Giants

[G10+]

boy ,,, I tell yall guys ,,, I used to wake up drink my coffee and smoke my cigerets every morning to this site and pretty much knew what i would see .....posting to threads looking at all the differant types of points people r finding, and typing them as we go....
Now ,,, I have to drink my coffee and wake up, before I dare get on because there is no  telling what I am going to see next.... does any one still hunt the plain ol arrowhead ???
I see alot of people trying to out do the next, find bigger , find strainger.... and trying to prove that what they have is the REAL thing,,, what yall dont see, is yall r trying to prove something to guys that have bean doing this for 25 , 30 , 50 years !!!! come on ,,, you think that we can get back to what this forum is all about ???
learning , FRIENDSHIP, having a place to kick back and visit ,,, plan get togethers ,,, artifact shows and diggs
I will get off my high horse, and stop highjacking someone else thread..............
    Everett Williams

[cgode]

Giants? Really? There are ceremonial items and larger than the normal items..... There are NO giants. Never was. It's fairy tales and folklore, I really doubt anyone can give us a CREDIBLE source or link that scientifically supports this?  And Laswell, your either joking with your huge arrowhead or you've lost your mind. I'm not quite sure what to do with this thread yet!

[Butch Wilson]

ckemerson wrote:

Sorry for late reply, there not appear to have any wear, plenty of patina and the bottom is polished.  There was another very large blade found in close proximity to this one.

Back to the original post, and what I believe to be an actual artifact. The polish you describe points to the item's use as a hoe or digging implement!

[GAWM]

VERO-MAN IS 12 FOOT TALL AND THE BONES ARE ON DISPLAY, SAME WITH THE LOVELOCK GIANTS, . . . BUT MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT MAYBE THESE BONES ARE JUST CEREMONIAL SKELETONS.
There are 14  handprints pressed in Clay ranging from 9 7/8 inches to 14 inches in length from a Museum in France. i have wrote them dozens of times, and have several of the replicas from these handprints. Ceremonial hand prints? I am not tying to change any meager minds of sheeple just expressing my interest in some of these items. Why do you even care to change my view, (my view has all the evidence) but just curious why giant artifacts must NOT be associated with Giant skeletons. Go to my site and look around, see all the Washington Post, and the New York Times articles as well as local and National Newspapers, see publications from the Smithsonian Institution. It could not be more legit. Look around i dont care if you you are convinced, i am not here to change your mind. I actually like having the better historical perspective.

[Butch Wilson]

GAWM wrote:

"There are ceremonial items and larger than the normal items"..nice story, but thats what it is a story. how about your State would you like to see some finds close by you? VERO-MAN IS 12 FOOT TALL AND THE BONES ARE ON DISPLAY, SAME WITH THE LOVELOCK GIANTS, . . . BUT MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT MAYBE THESE BONES ARE JUST CEREMONIAL SKELETONS. LOL

You have hijacked a legitimate thread, totally disrespecting the original poster with little more than a 25 cent carnival sideshow! No takers here !

[painshill]

GAWM wrote:

VERO-MAN IS 12 FOOT TALL AND THE BONES ARE ON DISPLAY, SAME WITH THE LOVELOCK GIANTS, . . . BUT MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT MAYBE THESE BONES ARE JUST CEREMONIAL SKELETONS.

Chris

If you’re going to spout this rubbish, you might at least make an effort to check the facts. It so happens that I research these areas just as much as you seem to… the difference being that I research them from an archaeological perspective whereas you apparently research them from unverified newspaper accounts of the time and unreliable or unattributed references on the internet. Most of those contemporary newspaper accounts relate to the days when editors had more interest in sensational stories that would boost circulation, than they did in the truth.

The facts of the Vero finds are as follows.

From about 1913, large bones were noted in strata between Vero (its name changed to Vero Beach in 1925) and Gifford during construction of a drainage canal. These were later established to be fossil bones from large Pleistocene vertebrates, including very large mammoth bones. Giant maybe… but not human giant. You can see how confusion might arise (or how a newspaper might headline it as “Giant Bones Found! Extry Extry... Read All About It!”)

Local natural history enthusiasts Frank Ayers and Isaac Wells (sometimes reported as Weills) took an interest in these finds and, in 1915, Ayers found a partial human skull in the same area, followed by additional bones that seemed to be of human origin. The skull was of normal size for a human. The bones were fragmentary. Ayers and Wells contacted Elias Sellards - the state geologist in Tallahassee. Sellards was already aware of previous fossil finds and began an extensive excavation of the area. In addition to many bones from extinct mammals such as mammoths, mastodons, horses, and giant ground sloths, he found more human remains. The animal bones were often quite large, but the human bones were of normal size.

In total, he found human bones from what he judged to be at least five individuals, spread across three locations. One of those individuals (44 bones and fragments) came to be known as “Vero Man”, although it is now believed to have been a female.

The remains were shuffled around between the Florida State Museum of History, the Florida Geological Survey and the Smithsonian Institution numerous times and I understood that they were “lost in transit” sometime around 1945. If you believe they are “on display” somewhere, then please enlighten us where that might be. The Smithsonian has a cast replica of the Vero skull (including some pieced together fragments) which I guess is still on display. Here it is pictured in 1996 and – although there’s nothing in the picture to give you scale - I can categorically assure you that it has normal human dimensions and is not unusual in any respect.


[Pic by Vera Zimmerman - Smithsonian Institution Palaeontology Archives]

Fortunately, we have Elias Sellards’ extremely detailed excavation notes which were published in the 8th Annual Report of the Florida Geological Survey in 1916 together with photographs of the human remains. He gives measurement of the human bones he found and these are in all cases typical for conventionally sized people of the time. There is no reference anywhere in his 160 page report or his 31 plates of photographs to "giant humans".

I could shoot just as many holes in the Lovelock giants story but let’s just clear the Vero one up first, shall we? Where are those so-called 12 foot giant bones on display?

[JoshinMO]

G10 wrote:

boy ,,, I tell yall guys ,,, I used to wake up drink my coffee and smoke my cigerets every morning to this site and pretty much knew what i would see .....posting to threads looking at all the differant types of points people r finding, and typing them as we go....
Now ,,, I have to drink my coffee and wake up, before I dare get on because there is no  telling what I am going to see next.... does any one still hunt the plain ol arrowhead ???
I see alot of people trying to out do the next, find bigger , find strainger.... and trying to prove that what they have is the REAL thing,,, what yall dont see, is yall r trying to prove something to guys that have bean doing this for 25 , 30 , 50 years !!!! come on ,,, you think that we can get back to what this forum is all about ???
learning , FRIENDSHIP, having a place to kick back and visit ,,, plan get togethers ,,, artifact shows and diggs
I will get off my high horse, and stop highjacking someone else thread..............
    Everett Williams

  Everett, You forgot showing off in what forum is all about.
OH, and thats a Killer!!

[CMD]

"Chris
If you’re going to spout this rubbish, you might at least make an effort to check the facts. It so happens that I research these areas just as much as you seem to… the difference being that I research them from an archaeological perspective whereas you apparently research them from unverified newspaper accounts of the time and unreliable or unattributed references on the internet. Most of those contemporary newspaper accounts relate to the days when editors had more interest in sensational stories that would boost circulation, than they did in the truth."
Bingo! Applying the discriminating mind is the order of the day where such claims are concerned, Chris. Roger has nailed the difference here. Understand your sources and their reliability, don't let it go at 19th century stories, use your God given powers of discrimination to ascertain where the truth is likely to lie. If you don't mind me saying. You're free to believe what you want naturally. Personally, I've always enjoyed archaeological anomalies  and out of the box speculation regarding prehistory on this planet, but that has also shown me that there's a lot of crap and silly ideas out there.

[GAWM]

"State Geologist Sellards and Prof. Hay Concur in Opinion After Study of Fossil Found at Vero-
Say Men Grew 12 Feet Tall.
New Smyrna Daily News Jan. 5, 1917"
Here you have two STATE GEOLOGIST's giving their professional status that the human bones were lARGE. (The Human Bones) not any of the animals found. In fact there is no mention of "twelve foot being attributed to any of the animal bones.
Sensationalism is another just-so story it seems use as a crutch to make their points. This is not yellow journalism or any type of unproffessionalism it is just information that has escaped the knowledge filter.
    http://www.irclibrary.org/archive/in...es/veroman.pdf
     FLORIDA STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
    E. H. SELLARDS, PH. D., STATE GEOLOGIST. NINTH ANNUAL REPORT.
On page page 687:
The writer gives the account of the human bones being from a large individual:
"A few feet west of this more human bones were found along the contact line of the formations Nos 2 and 3 (the upper and lower creek deposits), or slightly within the basal portion of the upper creek deposit. Because of the close asociation of these two finds, because there is no no duplication of parts, and because all of the bones came from a LARGE individual, Dr. Sellards believes that the bones mentioned in the last paragraph and referred to the lower fill and those here mentioned as found a few feet to the west along the contact of the two fillings, all belong to the same skeleton. This may be skeleton no2.
painshill
"The animal bones were often quite large, but the human bones were of normal size."
painshill is just over eager, making mistakes, and misinterpreting the facts based on bias.
painshill was wrong in his "normal size" comment as the geologists state that the bones were large, not normal size.
You are correct about only two thing: professional journalists did report these LARGE skeletons as being 12 feet tall.
Smyrna Daily News Jan. 5, 1917
"That the human beings were of enormous size is evidenced by the bones. It is thought that some were ten or twelve feet in height. Some excellent specimens of the skeleton of these gigantic men have been found, some of them locked in the deadly embrace of great animals, with strange weapons of bone clutched in skeleton hands a foot long.”
     GIANTS INHABITED FLORIDA IN THE YEAR 123,084 B. C.
     State Geologist Sellards and Prof. Hay Concur in Opinion After Study of Fossil Found at Vero-
    Say Men Grew 12 Feet Tall.
    New Smyrna Daily News Jan. 5, 1917
  you are also correct that the Smithsonian took them and the trail stops there. As do all of these cases. I could show you hundreds of cases of "accidental shuffling".
and i disagree this is the norm, not the anomaly.

[cgode]

Instead of the continued hijack of this thread I'm locking it. GAWM, while I may not agree with your statements on the giant theory, I'm not locking it to shut you down......if you want to continue this dialogue please open your own thread on giants. You can post whatever supporting info you have in there and anyone that want to participate can. I did attempt to get you into a private chat to explain this.

[Hoss]

We can move the subject matter pertaining to Giants over to a new thread and unlock this one. We do not want to censor anyone.here. But Cindy still has an open question on her artifact. Chris we will leave your first comments about asking for a cast but the rest will be moved over to Archaeology and Fossils.
The new post will be named Giants for now but we can change that once you let me know what you want it called.

[Hoss]

The content from your pictures of the Ross blades until more recently will be moved. You first post asking for a cast will remain here.

[painshill]

Chris
So… you’ve got your own playpen for “giant” theories now. I’ll respond one more time and then I’m outta here!

Thanks for your impressively inaccurate assessment of my comments.

The “Men Grew 12 Feet Tall” reference you provide is from a regional newspaper dated 1917. Not good enough, I’m afraid. That newspaper’s reference to “some excellent specimens of the skeleton of these gigantic men have been found, some of them locked in the deadly embrace of great animals, with strange weapons of bone clutched in skeleton hands a foot long” is unsupported by anything in Sellards’ excavation reports.

The web-link you provided leads to a pdf file which contains no real information. It’s just a teaching aid which lists other information sources. There is reference to Aleš Hrdlička’s “Red Notebook” (1918 -1919) – he was Head of Smithsonian at the time - in which he details measurements of the skull. The notebook still exists in the Smithsonian archives but I’m not aware of it having been published. Also referenced at that link is Hrdlička’s assessement of the skull’s cultural affinity in “Doctor Aleš Hrdlička and the Vero Man” published in “Science” in November 1918. Here’s a snippet:



No mention of giants, no mention of it being an unusual size. And remember, the Smithsonian has a cast replica of the skull which is demonstrably not giant, or even abnormally large.

You replied: “you are also correct that the Smithsonian took them [the bones] and the trail stops there.” No, I didn’t say the Smithsonian took the bones. I said they were lost in transit, which is the generally accepted account. Neither does the trail “stop there” as you put it, since - as I said - the Smithsonian has a cast replica of the skull, made before the actual specimen was lost.

You replied: “On page page 687: The writer [Sellards] gives the account of the human bones being from a large individual.”

Yes he does, but you are taking this out of context… as did the newspapers of the day. Sellards is using the word “large” in a comparative sense (within the group of skeletons he found). For example he recovered two astragalus bones (the main bone of the ankle structure, also known as the talus). They were both from a right foot, but they were different sizes – which he records as 50mm and 62mm in length respectively. It is in this same context that he is using the word “large” when referring to the bones in general. He had a mixture of bones from several individuals and he was trying to piece them together as individual skeletons based on matching up the relative sizes of the bones. “Large” doesn’t mean “giant”, and Sellards never uses that word. It doesn’t even mean abnormally sized.

There is no such thing as a “typical” individual and bones are always subject to considerable morphological variation as well as age and gender differences. The good thing about talus bones in archaeological contexts is that they normally survive intact, so there’s no need to argue about how much of a complete bone might be represented by a broken piece. A talus of 50mm is about average size for a young adult of normal build and 62mm is well within anatomical variation. The “large” one wouldn’t be unusual for a stocky male for example. This bone is the primary shock-absorber for the body when walking and there is no way that a 12 foot tall individual could have coped with a talus as small as that.

Check the sizes of the other bones given in Sellards’ report as well. Nothing there that says “giant”. If you want to check whether the Smithsonian agrees with your interpretation of “giant” skeletons, here’s the e-mail address for Barbara Watanabe, the museum specialist in the Anthropology Department who deals with public enquiries:

WATANABB@si.edu

I’m sure she won’t mind you posting her answer here. I look forward to it.

You also stated : “Vero-Man is twelve foot tall and the bones are on display”. I invited you to tell us where the bones are displayed, but you didn’t reply.

[WildmanLivesOn]

Painshill, two questions. Are you a lawyer? How and where do you find your information! Either you are well versed in subject matter across the board or you have a library to be envied. Or both.

[painshill]

WildmanLivesOn wrote:

Painshill, two questions. Are you a lawyer? How and where do you find your information! Either you are well versed in subject matter across the board or you have a library to be envied. Or both.

  Thanks Wildman. I'm a biochemist, among other things, but these days I work as a "Regulatory Advisor". Think of that a bit like a "paralegal" who deals only in highly technical aspects of legislation.
The library/datbase is something I'm rather proud of but it's been compiled over the years for things in which I have a personal interest... and oddities from the world of geology and archaeology is one of them.