JASON COLAVITO
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search

New Narragansett Stone Hoax Claim and Greg Little's Attack on My Coverage of Giant Skeletons

6/29/2014

74 Comments

 
I’m taking Sunday off, so today’s post is going up a few hours early. I have two topics: a surprising admission from the self-described hoaxer of the Narragansett Rune Stone and Dr. Greg Little’s unusual attack on me for attempting to investigate stories of giant skeletons.
Narragansett Rune Stone Hoax Claim
As many of you already know, a Rhode Island newspaper just reported that a Providence man named Everett Brown claims that he carved the infamous runic inscription on the Narragansett Rune Stone in 1964 using a chisel. Brown, who is now 63, told the Independent that he used a runic alphabet from a library book to fake the carving.

“I was trying to carve ‘Skraelings aft,’” Brown said. “Skraelings is what the Vikings used to call the Indians. […] If you’ve seen the picture, it’s pretty terrible as far as runes go.”

Brown said he had not come forward earlier because he does not read newspapers or watch television, so he had no idea that his graffiti had become famous. He told the paper that it was “mind-boggling” to him that the stone was not only the subject of so much speculation but that the H2 channel devoted an episode of America Unearthed to the rock.

In that episode show host Scott Wolter claimed that the Knights Templar had carved the inscription in the 1300s. “This stone is one of the very few artifacts that proves the Templars came to America,” Wolter claimed in the episode. If Brown’s story is proved true, it would be a major embarrassment to Wolter, who claims that his “new science” of archaeopetrography is able to accurately date stone inscriptions.

Greg Little Attacks Me
Dr. Greg Little is a psychologist and a familiar figure to listeners of Coast to Coast A.M. He’s an advocate of Edgar Cayce’s Atlantis prophecies and has tried looking for Atlantis where Cayce thought it would be, despite Cayce’s rather obvious borrowings from Theosophy and Dweller on Two Planets to construct his fantasy. That’s neither here nor there since Little has attempted to debunk me in an article attributed to AP Magazine (Alternative Press, not Associated Press) for doubting that there is a Smithsonian cover-up of Bible giants because he and Andrew Collins worked together on a new book about giant skeletons. My blog posts on the subject, made a year ago, must be threatening to his book sales.
One of the skeptics, Jason Colavito, related that the giant reports came from misidentified mastodon/mammoth bones to outright hoaxes. However, Colavito didn't cite a single example of a hoax or a giant skeleton found in America that turned out to be a mastodon or mammoth.
I know that’s not true. I mean, it may be true of any one given blog post, but over the last three years I’ve talked more than once of the bones of a “giant” found near my home in Albany (in Claverack in Columbia County) in 1705. Scientists later examined and determined them to be that of a mastodon—in fact, the very first mastodon remains ever uncovered. The governor of Massachusetts, Joseph Dudley, wrote to the Rev. Cotton Mather when he saw just one tooth from the assemblage of bones in 1706 that he was “perfectly of opinion that the tooth will agree only to a human body, for whom the flood only could prepare a funeral; and, without doubt, he waded as long as he could keep his head above the clouds, but must, at length, be confounded with all other creatures.” Cotton Mather in 1712 agreed that the bones had to be those of a pre-Flood giant.

Although not from the United States, I have also discussed the discovery of “giant” bones in the Canton of Lucerne in Switzerland in 1577 which were heralded as those of a Bible giant until an anatomist recognized them as those of an elephant in 1706.

We can add more: In 1613, the bones of a Germanic chief named Teutobocchus were discovered near Chaumont in France. These “giant” bones were determined by M. de Blainville in 1832 to be those of an elephant. St. Christopher’s tooth, on display for centuries in the city of Valence, is the tooth of a fossil elephant. (Oh, and St. Christopher never existed, either!) In 1789, the canons of St. Vincent declared an elephant femur the arm bone of Vincent. These stories and more can be found in my Library in the section on the Fossil Origins of Myths and Legends.

How can we not believe that American colonists and settlers weren’t just as liable to mistake mammoth bones for giant bones? Adrienne Mayor has collected reports from the continental United States of such “fossil legends” in her book Fossil Legends of the First Americans. Little, however, doesn’t address this but instead insists that skeptics (no longer just me but clearly meant to refer to me, the only one named) can’t stand that there used to be tall people—something I have never denied:
However, the fact is that a substantial proportion of the old reports of large or "giant" skeletons were written factually and are backed up by the archaeological evidence. At the same time, it became clear that modern archaeologists and some skeptical bloggers essentially loathe this fact so much that they go to great lengths to execrate those who take the topic seriously. (emphasis in original)
Regular readers will remember (and you can see below) that I have shared more than once Spanish reports about unusually tall Native Americans, as well as evidence that individuals (though not whole populations) occasionally reached seven or eight feet in height, just as tall people do today.  Unless one wishes to deny the existence of the NBA, it would foolish to say otherwise. Native Americans were among the tallest ancient peoples because they had the best diets on earth at the time, full of nutrients that their stunted counterparts in Europe and Asia lacked due to the effects of overreliance on a limited range of crops.

The bones of Native American “giants” would be more likely to survive because they were (a) larger and more likely to fossilize and (b) apparently treated as special by ancient populations and given more careful burial. Little, however, doesn’t believe that ancient people gave preferential treatment to some skeletons. He assumes that skeletons were buried and survive in proportion to their prevalence in life. Therefore, he runs a “statistical analysis” of Smithsonian excavation reports to conclude that “giant” skeletons—here defined as anyone over 6 foot 6 inches—are overrepresented to the point that there must have been a giant race. Using nineteenth century reports, Little determined that the 17 “giant” skeletons uncovered were a statistical anomaly that should represent all the natural-born giants of a population of 2.5 million humans using modern statistical height distribution curves.

Here’s where it gets confusing. Last year, I speculated (but did not insist) that one particular report about an oversized skeleton found in 1889 in a waterlogged mound called Mound 12 in Tennessee might be due to the effects of freezing and thawing of saturated bones, which can cause bones to expand in size as ice crystals push the lattice of bone apart. Eventually, this causes the bones to shatter, but before this, they appear longer than they did in life.

Little misunderstands this and attacks me in confused rage: “Modern paleopathology texts and sources relate that buried bones that freeze can shatter and most buried bones actually lose mass - they get smaller. In addition, not one report has surfaced where a mastodon/mammoth bone was found in an American mound and said to be human” (emphasis in original). Little confuses mass with length, as though the two different meanings of “size” are interchangeable. Note, too, that Little switches here to specifying “mound” burials—something I have never claimed contained mastodon or mammoth bones. The bait and switch is designed to confuse the issue, just like the gradual scaling down of “giant” skeletons from 30 feet or 10 feet in early reports to his preferred measurement of 6 foot 6 inches to 8 feet. (At one point he even claims archaeologists classify skeletons of 5 foot 10 as “giant”!) My grandfather, who met the 6’6” standard in his youth, would therefore have been a “giant” under Little’s definition.

We don’t seem to be talking about the same kinds of giants. Those six-foot-six “giants” are certainly not the specimens that Pausanias, Giovanni Boccaccio, Peter Martyr, Cotton Mather, and other authorities spoke of. It is the type described by the latter—the 10 to 30 foot tall “giants”—that I said were likely to be mistaken mammoth and mastodon bones, something first proposed by Georges Cuvier in 1806 and hardly unique to me. Adrienne Mayor is the most famous proponent of the idea.

As you can see from this excerpt from last year’s blog post, I addressed most of Little’s new concerns in the very post he criticizes, and I explained the limitations of my analysis of Mound 12 as well as its tentative nature. It is not, as Little implies, a wholesale dismissal of “giants”:
Sadly, there is not enough information to draw firm conclusions. The Victorians, for example, were not aware of modern paleopathology, which has studied how bones change in various environments. The Smithsonian researchers noted that the mounds in question, being on a low-lying island in a river, were heavily saturated with water. Standard texts on paleopathology state that the repeated freezing and thawing of the water “will produce expansion by ice crystal formation.” This can make the bones appear larger, until such time as the ice crystal formation process results in the bones shattering. The Smithsonian report that the bones were “very soft” implies that they were in the thawing phase (obviously, they were not frozen during the warm-weather excavation) and had already lost a great deal of their integrity due to the gradual expansion of the bone structure due to such ice crystal action. 

Such a process may well explain the frequent reports that “giant” bones disintegrated as soon as excavators tried to touch them; their integrity had been compromised and the bones shattered. Indeed, in the same Smithsonian report a similar skeleton of more than seven feet at another site was said to have “crumbled to pieces immediately after removal from the hard earth in which it was encased” (p. 115).

Obviously, of course, this kind of expansion won’t add feet to the size of the bones, but enough to turn a slightly above average body into a “gigantic” one. The report makes plain that the body buried in Mound 12—uniquely buried alone in that mound cluster—was a high status individual, and it’s likely that an abnormally but not super-humanly tall man achieved high status by virtue of his height and size. This is hardly unheard of, and it is probably telling that virtually no scholar discussing these mounds or citing the report found anything worth commenting on in the story of the more than seven foot tall man. Reports of Native Americans between six and seven feet tall occur with frequency from Vasco de Gama down to the colonial era, and there isn’t much reason to be shocked by it. Native Americans were consistently taller than Europeans. The Susquehannocks were also said to be giants. A forensic investigation of their skeletons, however, found that Susquehannocks averaged 5’7” in height, but still several inches taller than the Europeans. Nevertheless, occasional individuals of great height popped up from time to time. De Soto’s men said that the great chief Tuscaloosa was nearly seven feet tall.
What was Little saying about me denying the existence of seven foot tall people? It’s telling that he doesn’t bother to cite my specific blog post or to link to it. He doesn’t want his readers to see for themselves that I was much more careful in my analysis than his cartoon version implies.

Little then accuses skeptics, by which he means me since I am the only one discussed, of having “deep psychological issues”:
There are deep psychological issues at work in all of this, but I suspect that the skeptics are not seeking the truth. In short, it seems they don’t and won’t care about the truth. […] I also see that American archaeology resents all outsiders, resists all beliefs that go against their beliefs, and they utilize skeptics as a sort of police force to silence critics and others. From a psychological standpoint, they are doing battle with their own shadow. It is a battle that can't be won.
That truth? That a race of 8-foot-tall Atlanteans colonized America and worshiped the constellation Cygnus as the gate to the afterlife. You know, facts!

I’m not sure I quite understand, though, how my year-ago blog post is “silencing” Little, who in the interim has written a book on the subject and published this very article. I should be so lucky to be “silenced” that way.

Greg Little wants to intentionally confuse my work and conflate different explanations for different claims as some universal explanation for all giants, and he wants to collapse all the different definitions of “giant” into his own preferred version—humans between six and eight feet tall; i.e., basketball players. In fact, he explicitly denies the existence of larger giants, which is why he can therefore ridicule explanations for such giants that attribute them to mastodons and mammoths: Large giants simply don’t exist, and his preferred “giants” aren’t big enough for mastodons to be mistaken for them. It’s dishonest, almost ridiculously so.

The only justification I can see for this is that whatever I wrote must have been so reasonable and made so much sense that it threatened to undermine Little’s profitable line of speculation.
74 Comments
Scott Hamilton
6/28/2014 03:30:59 pm

I've got to admit, I'm morbidly interested in why Little/Collins only believe in giants less than eight feet tall. It seems like most people making claims for prehistoric giants believe they were at least 15 feet tall. Is this a schism in the fringe history community?

Reply
Only Me
6/28/2014 05:31:10 pm

If Little wants to deny the existence of giants larger than eight feet, then how does he explain the existence of the following individuals:

MEN

Robert Pershing Wadlow -- 8' 11.1"
John William Rogan -- 8' 8"
John F. Carroll -- 8' (due to kyphoscoliosis) 8' 7.75" (corrected for normal spinal curvature)
Väinö Myllyrinne -- 8' 3"
Sultan Kösen, The Tallest Man in the World living in Turkey -- 8' 3"
Don Koehler -- 8' 2"
Bernard Coyne -- 8' 2"
Vikas Uppal -- 8' 2"
Patrick Cotter O'Brien -- 8' 1"
Brahim Takioullah -- 8' 1"
Morteza Mehrzad -- 8' 1"
Julius Koch -- 8' 0.9"
Gabriel Monjane -- 8' 0.75"
Suleiman Ali Nashnush -- 8' 0.4"
Anton de Franckenpoint -- 8'

WOMEN

Zeng Jinlian -- 8' 1.75"

If these people can exist in relatively modern times, who's to say individuals of equally impressive size didn't exist long ago? This does not, however, mean that the bones of prehistoric megafauna or dinosaurs weren't confused for the remains of giants or legendary heroes.

Little is just another "historian" speaking outside of his area of expertise, peddling in easily disprovable fringe nonsense for the almighty dollar.

Reply
666
6/28/2014 08:43:37 pm

Giants must have existed, because it says so in the Bible as well

Reply
Only Me
6/28/2014 10:32:15 pm

Troll harder.

666
6/29/2014 12:50:35 am

Lots of paranormal and supernatural material

Only Me
6/29/2014 01:09:42 am

That was it? Was that your A-game? Why do you persist in targeting me, and others, for your boorish and insulting comments if you're not even going to put forth an effort? Son, I am disappoint.

Gregor
6/29/2014 01:13:38 am

Just as fair notice, I'm honestly not trying to "troll" you.

One could argue (though I have no idea if this man would try) that "Giants" - in the Biblical sense - refers to a *kind* of creature rather than the euphemistic expression for size that we have today. Thus, his argument could be that Giants "as a species" would not exceed a certain size, regardless of how large humans (h. sapiens sapiens) may grow via genetics, malformations or disorders.

As for the "peddling" comment, almost certainly. I would imagine he also doesn't specify that his doctorate has little - if anything - to do with the subject matter (much less where it might have come from).

Reply
Only Me
6/29/2014 02:31:52 am

I could agree with your hypothetical argument, except for the fact that most of the claims tying the Smithsonian to the disappearance of "giant skeletons" almost always describe the skeletons as human. If giants were a distinct species, I would think they'd be described as humanoid or human-like. The claims suggest that these giants were in sufficient number to be seen, as Jason pointed out, a viable race.

Now, playing Devil's advocate, let's say the claims were true. My next question would be, "Where's the *other* evidence?" In other words, where are the tools, the art, the weapons, the worship sites, the settlements, the midden piles, etc.?

Shane Sullivan
6/29/2014 06:07:16 am

That's the beauty of the giants' culture, Only Me; they worked, expressed themselves, fought, worshiped, disposed of their refuse, and even looked exactly the same as humans did, only they were slightly taller on average. Also, they used tools that were the same size as our tools. So, when you find a regular-sized chisel or spear head, you may think you've found human remnants, but it was really made by giants.

But you won't find any of that stuff, because the Smithsonian is covering up all the tiny giant shrines, tools, and garbage.

666
6/29/2014 08:04:04 am

>>>My next question would be, "Where's the *other* evidence?" <<<

Faith

Jason Colavito link
6/29/2014 01:38:52 am

As I understand it, 8 feet isn't a hard and fast limit. Instead, he states that 8 feet is the upper limit of skeleton size he feels credible reports prove existed. He does not believe that any of the "evidence" for 9 foot and up skeletons is credible, for example, but admits the possibility such beings might have existed.

This of course isn't how Boccaccio saw it when he reported on a 300 foot tall (200 cubits) giant skeleton found in Sicily. Kirchner later revised this down to 30 feet, and it was almost certainly an elephant skeleton. But Little gets to pick and choose which reports are credible to him, and they're based on his beliefs about the "right" size for giant skeletons.

Reply
Donald Enog link
4/2/2017 11:08:45 am

There's many giant bones hidden in Smithsonian institute ,Its hidden in basements of storage area's and some even destroyed some because there is so many bones of giants ,they don't want us to know about massive bones with double sets of teeth..On line there are thousands of giant bones still in there graves shown that were 12' to 30 ft tall .
The Institute has thousands of other secrets ..Basicly all our history books are wrong and what we were taught in school has many lies.
Over 6-10000 years old is erased or hidden .They don't want us to know the Truth Evidence cover up . Just do your own investigation work. Nasa and Smithsonian Are GIANT liers.LOL

Gregor
6/28/2014 11:18:14 pm

"Greg Little Attacks Me", third line: "That's neither he nor their" --> "here nor there"

Reply
Greg Little
6/29/2014 12:50:12 pm

First, I like reading Jason's blogs and agree with a lot of what he writes, and it states so in the book. I do take issue with some specific statements made by skeptics, archaeologists, and proponents. Everything I have written on the topics mentioned by Jason in his above blog essentially makes no one happy. Skeptics deride those who want to look into such things without preconceived notions and proponents are not pleased when their beliefs aren't supported. I have written and repeatedly stated that we have never found anything in our 25+ week-long trips into the Bahamas and elsewhere that was linked to Atlantis. I have also written and stated that I don't know if Atlantis existed. (I am fine with not knowing and simply looking to see what might be there.) I paid for all of our research and no one else nor any organization funded any of it. It was fun and still is... Mentioning Atlantis or Cayce is a ploy similar to asserting that Jason is a writer making money off the Ancient Aliens phenomenon, UFOs, and by being a follower of the Cthulhu cult. It is all irrelevant to the specific issue and highly misleading. It is a way to divert attention from reality and very few people can or will see the underlying psychological issues swirling around. The book goes into many skeptical statements made by several online skeptics as well as quite a few archaeologists. This particular article mentioned some of Jason's assertions. Others will follow. The examples are cited in the book for those who have a genuine interest in the topic—and there are lots of them. Neither believers who say that "all of the old reports are real" nor believers who say "none of the old reports are real" have a genuine interest. I don't expect skeptics to buy it, read it, or even care. And not many proponents will like it, either. But a substantial number of people want to see a real evaluation of the skeletons' issue.

Neither Edgar Cayce nor Atlantis are mentioned in the book at all--nor are either mentioned in the article referenced above.

In a book chapter and articles by American university-based archaeologists, they have termed skeletons found in Moche pyramid burials that were 5' 10" tall as "giants." Maybe that's unfortunate, but it is true. Published research by American archaeologists relate that the average size of the Hopewell Tradition male was 5' 6". The percentage of people in the world today who reach 7' in height is 0.000007. We don't have accurate standard deviations of height from ancient American populations. The use of the term "giant" is unfortunate and is addressed in the book, but the term is one that is typically applied. I did 4 statistical analyses of skeletons found by the Smithsonian in West Virginia (and only in West Virginia), which was reported in their Annual Reports. In 2 of the analyses I reduced the reported height of all of them to account for the alleged spreading that could or might have occurred to the skeletons. The results showed that the large skeletons found in the mounds exceed what would have been found by chance.

The book details some hoaxes, cites genuine and factual articles that were published about the large skeletons, and goes into a lot of detail on some sites. We were able to document quite a few skeletons between 7 feet and 8 feet tall. Other reports of much larger skeletons either fell apart when scrutinized and followed-up--or they were reports that led nowhere. That is, they were not verifiable to the extent that any other information existed. But we did not look at all the 1,500 newspaper reports. (There are several people who have actually finished that task and they are about to publish a book on their findings--and I do not know what they conclude.) We preferred to stick to the archaeological publications as much as was possible. We made site visits and talked to archaeologists. All of the large skeletons that were verified were found in quite elaborate tombs and were clearly the elite. Were there even taller people buried in American mounds? Maybe. Probably. I don't know for certain. I have stood next to Wilt Chamberlain and he seemed like a giant to me. But the unvarnished truth is that in the research done for this book the only verifiable size maximum I could find in the "giant" skeletons excavated from American mounds was 7 to 8 feet.

The conclusion made was that the Smithsonian was NOT engaged in a coverup. I do think they were very short-sighted and basically stupid in some of their responses. The statements about skeptics and archaeologists being a police force are explained in the book and actually come from a large published article by an archaeologist who asserts that attacks on people who disagree with the mainstream beliefs are actually stupid and lead to counterproductive results. I've never asserted that anyone was trying to silence me. I do view all of this as being about having the right or correct beliefs and that confirmation bias and perceptual bias seem

Reply
EP
6/29/2014 01:01:23 pm

seem what?

Reply
Mark L
6/30/2014 03:07:08 am

So your research is just on fairly tall people? That someone called a 5'10" skeleton a "giant" seems an incredibly pointless bit of information to base a book around.

Reply
EP
6/30/2014 04:26:30 am

I say they WERE giants but they also suffered from dwarfism. Think about it, man...

Greg Little
6/29/2014 01:07:22 pm

to be a driving force underlying this.

The book was primarily about the death beliefs held by America's Mound Building cultures and involve Cygnus, Orion, and the Milky Way. These conclusions come from 7 university-press published books that had 24 different archaeologists as contributors. Their conclusions were reached in an annual university conference that directly addressed this issue. Andrew Collins and I can be derided for summarizing the findings from these archaeologists regarding Cygnus, Orion, and the Milky Way, but these were not our conclusions. I wish that when I started my interest in American mounds in the 1980s that I had the research time and ability to draw the same conclusions, but I didn't. And yes, in 2004 Andrew theorized that Cygnus was quite important to ancient cultures but he didn't expect that so many American archaeologists would have come to the same conclusion about the important role of Cygnus to the Mound Builders. My goal has been to increase public interest and engagement in archaeology with a special emphasis on American mounds. There are a lot of people who get interested in such things and they aren't all creationists or people with nationalistic motives.

Reply
Jason Colavito link
6/29/2014 02:39:27 pm

I love that you managed to use your comments to promote your book, Greg, while not actually addressing the substance of my criticisms in any substantive way, particularly the fact that you conflate my arguments about megafauna bones mistaken for 10-30 ft. giants with your preferred definition, humans within the observed range of human height, which I have never denied existed.

Are you suggesting that my identifying you for my readers by telling them where they might know your name is somehow illegitimate? It is hardly my fault that from 2002 to 2013 you appeared repeatedly on Coast to Coast to discuss Atlantis and Edgar Cayce.

Reply
Greg Little
6/30/2014 12:54:09 am

Thanks. 1) Yes, of course my comments are partly a promotion of the book, but realistically not many who go to skeptical websites ever order or read such books. But you have a lot of visitors on the other side who check your website. And you are certainly aware of that—and should be aware of it. My view is that wide-sweeping, flat denials and simplistic explanations essentially alienate people. If the object is to inform people, a different approach might be better... Sometimes you do take what I mean by the better approach. But it your blog.

2) But no, I'm not suggesting that linking me to the radio shows is illegitimate. It's irrelevant to this. There is an underlying purpose when only a small part of a person's background is mentioned. In most cases, defining a person by one aspect of their personality or by one aspect of their life only gives a distorted picture of the person. Picking and choosing one characteristic of someone to describe them seldom gives a real picture. If I said, "Joe Blow is obese but strangely says he can tell us the truth about lawn care," what is the purpose of describing him as obese? Why not just focus on what he says?

In 2003-5 I did 87 radio shows each year with about 2/3 of them explaining what Cayce said about various topics and about the search for Atlantis project. Yes, I have read a great deal of Cayce's readings and have summarized a lot of them in various books, articles, and so on. I have basically reduced all the radio shows to no more than 1-2 a year, preferring to focus on the widest audience of them, so I'm fairly sure I'll do Coast-To-Coast again. Since 2009 I've refused all of the TV shows and won't do them again as the editing seldom reflects what one actually says. But none of that is mentioned in the book. It's irrelevant as is all the other stuff I have done and written.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with respect to the 10-30 foot giants. My focus is on American reports from mounds. In the book I did discuss the initial discovery of mastodon/mammoth bones in the US and when they were identified. (I did #1 again!) I have no idea why some think I have a "preferred definition" of a giant?? I wrote that it is unrealistic to think of a person 7 feet tall as a giant. People 7 feet tall and up are statistical outliers, but certainly not a giant. Quite frankly I have no cut-off point when height goes from normal to giant. I have seen various estimates and calculation of the total number of people who existed from about 50,000-years ago to present. Most seem to say that about 100 billion people have existed. Less than 20 of them are known for certain to be over 8' tall. I'm sure there were more, but the percentage is quite low. I also looked at statistics on how much exaggeration there was and is of basketball player's height. To me, the most important issue in the topic is statistical in nature.

666
6/30/2014 01:35:22 am

>>>irrelevant

Greg Little's latest book fits nicely into the Atlantis mould

EP
6/30/2014 04:40:13 am

"There is an underlying purpose when only a small part of a person's background is mentioned. In most cases, defining a person by one aspect of their personality or by one aspect of their life only gives a distorted picture of the person. Picking and choosing one characteristic of someone to describe them seldom gives a real picture."

The real picture is that criticism ruffles your feathers in a way suggesting lack of scholarly rigor. The underlying purpose is to point these things out.

I'm sure everyone here understands that Greg Little the human being isn't encapsulated by this. You may or may not be a wonderful family man or an avid squash player.

Greg Little
6/29/2014 01:08:51 pm

EP: The comment box apparently only allows so many characters, so what I wrote was cut off.

Reply
666
6/29/2014 01:43:22 pm

Was this a Race of Giants, or past select individuals like Robert Wadlow who suffered from an abnormality due to hyperplasia of the pituitary gland, that resulted in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone.

Reply
666
6/30/2014 12:19:47 am

http://tedxshelburnefalls.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/jim-vieiras-talk-removed-from-internet/

Jim Vieira’s talk removed from Internet

Snip :

5.At 9:15 — You share newspaper clippings from the 19th century, including quotes from Abraham Lincoln, and claim they are evidence of giants. In fact, as one of our experts writes, “Skeletal hoaxes were common in the 19th century (e.g., Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and Barnum & Bailey Fiji mermaids [now at Harvard's Peabody Museum]). If (and this is a big if) the 8-foot skeleton is real, it could be a case of medical gigantism, but it is more likely a case of exaggeration.”


Stacy Kontrabecki
Curator, TEDxShelburneFalls


BigMike
7/2/2014 05:40:56 pm

"It's irrelevant to this. There is an underlying purpose when only a small part of a person's background is mentioned. In most cases, defining a person by one aspect of their personality or by one aspect of their life only gives a distorted picture of the person. Picking and choosing one characteristic of someone to describe them seldom gives a real picture. If I said, "Joe Blow is obese but strangely says he can tell us the truth about lawn care," what is the purpose of describing him as obese? Why not just focus on what he says?"

I think that mentioning some of your other works within the field of archaeology and more specifically fringe history is extremely relevant to any discussions within that field as it speaks to credibility.
If I am to take your word on the subject I would like to know what your background in the field is. Would it be wise to take psychological advice from a physicist? How about a scientologist? Or perhaps for psychological advice it would be better to consult a psychologist or professional counselor who graduated from a CACREP school.

For your Joe Blow analogy, you are right, Joe's obesity has nothing to do with yard care and should not be mentioned. However, if Joe had an "amazing and surprising new way to sculpt your abs into that perfect six-pack" then his obesity WOULD be relevant. It would speak to his credibility. I can't say that I would be too keen to take advice on exercise from a fat guy.

Your stance on fringe history and paranormal subjects is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to EVERY OTHER stance you take on the same subjects.

Reply
666
6/29/2014 01:11:45 pm

>>>death beliefs held by America's Mound Building cultures and involve Cygnus, Orion, and the Milky Way<<<

Such things need to be based on demonstrable evidence
Anything else and it's just a whim
I could claim some ancient tribe in Costa Rica worshipped Scorpius

Without ancient records, so what...

Reply
666
6/29/2014 01:29:13 pm

Greg Little
The truth about giant skeletons in American Indian mounds, and the Smithsonian cover-up

http://www.sott.net/article/281093-The-truth-about-giant-skeletons-in-American-Indian-mounds-and-the-Smithsonian-cover-up

Reply
.
6/29/2014 06:57:16 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Giants


a monarch acting out on a whim tried to create an
army of giants, by kidnapping and/or recruiting the
taller men of Europe. ( GOTO Potsdam Giants ) if
he is not unique or original, and this happened once
before, sometime after the arrival of the Neolithic...

http://madmonarchs.guusbeltman.nl/madmonarchs/fredwil1/fredwil1_bio.htm

Reply
666
6/29/2014 07:14:33 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Giants

And Basketball players - is that also unusual

Reply
.
6/30/2014 02:20:58 pm

TripleSix, if you became global dictator for life and bannish'd
all the NBA players to their own island, and included their near
kin and extended families, and only let adults under 5'5" leave it,
in several centuries if not a full eon, you'd have your village of
giants. one can stagger things either with or against the mean
and/or the actuaries tables by having a regal decree or edict...

An Over-Educated Grunt
6/30/2014 02:09:19 am

What I find interesting about this is the conflation of mass and volume. We know from research over the last thirty years that freeze-thaw cycles in concrete cause exactly the behavior described - expansion under freezing, up to the cracking point. While bone is more porous than concrete, especially after the marrow decays, both are brittle materials with lower shear than compressive strengths, so mechanically the behavior is comparable, and water's behavior is pretty much universal across that freeze-thaw line. Each freeze-thaw cycle increases porosity and makes water infiltration easier, so you wind up with this accelerating process. I suspect that there's a research project buried in there to find out how many freeze-thaw cycles it takes to shatter bone, but there are easier ways to date most sites, and that's no longer in my playground.

Reply
JJ
6/30/2014 02:19:19 pm

Jason, have you worked at researching the people who said they saw the Narragansett stone with runes on it prior to the date this man said he made them? If so, what or how does this compare to his story?

Reply
666
6/30/2014 07:20:30 pm

>>>people who said they saw the Narragansett stone with runes on it prior to the date this man said he made them<<<<

References, please

Reply
666
6/30/2014 07:52:37 pm

Rhode Island Historical Society collections, Vol. XV, January, 1922, No. 1

Edmund Burke Delabarre, "The Inscribed Rocks of Narragansett Bay", pages 1-14

https://archive.org/details/rhodeislandhisto05rhod

666
6/30/2014 08:05:32 pm

Rhode Island Historical Society Collections, Vol. XIII, January, 1920, No. 1

Edmund Burke Delabarre, "The Inscribed Rocks of Narragansett Bay", pages 1-28

https://archive.org/details/rhodeislandhistv13v14rhod

Historian
7/7/2014 12:35:21 am

He was probably referring to the Pojac Point residents that saw it before 1964. 90 year old Jane Goodhue claims she saw the inscription in 1952, for example. The family that owned the family from 1840 to late 1930's indicated there was "no oral or written history" of the rock within his family, and he first saw the stone in 1990.

Torbjørn Hinrichs link
7/5/2014 10:09:33 am

Editors,
We certainly do not have all the answers about the pre-Columbian contacts between Europeans and Native Americans, but using a variety of research techniques, linguistic, DNA, historical, cultural, rune stone, etc. and collating these results can shed light on the murky past. I agree with other bloggers that trying to obtain information from the "junk science" on American TV is futile.
I am trying to research these issues with my latest book on Amazon.com(also on Kindle Reader) - a larger version will appear in the fall. Some fascinating revelations about the Phoenicians, Aztecs, Berbers, and Jews was also discovered for further research. Please let me know about advertising with your newspapers.

Please feel free to add any insights or corrections you might be aware of for the next version of this study! Viking Christian Missionaries to the Americas: Linguistic, Biological, Historical, Artifacts, Geographical, DNA, Cultural, and Christian Influence of ... Indian Cultures from 1000 to 1500 Anno Domini Paperback – July 4, 2014
by Amazon.com: Eric Torbjørn Hinrichs: Books (Author), Amazon.com: Dr. Karen Ann Butery: Books (Draft Writer)

Reply
Lynn Brant
7/1/2014 01:29:52 am

The above citation is an interesting read, but it is about the Mt Hope rock and the only other it mentions specifically is the Dighton stone. Not only is this not evidence that what we call The Narragansett stone was there in 1920, the absence of a mention suggests that it was not there. The testimony of one man that he carved the NRS has to be taken with a grain of salt. But then I have a hard time thinking of a motive for a ruse, and he doesn't seem to be looking for attention. If he were selling a book or a TV program, I would be more suspicious.

Reply
666
7/1/2014 02:59:05 am

Come on. People do things like that for fun. Engravings by ordinary folks on stones and on walls are found everywhere.

Reply
666
7/1/2014 03:01:51 am

It's called Graffiti

Shane Sullivan
7/1/2014 06:26:27 am

I think he was referring to Everett Brown's motivation for falsely claiming to have carved the stone, not his motivation for carving it.

Historian
7/7/2014 12:47:02 am

The geological report proved the stone was on dry land in 1939 and earlier. The 1975 aerial indicates it was in the intertidal zone by that date. The oldest living member of the Welling family, which owned the entire property that would become the Pojac Point neighborhood(from 1840-late 1930's) stated : no oral or written history of this rock in Welling family.

One clarification though. Mark Rock is the most extensive Native American petroglyph site on Narragansett Bay and it was not recorded before the 1920's, when Delabarre wrote about it. The RIHS team visited it and missed the carvings entirely in the 1840's, so no mention of Narr. Stone by Delabaree means nothing.

Reply
Historian
7/7/2014 01:01:02 am

Delabarre found the Mark Rock petroglyph site, largest in the region, when the RIHS team of Bartlett and Webb stood upon it and missed the carvings all together in the 1840's!! So absence of a mention is not proof the stone with inscription was not there. However, we know the Narragansett stone was on dry land in 1939 and prior, and there is no oral or written mention of an inscription within the Welling family, who owned the property where the stone was located. Ownership was from 1840-late 1930's. No mention of any inscription. Jane Goodhue claims to have seen the inscription when she and her late husband moved to Pojac Point in 1952. At the same time, Mr. Brown offers the most parsimonious translation of the stone. Installation of the stone is on hold while all this plays out.

Reply
Historian
7/7/2014 01:09:54 am

I should add to my comments here, that although the 1939 aerial indicates the stone was on dry land at that point, changing shoreline was compared through aerials from 1939-2011, it is possible the stone was buried when it was located landward. Erosion placed it in the intertidal zone until eventually it was under water a majority of a tidal cycle. But the 1939 aerial only shows where it would be, it can't be seen in that photo due to foliage. But if visible, no mention of an inscription after 1840, when this was a Welling family property and farm.

Reply
Historian
7/7/2014 01:31:35 am

Wolter believes his weathering study of the NRS and the runes used prove Brown is a "liar". But Wolter's weathering studies are not simply embraced by other geologists at all. And Wolter is not an historian, either. Or a runologist. He has a B.S.in Geology. Period. Because he cannot get his weak theories through peer review, he has no choice but to lash out at the peer review process as inherently unfair to bold new ideas. No, it is inherently unfair to weakly developed arguments like blanket acceptance of a secret biological bloodline of Jesus Christ. Let's face it. Mr. Brown is a serious threat to Wolter's posturing as possessing an unassailable scientific result. Nope, he does not, and I think his game is very transparent.

Reply
SD
7/3/2014 12:48:48 am

For all you "wannabes" that hope this guy is right, you will be sorely disappointed as I have at the moment 8 witnesses that are going to sign a letter stating they have witnessed this inscription before 1964, when Mr. Brown says he carved it! Game Over!

Reply
Paula
7/3/2014 02:29:46 am

SD, when someone makes a claim, I personally want to look into what they are saying. That does not make me a "wannabe". Share your information rather than name calling will be more helpful. This is not a game fyi.

Reply
EP
7/4/2014 07:49:54 pm

I too consider letter signatures incontrovertible archeological proof.

Reply
Historian
7/7/2014 01:18:21 am

If earlier witnesses have a photo or photos pre 1964, there's is proof that Brown is mistaken. If Brown has photos showing him working on inscription, there's his proof of his truthfulness. Verbal testimony alone is not the same as "proof", one way or another, IMHO. Also, Brown cannot be called a "liar" based on Wolter's weathering studies of the NRS, because those weathering studies are not in a peer reviewed venue where other geologists can weigh in. Further, higher credentialed geologists disagree with Wolter's weathering studies of the KRS, so his "science trumps verbal testimony" argument is disingenuous at best! Therefore, I am very dubious of the claim that weathering studies of the NRS disprove Brown. Let other geologists confirm Wolter's results. Just once let that happen!!

EP
7/7/2014 08:15:27 am

There are different ways in which Brown could be mistaken, by the way. He could be mistaken (or even deliberately lying for some reason) about the year he did it.

It would be a shame that is the case an a pre-1964 photograph does surface, since that no doubt would allow Wolter to score significant points with the public.

Historian
7/7/2014 12:39:55 am

The oldest living member of the Welling Family, who owned the entirety of Pojac Point property from 1840-late 1930's has stated there was "no written or oral history" of this rock in the family. Considering the fact that the stone was on land, and not yet in the water in 1939 and earlier, that statement may be telling. It may indicate the stone was not carved upon until it was on the beach sometime after 1939.
Also, photos would help.

Reply
Historian
7/7/2014 02:05:11 am

Declaring "game over" is just a "force-feed" conclusion. By no means is the game over. Investigations don't work this way. Verbal testimony vs. verbal testimony doesn't cut it at all. If you WANT the "game"(?) to be over, come up with forensic evidence in the way of photos. The North Kingstown Town Historian is doing his own research, and does not consider the matter to be a game, or to be "over". He also knows Everett Brown personally. SD, do you know Brown personally? We'll see where it all leads, hopefully to proof, though I seriously doubt that will happen. But saying "game over" is like a certain someone telling Brown to "shut his mouth now". It isn't going to go down that way, Norse and Icelandic enthusiasts notwithstanding.

Reply
Duke of URL
7/6/2014 08:33:36 am

[NOTE: "Reply" button seem to do nothing.
TO: An Over-Educated Grunt
The FBI used to run, and I presume they still do, a "body farm" where all sorts of cadavers were left out under all sorts of conditions. The purpose was to learn more about identifying/analyzing corpses. Surely, someone there must have kept notes on freeze/thaw expansion of bones, since that would help them in determining how old a skeleton is.
If anyone affiliated with the FBI is reading this, I'd hope that he would join in with some facts.

Reply
Kent Spottswood link
2/7/2015 03:25:24 am

As the journalist who originally broke the story of Everett Brown and the carving of the Narragansett Rune Stone in the 1960s, I have little reason to doubt the authenticity of Mr. Brown's story. He was unequivocal about what he carved and why, and surely "Skraylings" is far more likely to come out of a 13-year-old boy's mind than a Norse navigator's when choosing something to carve on a random rock. "Historian's" comments, I believe, reveal some of the errors of trying to prove a negative. The extraordinary claim, in this case, is that the stone was carved before 1964. That's what must be proved in light of Mr. Brown's parsimonious claim.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 08:44:24 am

And BTW, I would love to see Brown proven true if he is indeed telling the truth. But, what do I tell someone when they say to me "Brown says the hook of the hooked X was a slip of the chisel". The most controversial character on the stone, on all the Hooked X stones, and it's the result of an accident? That's one version, spoken by Brown, and heard with my own ears. We all know his story changed. And I have no problem with understanding how tiny details can be forgotten after 50 years. But the hooked X on the stone is a coincidence, not intentional even, but accidental? That was one of the very weakest links in Brown's account. And he changed it! But, if that's the final version, that is one heck of a coincidence, an accidental hooked X.
For some people, maybe for many people, that's seen as an enormous stretch, in explaining how Brown put the hooked X in the inscription. That's a tough one to swallow and some might say it makes his story far from parsimonious.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 10:08:09 am

"The extraordinary claim, in this case, is that the stone was carved before 1964. That's what must be proved in light of Mr. Brown's parsimonious claim."

Nonsense! The hooked X was "an accident caused by a chisel slipping" is parsimonious? That's a convenient way of explaining not knowing what he was doing that surely borders on straining belief.
There is nothing extraordinary about the possibility it was carved prior to 1964(he told me 1963 twice) if Brown has not provided proof! What a silly claim you make. Because YOU find his story 100% parsimonious, therefore an earlier date MUST be proved? What the heck kind of logic do you call that? I call it deeply flawed. Silly. And very arrogant frankly. Pre 1964 MUST be proved because you have declared Brown to be parsimonious. Because a story strikes someone as parsimonious in no way whatsoever proves that the story is true, and necessitating other theories must somehow prove Brown's story wrong. That is a very faulty chain of logic that simply makes no sense.
I'm all for the truth here. No apologist for snake oil salesmen. But, sorry, you can't prove your case by simply declaring it to be the theory that must be disproved. That's ridiculous! Brown did not provide actual evidence to prove he did it. Just because you want Brown to be telling the truth and the carver of the inscription does not mean he is.

Again, to say that "carved before 1964" is an extraordinary claim, well, hard to even believe I read that. Utter nonsense to state such a thing.
Everett may yet prove he carved it, but the suggestion that pre 1964 is extraordinary simply isn't true. You are just another individual who wants no debate. Your way, or no way. As bad as Wolter, really. That's what he does- his way or no way. I think the quote I've extracted above is very bombastic. I don't mean to offend, though I probably have, but that is an extremely arrogant statement, IMHO.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 07:54:00 am

As the historian who first revealed the existence of the Narragansett Stone to the world beyond Pojac Point in 1985, I had a very personal, but not at all biased, interest in the mystery involved with this inscription. I spoke to Brown several times. I defended Brown to the principals involved with this stone, and listened to the ranting and raving and "tell Brown to shut his mouth!" that was thrown back in my face. Nobody defended the guy's right to be heard more then I did. Nobody. And I could have just kept my mouth shut. Something about snake oil salesmen trying to revise history to their overly imaginative liking goes up my butt sideways. I guess.

And then Brown does not return DEM investigators calls. And I let Brown's detractors gloat and call me a "sore loser", "backing a liar ", etc. But, I wrote to the town council and did indeed urge them not to discount the detailed memories of the family that owned the property since the early 50's. Parsimonious? Of course Brown's story scores there more then secret biological,bloodlines of Christ!! But the family that owned the property for decades had very compelling accounts. How, in the name of objectivity, do I simply dismiss them with the wave of a hand? I do not if as wish to be fair. Neither party has the photos required to settle it. Mr. Spottsworth's feels Brown's account is true because that's what Mr. Spottsworth wants to be the truth. He relies on Brown being parsimonious. But Brown did not talk to DEM investigators. And yes,,I know the reason he gives. But perception is everything. What in the world are people naturally going to think,when the man confessing talks to journalists, but not the very investigators inspired by his story?? This is not MY fault. I backed the man to the hilt while a certain nutjob ranted about "the Christians are out to get me!!"

Give me photos, not advocacy for parsimonious!! It may seem all nice and intellectually eloquent to some, but it does not prove anything. And the owning family's story can't just be tossed out the window simply because somebody thinks Brown is so darn parsimonious! The owners story is far more compelling and sensible then Brown's. The notion that the opposite is true can most certainly be debated. Mr. Spottsworth WANTS Brown's story to be true. I believe Imam more objective. I do not have any agenda where answers are concerned. Except to be in the camp that finds Wolter's theory ridiculous.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 08:00:08 am

Mr. Spottswood, my sincere apologies for misspelling your name in the above comment. I was actually spelling it correctly, but as owners of iPads know, the iPad often types what the iPad wants to type. My sincere apologies, Mr. Spottswood. Obviously, if "edit" were permitted here, which would be a huge help, I could have just corrected it.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 08:19:40 am

Dang iPad spelling, lol. I'll make my last thought in my initial comment clearer: I believe, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Spottswood WANTS Brown's story to be the truth. On both sides of a certain divide, I see people who want this thing to be Middle Ages European, and that's that, "stay out of my way". And I do believe there are folks on the other side of that divide who decided beforehand that the Narragansett Stone CANNOT be Middle Ages European, and that's that, "stay out of my way". Because Mr. Spottswood backs Brown to this extent, when Brown has never produced the photographic record needed to prove his case, I am reluctant to consider Mr. Spottswood truly objective here. I am sorry if that offends, but that's the impression I get. Personally, I have no agenda where answers are concerned. I did find myself impressed by Brown at the time,,but I will not throw out contradictory compelling testimony simply because I WANT one theory or another to be true. Some people really want this to be very, very old. Some people want this to be very far from very, very old.
I don't have an agenda one way or another and I do not see how anyone can say Brown has done anything whatsoever to turn the tide in his direction. All we have ate competing accounts. Brown's so-called parsimonious account suffered a rather severe blow to it's value when he did not talk to investigators. And if he had good reason to not balk, well, not my fault. Perception is critical in such matters.

