Twenty Giant Skeletons Found
A mound near Toledo, Ohio, held 20 skeletons, seated and facing east with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people," and besides each was a large bowl with "curiously wrought hieroglyphic figures." (Chicago Record, Oct. 24, 1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978)
Nine Foot Skeleton Found
George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. In 1879, a nine-foot, eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana(Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975 Giant Skeletons
Don't Even Ask
All I know about this photo is that is supposed to have been taken in Ireland about 1850 and the bones represent someone supposedly over 11 feet tall. Is it legitimate? Don't know. I would say that the skeleton is in remarkably good shape (all the bones seem to be present and connected). It would be very easy to fake such a photo, so is it real or memorex?
The Burdick Track
This track was impressed into allegedly 110 million year old limestone rock and was found in Glen Rose Texas. Analysis suggests that it is a woman's bare footprint and would correspond to a size 22EEEE mens shoe today. Scientific analysis after cross sectioning the stone with a diamond saw proves that the print was made by pressure (genuine) and was not carved. For more info see The Interactive Bible Site
More Giant Prints in Solid Rock Again, its not just that these prints are giant sized. It's also that the rock these prints are embedded in were supposedly formed millions of years before man evolved! This photo was taken in northern Washington state and was reportedly found with another partial imprint. It appears to be the shoeprint of a large individual (see man's shoe in lower left of photo for comparison)approximately 16 inches long from heel to toe.
The rock itself is judged by geologists in "evolutionary time" (as opposed to actual time) to be between 10 and 20 million years old. The point is, according to evolutionary theory, no one should have been around early enough to leave a shoe imprint in what is now solid rock. No one should have been around to draw one either.
There remains the possibilty of course that someone painstakingly chiseled out two convincing shoeprints in recent times and left them on a mountain. Source: North American BioFortean Review
Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source
I'm 6 feet tall, I wear a size 13 shoe, and my foot measures about 11 inches bare. The plaster footprint in the top middle, of the "footprints" photo measures 25.5 inches, barefoot.
The one below it measured over 19 inches. The footprint on the far right measures 21.5 inches. The yardstick on the left shows that the stride between footprints is six feet long--you do the math!. For more details about these photos follow this link to Omniology.com
Mr. and Mrs. Van Buren were only "eight footers",and so mere pikers in the whole giant pantheon--still one does get a sense of how the bones and the girth increase with height. Mrs. Bates herself was over 400 pounds. Sadly, neither of them had a double row of teeth--but on the bright side, that helped to keep the weight down.
Excerpts from Rex Gilroy's Mysterious Australia.com Site ....Since the initial fossil/handprint discovery, two further mudstone track sites have been discovered nearby, bringing the total fossil impressions to about 90 tracks!
The footprints range from child-sized examples measuring 20 cm long by 10 cm wide and 26 cm long by 13 cm wide, to monsterous tracks 62 cm long by 33 cm wide across the toes, and one truly monsterous half-intact track of 42 cm width across the toes by 60 cm length to the mid-foot where the track breaks off. Had this track been complete it would have reached up to 120 centimetres in length!
There are handprints of various sizes, from 13 cm length by 23 cm width, to one monsterous left-handprint measuring an astounding 41 cm width from outstretched thumb to little finger, by 35 cm length from mid-finger to palm!
Some footprints look like giant human tracks, whereas others are more ape-like, but it is obvious that the monsterous beings who made these tracks in the sands of time stood anywhere from 4 to 6.6 to even 8.3 metres tall. Rex Gilroy's Mysterious Australia.com Homepage
Above Photo CopyRight Rex Gilroy
ANOMALOUS HUMAN SKULLS FROM SOUTH AMERICA
Anomalies & Enigma's Forum
These anomalous skulls located by Mr. Connolly in various South American museums are certainly the talk of Talk-Origins and is giving anthropologists a few headaches. The general opinion seems to Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source
be that they are not the result of medical deformation and are too anomalous to be the result of "binding" techniques. In addition, some of the skulls have brain vault capacities significantly in excess of you and me.
"When some of these pictures were posted on CompuServe, the majority of people assumed that they represented an example of binding of the head, well known to be in fashion in ancient Nubia, Egypt and other cultures. The skull binding was a primitive practice in which a person's head was tightly bound with cloth or leather straps throughout his lifetime, causing the skull to grow in this dramatic way.
Anthropoligists however have admitted that the shapes of the Peruvian skulls is unlike the deformity caused by binding.
The skulls shouldn't exist
The skulls are a real problem for the anthropoligist. The frontal part of the skull seems to belong to an individual of the pre-Neanderthal family. But the lower jaw, though more robust than modern human type, has a modern shape and characteristics.
The shape of the cranium is completely different from Homo Erectus, Neanderthal types, and the modern human type. Some minor Neanderthal characteristics are present, as with the occipital ridge on the bottom back of the skull and the flattened bottom of the cranium, but other characteristics point more towards Homo Erectus.
Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source
What a representative of a premodern human type is doing on the South American continent? According to the orthodox anthropology, this skull simply does not exist, because it cannot be. Textbooks' oldest date of appearance of humans in North America is about 35000 BCE and much later for South America, based on the diffusion theory assumptions.
Neanderthals did not exist in South America. The only accepted human types entering the continent are of the modern anatomy.
Evidence of ancient brain surgery
Some skulls show the evidence of ancient brain surgery that prove their ancestors possessed certain abilities that modern science has just recently discovered. Plenty of skulls in the area of the Nasca desert.
Peruvian government said that these unusual skulls could be found in many museums in Peru and excavations were uncovering them even now near the Nasca Plateau. These skulls are so numerous in the area of the Nasca desert that you can find small makeshift museums in the backyards of the locals.
They dug up their ancestors so you can view their remains for a small fee. In Mexico there are the same types of skulls in a museum in Merida, a city close to the ruins of Palenque.
So why hasn't anyone taken the photographs earlier and showed it to the rest of the world? According to the peruvian church leaders the skulls are a work of devil and the offspring of the fallen angels in the Bible. When President Fujimori took power in Peru. He had decided to allow the skulls to be photographed and has brought them to the attention of the world.".... Janku
My supposition is simply that the variety of human variation and human DNA would have been significantly decreased after the flood when all human DNA variation would have been resident in only eight individuals; Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives.