Your Daily Giant 5/19/2013
Today's Daily Giant comes from "Collins Historical Sketches of Kentucky, History of Kentucky, Volume 2" , 1882 pg 666. The following was reported,
"Early in 1872, in prospecting for coal in Ohio county, about a mile from Rockport, the complete skeleton of a human body of gigantic size was found, 6 feet below the surface. The lower jaw-bone, when fitted over the lower portion of a man's face in the party of explorers, completely covered it; the thigh bone, from the hip bone to the knee, was 42 inches long and the forearm bone from wrist to elbow measured 22 inches. This would indicate a giant over 10 feet high."
Some of the first giant accounts I read through in town histories of Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire all mentioned a jawbone being fit over the face of the finder. That this same description was given so many times like this account, buried in a long historical text with no sensationalism, only adds to the veracity of the information. Clearly these accounts are not hoaxes as skeptics argue. That probability is somewhere between zero and none. So what else could this be? Disarticulation is another reason given by professionals to try to explain away the evidence, that is when bones stretch out over time as they lay in the grave, then when looked at the skeleton appears larger than it is. Disarticulation may account for a few inches here and there but does not explain massive jawbones, skulls that can be fit on the finders head and 42 inch thigh bones. Another common refrain I receive when contacting professionals to explain how this could be is that these are not trained professionals reporting these finds. My rebuttal is that actually many of these finds were by heads of Anthropological departments, Smithsonian scientists, Curators at prestigious institutions and other respected professionals. I also make the point that everyone understands what a human skeleton looks like to the extent that the vast majority can rationally describe what they are seeing and measure and report dimensions. Lastly, one professional I asked to look at my evidence said that many of these finds were Mastodon and dinosaur bones, stating that China gave us dragons. Although not mentioned in today's report the vast majority of these finds are from burial mounds where there are consistent artifact finds, like in the U.S. where many reports are from Adena, Hopewell and Mississippian burial mounds. The skeletons are often ornamented with copper, jewelry and other man-made items. This is perhaps the most ludicrous and irritating rationalization given by professionals. Not only is it absurd but it is an arrogant attempt to make anyone questioning and exploring this matter appear to be an unsophisticated and naive fool that is believing in mermaids. I have not found 2000 accounts in Scientific Journals, Town Histories and Newspaper accounts all over the country however that were reporting mermaids.
Today's Daily Giant comes from "Collins Historical Sketches of Kentucky, History of Kentucky, Volume 2" , 1882 pg 666. The following was reported,
"Early in 1872, in prospecting for coal in Ohio county, about a mile from Rockport, the complete skeleton of a human body of gigantic size was found, 6 feet below the surface. The lower jaw-bone, when fitted over the lower portion of a man's face in the party of explorers, completely covered it; the thigh bone, from the hip bone to the knee, was 42 inches long and the forearm bone from wrist to elbow measured 22 inches. This would indicate a giant over 10 feet high."
Some of the first giant accounts I read through in town histories of Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire all mentioned a jawbone being fit over the face of the finder. That this same description was given so many times like this account, buried in a long historical text with no sensationalism, only adds to the veracity of the information. Clearly these accounts are not hoaxes as skeptics argue. That probability is somewhere between zero and none. So what else could this be? Disarticulation is another reason given by professionals to try to explain away the evidence, that is when bones stretch out over time as they lay in the grave, then when looked at the skeleton appears larger than it is. Disarticulation may account for a few inches here and there but does not explain massive jawbones, skulls that can be fit on the finders head and 42 inch thigh bones. Another common refrain I receive when contacting professionals to explain how this could be is that these are not trained professionals reporting these finds. My rebuttal is that actually many of these finds were by heads of Anthropological departments, Smithsonian scientists, Curators at prestigious institutions and other respected professionals. I also make the point that everyone understands what a human skeleton looks like to the extent that the vast majority can rationally describe what they are seeing and measure and report dimensions. Lastly, one professional I asked to look at my evidence said that many of these finds were Mastodon and dinosaur bones, stating that China gave us dragons. Although not mentioned in today's report the vast majority of these finds are from burial mounds where there are consistent artifact finds, like in the U.S. where many reports are from Adena, Hopewell and Mississippian burial mounds. The skeletons are often ornamented with copper, jewelry and other man-made items. This is perhaps the most ludicrous and irritating rationalization given by professionals. Not only is it absurd but it is an arrogant attempt to make anyone questioning and exploring this matter appear to be an unsophisticated and naive fool that is believing in mermaids. I have not found 2000 accounts in Scientific Journals, Town Histories and Newspaper accounts all over the country however that were reporting mermaids.
No comments:
Post a Comment