Reply
Historian
2/7/2015 09:16:42 am

Mr. Spottswood, if any light can be shed, any info on the mysterious retired police officer who was behind Brown coming fwd., did all the contact work for Brown, reported all online comments and theories back to Brown, and in general stayed in the background just saying "talk to Brown" whenever anyone asked. "Who are you and what is your interest in this"?, well if any light can be shed on his motive, that might help understand the entire Brown chapter. Brown went about things the wrong way, IMO. But he talked casually about his involvement with the stone for some time before coming fwd. Odd thing to do if it was all just a tall tale. And if a tall tale, I would love to know the motive and who this other guy was promoting Brown to everyone. If Everett Brown carved the inscription, only he can prove it. Parsimonious alone will never carry the day. He just has not helped himself here.

Reply
Kent Spottswood link
5/4/2016 01:59:57 am

While this story has turned a bit stale, there are some unsubstantiated comments I would like to address. "Historian," who is apparently uncomfortable revealing his actual identity, accuses me above of reporting what I want to be the truth in my tentative support of Mr. Brown's veracity. In addition he makes statements that seem to come from thin air, such as that regarding a retired police officer's supposed involvement.

I heard of Mr. Brown's story through his coworkers. I don't know anything about a retired policeman. I was the first to make his story public. I had to talk him into it.

To set the record straight further, I hope someday that someone comes up with irrefutable proof of a Viking visit to New England. That's what I WANT (to resort to Historian's use of caps). But this rock fails at the most elementary level to reach the goal. I am certainly not reporting what i WANT to report, nor have I ever in my career.

In correspondence with Historian, I understand he has since come around to support of Brown's claim.

Reply
Historian
5/4/2016 07:39:18 am

Well, it has been awhile since Brown's claims first appeared, but it was a retired police officer, who knew Brown, who contacted several officers of the NEARA, and in order to promote Brown's claim. As far as my own beliefs, they go back and forth, actually. I suspect it is modern, post 1940. It was not located in the intertidal zone before 1940. Whether it was even above ground pre 1940 is unknown to the best of my knowledge at this time. The retired police officer sent emails to several Neara officers, including the RI research coordinator, urging all to interview Brown. He provided Brown's contact info, and the RI research coordinator interviewed Brown over the phone several times. I'm no fan of the more convoluted "Holy Grail and the Knights Templar" theory regarding the inscription, and I would honestly welcome proof from Brown if he could provide it. I and two of my colleagues published the first article on this feature at Pojac Point, and brought it to the world's attention in 1985. Some of my "early" photos are included in the display signage. My involvement, however, does not mean I favor theories that cannot be supported with facts, and which seem to be in the style of Da Vinci code nonsense.

I don't know the inscription's origins, but I would welcome proof from Brown, if only to put to rest the sillier theories. At the same time, I do not dismiss the possibility it predates the arrival of Europeans in this region in the 16th(fishermen) and 17th centuries(settlement). The most recent discovery in southern Newfoundland, the second such Norse site there, puts the Norse ever closer to our own neck of the woods. If that site can be verified in time. I'll keep my mind open about the Narragansett Stone in the meantime. I just don't think "modern" would surprise me at all. That's where my "hunch", but not my "proof" lies.

Historian
5/4/2016 07:48:52 am

I should add, my biggest problem with Brown's story was his conflicting stories on how the mysterious X got on the stone. In one story, his chisel slipped and accidentally created that character. In another story, he chose that character deliberately as a substitute letter A because his father was in a hurry to leave, and it took less time to create it then using the same A character from the first line. So, accidentally created in one account, deliberately created in another account cast doubt on the story. Because they are two very different memories after all. That did indeed trouble me, as it troubled others as well.

Historian
5/4/2016 11:02:52 am

People are entirely free to come to their own conclusions. Interestingly, the final quote on the Narragansett Stone signage is by runic authority Henrik Williams. And that quote, which concludes the stone is well worth preserving and displaying, is taken from a study by Williams, based on a personal examination by him, in which he offers his own considered opinion that it was likely carved in the period 1890-1940. Williams did conclude that there was no reason to dismiss the memories of those families at Pojac Point who remembered seeing the inscription well before Brown claims to have found it. Investigators from the RIDEM concluded the exact same thing. That does not mean people cannot think otherwise or continue to support Brown 's claim. But Williams' offered reasons why, regardless if it were carved in Medievil times or modern times, that it was worthy of preservation and display. People being people, visitors by and large will be intrigued by the more exotic theories regarding it's origins. Because people simply visiting the display are unlikely to dig any deeper on their own. Certainly, if actual proof emerged, and if that proof supported a modern origin, be it between 1890-1940, or in the summer of 1963, it will not be swept under the rug very easily. I found Williams' arguments for a modern origin compelling, IMO. I also found Brown's translation the most compelling component of his own story, even as other aspects of his story might be seen as weakening his case. Namely, his inconsistent accounts at times.

Historian
5/4/2016 11:10:01 am

"Williams did conclude that there was no reason to dismiss the memories of those families at Pojac Point who remembered seeing the inscription well before Brown claims to have found it."

I'm sorry. Obviously that should read "before Brown claims to have carved it."

Historian
5/4/2016 11:28:52 am

BTW, we have the name of that retired police officer, but I see no good reason to publish it here. He certainly came across as a mystery. Several NEARA officers received emails from him, describing and supporting Brown's claim, and urging his email recipients to look into those claims. Yet, he himself would not answer any emails addressed to him. Ever. Regardless of who brought Brown's claims to light first, it was this retired police officer who contacted the principal Narragansett Stone researchers. It was this retired police officers who put those researchers in touch with Brown. So, certainly, I did not create this retired police officer out of thin air.

Historian
5/5/2016 05:03:28 pm

You may be interested in Dr. Williams' brief essay describing his examination of the stone, and the reasons behind his conclusion that the inscription likely dates 1890-1940. Williams saw no reason to doubt the witnesses who claimed to have seen the inscription in the 1950's, and, in one case, as early as 1947. It might be interesting to share your opinion of Brown's translation with him, perhaps.

http://files.webb.uu.se/uploader/267/Narragansett%20Stone%20Report%203.1%20Williams%202014.pdf

Reply
Kent Spottswood link
5/6/2016 02:22:34 am

With all due respect, Historian, may I suggest you are overthinking this on the basis of the available evidence? Pending further evidence, Mr. Brown's explanation is the most likely. This is not to say it's the truth. But at this point other explanations fall far short of the mark, especially when those who claim to have photographs, etc., of the inscriptions before the mid-1960s have failed to produce their alleged evidence. Please don't conflate unrelated testimony with my interview with Mr. Brown. If you wish to discuss this, please do so independently of my article.

Reply
Kent Spottswood link
5/6/2016 02:26:36 am

Further, if you wish to approach credibility, may I suggest you use your real name and credentials?

Reply
Historian
4/2/2017 01:38:21 pm

A little late getting back to you, Mr. Spottswood. Yeah, I do avoid using my real name due to threats of lawsuits twice from one of the principals. I just don't need that aggravation. My arguments really do not need my name to approach credibility. It isn't about my name, it's about the arguments advanced. As for credentials, I'm not a winner of the Pulitzer Prize in history, lol. I have an MA in Modern European History from URI, 1972. I have not come around to Brown's claims, nor have I rejected them outright. I do not know who carved the stone, or when. My 1985 photos were used in the display in Wickford because they were the oldest we had. The "other explainations" do not fall short of the mark as you claim. No more so then Brown, who has also failed to provide any real evidence for his claim. You just happen to support him because you find his translation parsimonious, and, as far as I can tell, that is your sole reason for supporting him. It is interesting I'll grant, but it is not proof, and should not be treated as if it were proof.

Reply
Historian
4/2/2017 01:47:14 pm

BTW, you could have signed your name "Howdy Doody", and your arguments still would have stood as presented. Names have absolutely nothing to do with anything where the actual argumentation is concerned. Williams, on the other hand, is a recognized authority in runes. I am not. Nor, may I remind you, are you. So neither of our names can really lend credibility in that respect. We are simply presenting logical arguments. I understand your's, but I was also informed by someone who knows Brown that he has a reputation for story telling. He can present evidence to end the dispute just as the residents of Pojac Point can. So far, I don't believe either has. I too found Brown's translation parsimonious, but, alas, that just is not proof.

Reply
Historian
4/7/2017 08:54:21 pm

Absolutely pointless comment on your part....


My name lends no "credibility by authority". I have an MA in History. Big deal, I'm not a runic scholar. Does your name add "credibility by authority" to your argument? You could sign in as Mickey Mouse for all I care. Both of us are simply arguing the merits of two positions based on what we know. I fully understand why someone would be struck by Brown's interpretation of the translation he offers. Although it isn't perfect, either. I mean, what do the two characters in the second row have to do with "skraelings"? So it's not as if he offers an interpretation that simply cannot be denied. We are not going to solve this based on what we know now.

I don't understand why you think it's a case of "case closed" when no irrefutable proof has been forthcoming from either side of the Pojac Point debate. Why even be concerned with which way I lean, or if I will not commit without irrefutable evidence? Why would you even care? If you think Brown has the better case, that's fine with me. I do think it would be worth asking Henrik Williams what he thinks of the translation offered by Brown. Williams specifically stated, after flying to RI to examine the rock, and coming to his own conclusions, that he saw no reason to doubt the witnesses from Pojac Point. But I doubt he examined Brown's claims at all, certainly he did not talk to Brown. I'd be curious as to what he would make of Brown's claims. At any rate, you'd be better off running that by him, as he is certainly one who has "credibility by authority", if that's what you require, rather then being so concerned about my given name, since we are fully capable of arguing the merits of a case without personal identity.

Your point is actually pointless. Is your name supposed to bowl me over?? Are the merits of your case enhanced by any "credibility by authority?". Exactly what reason does your given name enhance your credibility in this discussion?? Not to belittle you, mind you. If you're a folklorist, that is a very engaging area of inquiry, although it's not the same as being a runic scholar, no?

Reply
Regine
7/20/2017 11:32:40 am

There were a lotta controversial speculations & sources 'bout the height of Vikas "Vicky" Uppal; hence, his height was unofficial because the Guinness World Records never measured this cool, sexy-faced, & quite handsome Indian which leaves 3 cases as unverified, contested, & disputed. :-0 Sadly, 10 years ago a failed brain tumor operation killed this India's tallest youth at a very young age. :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Blog
    Picture

    Author

    I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.

    Become a Patron!
    Tweets by JasonColavito
    Picture

    Newsletters

    Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.

    powered by TinyLetter

    Blog Roll

    Ancient Aliens Debunked
    Picture
    A Hot Cup of Joe
    ArchyFantasies
    Bad UFOs
    Mammoth Tales
    Matthew R. X. Dentith
    PaleoBabble
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative Archaeology
    Alternative History
    Alternative History
    America Unearthed
    Ancient Aliens
    Ancient Astronauts
    Ancient History
    Ancient Texts
    Ancient Texts
    Archaeology
    Atlantis
    Conspiracies
    Giants
    Habsburgs
    Horror
    King Arthur
    Knights Templar
    Lovecraft
    Mythology
    Occult
    Popular Culture
    Popular Culture
    Projects
    Pyramids
    Racism
    Science
    Skepticism
    Ufos
    Weird Old Art
    Weird Things
    White Nationalism

