Boldly Going Nowhere
Bret Burquest

Giants on Earth

Posted Sunday, April 15, 2012, at 5:39 PM
View 15 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Links?

    Preferably ending with .edu?

    -- Posted by HDucker on Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 5:15 AM
  • Yes there were giant skeletons found off the California coast, 7 to 9 feet tall - that is essentially correct.

    The Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History in 1959 photographed a 7,000 year old cemetery on Santa Rosa island. Three of the skeletons were of strong people OVER seven feet tall. http://content.cdlib.org/data/13030/zx/kt738nb1zx/figures/caljsiol_sio1ca175_118...

    Prof. Ralph A. Glidden funded by the Heye Foundation Museum of the American Indian in NY, collected over 3,700 skeletons from the Channel Islands between 1920 and 1935. He had a small museum near Avalon on Santa Catalina Island. The Ogden Standard-Examiner for Nov 10, 1929 reported,

    "During the Expedition to the interior of Catalina Professor Glidden collected the skeletons of 3,781 Indians. The largest he found was of a man 9 feet 2 inches tall. Practically all of the male adults were of gigantic stature, averaging around 7 feet in height."

    Recently the journals of Ralph Glidden have been uncovered from a musty room in the Catalina Island museum, giving researchers access to his personal discoveries. Hundreds of skeletons were sent to UC Santa Barbara anthropology department. They were later moved to the Fowler Museum at UCLA. LA Times reports: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/02/local/la-me-catalina-bones-20120402/2

    Some of these are quite probably of giant American Indians. The plan is to rebury them as soon as possible, and that's usually what happens when giants are discovered.

    Yes, there were also giants found in Europe. The university of Montpellier, France studied the bones of a giant estimated at 11 feet found near Castelnau, France in 1890. The find was reported by the New York Times. A photo engraving of the bones can be found in the journal La Nature, volume 18, issue 888 pages 11 -12.

    But alas, there is hope. Exponential interest is growing among independent researchers I personally know, to conduct surveys of museum collections and have bones re evaluated and measured if they can be located.

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Tue, Apr 17, 2012, at 6:42 PM
  • Thankee kindly. Appreciated.

    -- Posted by HDucker on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 3:44 PM
  • "Some of these are quite probably of giant American Indians."

    Suppose I should've looked at the photo first and avoided a double comment. Those burial postures are indeed very similar to those found in the Andes. Lewis and Clark's reports to Jefferson tell of many of the Osage being seven feet in height. Photos in the Osage museum in Pawhuska [OK] I'd forgotten seeing.

    Didn't mean by my first comment that I doubted giants had walked the Earth - I know hobbits did and that's why I asked for links. Island evolution tends more often, to leave the inhabitants smaller rather than larger.

    Now before anyone takes me to task for mentioning hobbits, I'm referring to these folks:


    -- Posted by HDucker on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 4:17 PM
  • Hmmm. Ashtaroth?

    That LA Times link you've posted? I read no mention of giants, nor for that matter - any reference to either just generally size or more specifically, height. I do note your link states:

    "Glidden had been prone to exaggeration and augmented his collection with skeletons acquired elsewhere."

    A quick search, keywords Ralph Glidden and human giants isn't particularly helpful. More about paint than anthropology.

    -- Posted by HDucker on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 5:04 PM
  • The NYT's archives seem abit problematic where reports of giants from the 1890s are concerned. I did once hear of a "Mr. Clapp" but "he" was no anthropologist and I was in the Navy. Wasn't very tall either but the fellow certainly had a tall lifespan:


    -- Posted by HDucker on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 5:34 PM
  • Certainly 1890's newspapers are not the asbolute authority, but a scientific journal is much better (f you can read French)


    The LA times piece on Glidden may or may not be accurate. But I have several copies of newspapers which include photographs of some of the skulls of these "giants" he found. The recent LA times piece actually does mention that Glidden claimed to have found the skeleton of a 7 feet 8 inch man reposed below the bodies of 64 children, and claimed he had found evidence of giant Indians with fair complexion.

    The LA times piece rightfully scolds Glidden for his disregard for human remains, yet the idea that some of these people were giants cannot be debunked entirely, especially when the Santa Barbara museum itself admitted their were several skeletons of strong people over 7 feet tall found in the Channel Islands (Santa Rosa Is). Add to this, I have personally collected dozens of news reports from the California coast which preceded Glidden's era, that mention skeletons 6 1/2, 7+, 8 even 9 feet with femurs well over 20 inches. Tall Indians, or Giants, whatever one likes to call them, you certainly aren't going to hear much about them these days in most anthropological circles.

    Why is that?

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 6:13 PM
  • Excellent point you make.

    Yes, the Hobbits found on Flores are a fantastic example of what many thought was unlikely. A race of 3 1/2 foot tall humans, half our size? Now one might wonder if a race of 2 1/2 foot tall people once existed...Or still exist on some remote island?

