 380 carolb 06-Nov-15 14:53
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 502 Aine 06-Nov-15 15:00
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 395 carolb 06-Nov-15 15:25
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 454 laughin 06-Nov-15 15:55
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 395 Aine 06-Nov-15 16:52
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 498 laughin 06-Nov-15 20:31
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 480 Aine 07-Nov-15 02:19
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 414 Jim Vieira 11-Nov-15 16:05
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 483 Aine 11-Nov-15 23:06
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 462 thirdpal 12-Nov-15 22:07
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 423 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 15:56
Re: Good to see some authors I readily recognize. 487 Aine 13-Nov-15 17:52
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 448 thirdpal 12-Nov-15 23:10
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 450 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 13:19
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 447 thirdpal 13-Nov-15 15:54
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 479 Jim Vieira 13-Nov-15 16:06
Re: Thanks to Ted Loukes and welcome Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira 456 thirdpal 13-Nov-15 17:31
Mod Request > New Topics 821 Dr. Troglodyte 13-Nov-15 18:07


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.