    Terms & Conditions

    Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010

    RSS Feed

Picture
Home  |  Blog  |  Books  | Contact  |  About Jason | Terms & Conditions
© 2010-2023 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Books
    • Legends of the Pyramids
    • The Mound Builder Myth
    • Jason and the Argonauts
    • Cult of Alien Gods >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Foundations of Atlantis
    • Knowing Fear >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Hideous Bit of Morbidity >
      • Contents
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
    • Cthulhu in World Mythology >
      • Excerpt
      • Image Gallery
      • Necronomicon Fragments
      • Oral Histories
    • Fiction >
      • Short Stories
      • Free Fiction
    • JasonColavito.com Books >
      • Faking History
      • Unearthing the Truth
      • Critical Companion to Ancient Aliens
      • Studies in Ancient Astronautics (Series) >
        • Theosophy on Ancient Astronauts
        • Pyramidiots!
        • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • Fiction Anthologies >
        • Unseen Horror >
          • Contents
          • Excerpt
        • Moon Men! >
          • Contents
      • The Orphic Argonautica >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • The Faust Book >
        • Contents
        • Excerpt
      • Classic Reprints
      • eBook Minis
    • Free eBooks >
      • Origin of the Space Gods
      • Ancient Atom Bombs
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Ancient America
      • Horror & Science
  • Articles
    • Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist Newsletter >
      • Volumes 1-10 Archive >
        • Volume 1 Archive
        • Volume 2 Archive
        • Volume 3 Archive
        • Volume 4 Archive
        • Volume 5 Archive
        • Volume 6 Archive
        • Volume 7 Archive
        • Volume 8 Archive
        • Volume 9 Archive
        • Volume 10 Archive
      • Volumes 11-20 Archive >
        • Volume 11 Archive
        • Volume 12 Archive
        • Volume 13 Archive
        • Volume 14 Archive
        • Volume 15 Archive
        • Volume 16 Archive
        • Volume 17 Archive
        • Volume 18 Archive
        • Volume 19 Archive
        • Volume 20 Archive
      • Volumes 21-30 Archive >
        • Volume 21 Archive
        • Volume 22 Archive
    • Television Reviews >
      • Ancient Aliens Reviews
      • In Search of Aliens Reviews
      • America Unearthed
      • Pirate Treasure of the Knights Templar
      • Search for the Lost Giants
      • Forbidden History Reviews
      • Expedition Unknown Reviews
      • Legends of the Lost
      • Unexplained + Unexplored
      • Rob Riggle: Global Investigator
    • Book Reviews
    • Galleries >
      • Bad Archaeology
      • Ancient Civilizations >
        • Ancient Egypt
        • Ancient Greece
        • Ancient Near East
        • Ancient Americas
      • Supernatural History
      • Book Image Galleries
    • Videos
    • Collection: Ancient Alien Fraud >
      • Chariots of the Gods at 50
      • Secret History of Ancient Astronauts
      • Of Atlantis and Aliens
      • Aliens and Ancient Texts
      • Profiles in Ancient Astronautics >
        • Erich von Däniken
        • Robert Temple
        • Giorgio Tsoukalos
        • David Childress
      • Blunders in the Sky
      • The Case of the False Quotes
      • Alternative Authors' Quote Fraud
      • David Childress & the Aliens
      • Faking Ancient Art in Uzbekistan
      • Intimations of Persecution
      • Zecharia Sitchin's World
      • Jesus' Alien Ancestors?
      • Extraterrestrial Evolution?
    • Collection: Skeptic Magazine >
      • America Before Review
      • Native American Discovery of Europe
      • Interview: Scott Sigler
      • Golden Fleeced
      • Oh the Horror
      • Discovery of America
      • Supernatural Television
      • Review of Civilization One
      • Who Lost the Middle Ages
      • Charioteer of the Gods
    • Collection: Ancient History >
      • Prehistoric Nuclear War
      • The China Syndrome
      • Atlantis, Mu, and the Maya
      • Easter Island Exposed
      • Who Built the Sphinx?
      • Who Built the Great Pyramid?
      • Archaeological Cover Up?
    • Collection: The Lovecraft Legacy >
      • Pauwels, Bergier, and Lovecraft
      • Lovecraft in Bergier
      • Lovecraft and Scientology
    • Collection: UFOs >
      • Alien Abduction at the Outer Limits
      • Aliens and Anal Probes
      • Ultra-Terrestrials and UFOs
      • Rebels, Queers, and Aliens
    • Scholomance: The Devil's School
    • Prehistory of Chupacabra
    • The Templars, the Holy Grail, & Henry Sinclair
    • Magicians of the Gods Review
    • The Curse of the Pharaohs
    • The Antediluvian Pyramid Myth
    • Whitewashing American Prehistory
    • James Dean's Cursed Porsche
  • The Library
    • Ancient Mysteries >
      • Ancient Texts >
        • Mesopotamian Texts >
          • Atrahasis Epic
          • Epic of Gilgamesh
          • Kutha Creation Legend
          • Babylonian Creation Myth
          • Descent of Ishtar
          • Berossus
          • Comparison of Antediluvian Histories
        • Egyptian Texts >
          • The Shipwrecked Sailor
          • Dream Stela of Thutmose IV
          • The Papyrus of Ani
          • Classical Accounts of the Pyramids
          • Inventory Stela
          • Manetho
          • Eratosthenes' King List
          • The Story of Setna
          • Leon of Pella
          • Diodorus on Egyptian History
          • On Isis and Osiris
          • Famine Stela
          • Old Egyptian Chronicle
          • The Book of Sothis
          • Horapollo
          • Al-Maqrizi's King List
        • Teshub and the Dragon
        • Hermetica >
          • The Three Hermeses
          • Kore Kosmou
          • Corpus Hermeticum
          • The Asclepius
          • The Emerald Tablet
          • Hermetic Fragments
          • Prologue to the Kyranides
          • The Secret of Creation
          • Ancient Alphabets Explained
          • Prologue to Ibn Umayl's Silvery Water
          • Book of the 24 Philosophers
          • Aurora of the Philosophers
        • Hesiod's Theogony
        • Periplus of Hanno
        • Ctesias' Indica
        • Sanchuniathon
        • Sima Qian
        • Syncellus's Enoch Fragments
        • The Book of Enoch
        • Slavonic Enoch
        • Sepher Yetzirah
        • Tacitus' Germania
        • De Dea Syria
        • Aelian's Various Histories
        • Julius Africanus' Chronography
        • Eusebius' Chronicle
        • Chinese Accounts of Rome
        • Ancient Chinese Automaton
        • The Orphic Argonautica
        • Fragments of Panodorus
        • Annianus on the Watchers
        • The Watchers and Antediluvian Wisdom
      • Medieval Texts >
        • Medieval Legends of Ancient Egypt >
          • Medieval Pyramid Lore
          • John Malalas on Ancient Egypt
          • Fragments of Abenephius
          • Akhbar al-zaman
          • Ibrahim ibn Wasif Shah
          • Murtada ibn al-‘Afif
          • Al-Maqrizi on the Pyramids
          • Al-Suyuti on the Pyramids
        • The Hunt for Noah's Ark
        • Isidore of Seville
        • Book of Liang: Fusang
        • Agobard on Magonia
        • Book of Thousands
        • Voyage of Saint Brendan
        • Power of Art and of Nature
        • Travels of Sir John Mandeville
        • Yazidi Revelation and Black Book
        • Al-Biruni on the Great Flood
        • Voyage of the Zeno Brothers
        • The Kensington Runestone (Hoax)
        • Islamic Discovery of America
        • The Aztec Creation Myth
      • Lost Civilizations >
        • Atlantis >
          • Plato's Atlantis Dialogues >
            • Timaeus
            • Critias
          • Fragments on Atlantis
          • Panchaea: The Other Atlantis
          • Eumalos on Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Gómara on Atlantis
          • Sardinia and Atlantis
          • Santorini and Atlantis
          • The Mound Builders and Atlantis
          • Donnelly's Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Morocco
          • Atlantis and the Sea Peoples
          • W. Scott-Elliot >
            • The Story of Atlantis
            • The Lost Lemuria
          • The Lost Atlantis
          • Atlantis in Africa
          • How I Found Atlantis (Hoax)
          • Termier on Atlantis
          • The Critias and Minoan Crete
          • Rebuttal to Termier
          • Further Responses to Termier
          • Flinders Petrie on Atlantis
        • Lost Cities >
          • Miscellaneous Lost Cities
          • The Seven Cities
          • The Lost City of Paititi
          • Manuscript 512
          • The Idolatrous City of Iximaya (Hoax)
          • The 1885 Moberly Lost City Hoax
          • The Elephants of Paredon (Hoax)
        • OOPARTs
        • Oronteus Finaeus Antarctica Map
        • Caucasians in Panama
        • Jefferson's Excavation
        • Fictitious Discoveries in America
        • Against Diffusionism
        • Tunnels Under Peru
        • The Parahyba Inscription (Hoax)
        • Mound Builders
        • Gunung Padang
        • Tales of Enchanted Islands
        • The 1907 Ancient World Map Hoax
        • The 1909 Grand Canyon Hoax
        • The Interglacial Period
        • Solving Oak Island
      • Religious Conspiracies >
        • Pantera, Father of Jesus?
        • Toledot Yeshu
        • Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay on Cathars
        • Testimony of Jean de Châlons
        • Rosslyn Chapel and the 'Prentice's Pillar
        • The Many Wives of Jesus
        • Templar Infiltration of Labor
        • Louis Martin & the Holy Bloodline
        • The Life of St. Issa (Hoax)
        • On the Person of Jesus Christ
      • Giants in the Earth >
        • Fossil Origins of Myths >
          • Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephants
          • Fossil Elephants
          • Fossil Bones of Teutobochus
          • Fossil Mammoths and Giants
          • Giants' Bones Dug Out of the Earth
          • Fossils and the Supernatural
          • Fossils, Myth, and Pseudo-History
          • Man During the Stone Age
          • Fossil Bones and Giants
          • American Elephant Myths
          • The Mammoth and the Flood
          • Fossils and Myth
          • Fossil Origin of the Cyclops
          • Mastodon, Mammoth, and Man
        • Fragments on Giants
        • Manichaean Book of Giants
        • Geoffrey on British Giants
        • Alfonso X's Hermetic History of Giants
        • Boccaccio and the Fossil 'Giant'
        • Book of Howth
        • Purchas His Pilgrimage
        • Edmond Temple's 1827 Giant Investigation
        • The Giants of Sardinia
        • Giants and the Sons of God
        • The Magnetism of Evil
        • Tertiary Giants
        • Smithsonian Giant Reports
        • Early American Giants
        • The Giant of Coahuila
        • Jewish Encyclopedia on Giants
        • Index of Giants
        • Newspaper Accounts of Giants
        • Lanier's A Book of Giants
      • Science and History >
        • Halley on Noah's Comet
        • The Newport Tower
        • Iron: The Stone from Heaven
        • Ararat and the Ark
        • Pyramid Facts and Fancies
        • Argonauts before Homer
        • The Deluge
        • Crown Prince Rudolf on the Pyramids
        • Old Mythology in New Apparel
        • Blavatsky on Dinosaurs
        • Teddy Roosevelt on Bigfoot
        • Devil Worship in France
        • Maspero's Review of Akhbar al-zaman
        • The Holy Grail as Lucifer's Crown Jewel
        • The Mutinous Sea
        • The Rock Wall of Rockwall
        • Fabulous Zoology
        • The Origins of Talos
        • Mexican Mythology
        • Chinese Pyramids
        • Maqrizi's Names of the Pharaohs
      • Extreme History >
        • Roman Empire Hoax
        • American Antiquities
        • American Cataclysms
        • England, the Remnant of Judah
        • Historical Chronology of the Mexicans
        • Maspero on the Predynastic Sphinx
        • Vestiges of the Mayas
        • Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel
        • Origins of the Egyptian People
        • The Secret Doctrine >
          • Volume 1: Cosmogenesis
          • Volume 2: Anthropogenesis
        • Phoenicians in America
        • The Electric Ark
        • Traces of European Influence
        • Prince Henry Sinclair
        • Pyramid Prophecies
        • Templars of Ancient Mexico
        • Chronology and the "Riddle of the Sphinx"
        • The Faith of Ancient Egypt
        • Spirit of the Hour in Archaeology
        • Book of the Damned
        • Great Pyramid As Noah's Ark
        • Richard Shaver's Proofs
    • Alien Encounters >
      • US Government Ancient Astronaut Files >
        • Fortean Society and Columbus
        • Inquiry into Shaver and Palmer
        • The Skyfort Document
        • Whirling Wheels
        • Denver Ancient Astronaut Lecture
        • Soviet Search for Lemuria
        • Visitors from Outer Space
        • Unidentified Flying Objects (Abstract)
        • "Flying Saucers"? They're a Myth
        • UFO Hypothesis Survival Questions
        • Air Force Academy UFO Textbook
        • The Condon Report on Ancient Astronauts
        • Atlantis Discovery Telegrams
        • Ancient Astronaut Society Telegram
        • Noah's Ark Cables
        • The Von Daniken Letter
        • CIA Psychic Probe of Ancient Mars
        • Scott Wolter Lawsuit
        • UFOs in Ancient China
        • CIA Report on Noah's Ark
        • CIA Noah's Ark Memos
        • Congressional Ancient Aliens Testimony
        • Ancient Astronaut and Nibiru Email
        • Congressional Ancient Mars Hearing
        • House UFO Hearing
      • Ancient Extraterrestrials >
        • Premodern UFO Sightings
        • The Moon Hoax
        • Inhabitants of Other Planets
        • Blavatsky on Ancient Astronauts
        • The Stanzas of Dzyan (Hoax)
        • Aerolites and Religion
        • What Is Theosophy?
        • Plane of Ether
        • The Adepts from Venus
      • A Message from Mars
      • Saucer Mystery Solved?
      • Orville Wright on UFOs
      • Interdimensional Flying Saucers
      • Flying Saucers Are Real
      • Report on UFOs
    • The Supernatural >
      • The Devils of Loudun
      • Sublime and Beautiful
      • Voltaire on Vampires
      • Demonology and Witchcraft
      • Thaumaturgia
      • Bulgarian Vampires
      • Religion and Evolution
      • Transylvanian Superstitions
      • Defining a Zombie
      • Dread of the Supernatural
      • Vampires
      • Werewolves and Vampires and Ghouls
      • Science and Fairy Stories
      • The Cursed Car
    • Classic Fiction >
      • Lucian's True History
      • Some Words with a Mummy
      • The Coming Race
      • King Solomon's Mines
      • An Inhabitant of Carcosa
      • The Xipéhuz
      • Lot No. 249
      • The Novel of the Black Seal
      • The Island of Doctor Moreau
      • Pharaoh's Curse
      • Edison's Conquest of Mars
      • The Lost Continent
      • Count Magnus
      • The Mysterious Stranger
      • The Wendigo
      • Sredni Vashtar
      • The Lost World
      • The Red One
      • H. P. Lovecraft >
        • Dagon
        • The Call of Cthulhu
        • History of the Necronomicon
        • At the Mountains of Madness
        • Lovecraft's Library in 1932
      • The Skeptical Poltergeist
      • The Corpse on the Grating
      • The Second Satellite
      • Queen of the Black Coast
      • A Martian Odyssey
    • Classic Genre Movies
    • Miscellaneous Documents >
      • The Balloon-Hoax
      • A Problem in Greek Ethics
      • The Migration of Symbols
      • The Gospel of Intensity
      • De Profundis
      • The Life and Death of Crown Prince Rudolf
      • The Bathtub Hoax
      • Crown Prince Rudolf's Letters
      • Position of Viking Women
      • Employment of Homosexuals
      • James Dean's Love Letters
      • The Amazing James Dean Hoax!
    • Free Classic Pseudohistory eBooks
  • About Jason
    • Biography
    • Jason in the Media
    • Contact Jason
    • About JasonColavito.com
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Search