    I think there must be a size limit somewhere that giants attain, and dwarfs. But with a re-design of the skeleton you might have a sub-species of human that is 8, 9, perhaps 10-11 feet tall, built like a Heidelbergensis with strong dense bones. Gigantopithecus, several anthropologists argue, might have been bipedal, or at least semi-bipedal. I've collected several hundred news reports on giants and dwarfs I feel could furnish valuable evidence to human evolution, if the bones can be located or were not destroyed.

    There is a lot more we don't know about the past, than we do no. Improbabilities aside, I'm an optimist that the human form has acquired many strange and versatile forms in the last 2 million years. That's just my view though.

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 6:29 PM
  • On the basic level Ashtaroth, we're not in what I'd call disagreement, I would venture a guess you probably are aware of that since we've both used implicit rather than explicit examples. Hobbits at one extreme, Gigantopithecus at the other (for now - who knows what will turn up).

    During a long ago class - might've been biology but I can't be certain - anyway I recall the prof stating something along the lines of 'if one thinks of the mammalian circulatory system along the lines of a hydraulic system, the chambered heart can only pump fluid in a bi-pedal system within fifteen feet.'

    Fifteen feet makes for alot of tall.

    Just an aside Ashtaroth, I rarely depend on Wiki as an exclusive source, why I left that .edu domain. Ever seen a live feed of Wiki editing? Particularly amazing to watch during a political campaign debate as the opposing politicians re-write history while their staff edits the appropriate Wiki article.


    -- Posted by HDucker on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 8:34 PM
  • Exactly HDucker, I think we're in basic agreement here. That's interesting, I too have heard of twelve to eighteen ft being the ballpark cut-off point for the circulatory system of a two legged creature, I think I read it in some old science report from the 20's if I'm not mistaken. Some of those prehistoric bears and Sloths got really BIG, 12, 15, even estimates of 18- 22' for G. Sloth. Kind of gives an idea how big mammals got, although these examples also walked on fours.

    I agree wikipedia is a bad reference. Sorry about that one. There is linked to it the original report by the french Prof who writes that his estimate for the man is, "Le sujet aurait une taille probable de 3m, 50" and several hundred kilos. 3m, 50 is HUGE, considering the bones were studied by different anatomists and concluded to be human, even if per say his estimate was off by a couple of feet, that is still a really BIG person. There are a lot old reports like these that are just kind of forgotten, maybe because they were an abnormality or just some anomalous giant tribe. Who knows.

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 10:28 PM
  • But I recall prof. Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand saying in an interview that they have found lots of bones of archaic humans in Africa who were also exceeding 7 feet. If you have a bunch of people growing over 7 feet, the law of averages suggests you will have some 8 and 9 footers. Sort of how in a population of 5 ft 10 men, you get some guys who are 6'4 or 6'9.

    The height of the California Indians may have been quite normal in many tribes, but if some groups were averaging 6 1/2 to 7 feet, this may explain the very tall skeleton reports. And some of those old time reports are probably exaggerated by some inches, but not all.

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Wed, Apr 18, 2012, at 10:41 PM
  • Thanks again Ashtaroth. I would go to the linked Wiki article and then Google Translate but for the fact I've my firewall blocking some tracking sites. Temporarily I hope, maybe Congress will agree that Google's collecting and storing so much personal data is not such a good thing.

    Meanwhile, I'll be placing the subject of "a heckuva lot of giants running around" right next to the subject of "an effective Congress in Washington DC" down in the bowels of some museum. Where, I'm nearly certain just like the bones of the giants, the effective Congress evidence will promptly be lost.

    -- Posted by HDucker on Thu, Apr 19, 2012, at 10:39 AM
  • Ha ha. Exactly.

    I hate google too.

    -- Posted by Ashtaroth on Thu, Apr 19, 2012, at 8:16 PM
  • Not saying necessarily I disbelieve the mythic, nor that I hate anything whatsoever. I recognize Dick Clark is getting alot of attention but Arkansas' own Levon Helm is getting little.

    So. If you've a mind to and your landlords won't go all haywire - turn your speakers up for the one giant Arkansas has proof of:


    -- Posted by HDucker on Thu, Apr 19, 2012, at 8:34 PM
  • One more fascinating article about giants .....

    After meditation, prayer, and elevated thoughts, comes the next most holy thing on earth or ordinary thoughts. But obviously humans are relatively unconcerned with thoughts and truth and correct information. Humans allow all sorts of fascinating things to be suppressed and to disappear from memory and most books.

    The minute I got high speed internet and could access Youtube I ran into the most fascinating information. One of these fascinating tidbits was the information about the Book of Enoch and fallen angels and their offspring the giants. Lots of info says these things were largely got rid of 12 thousand years ago. At first I doubted this information but there is so much of it I now consider that it is most likely true.

    Thanks to the author for the article

    -- Posted by Terry9933 on Thu, Oct 3, 2013, at 3:13 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: