It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earliest Evidence of Gigantism-Like Disease Found in 3,800-Year-Old California Skeleton

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Acromegaly




The remains of a man buried 3,800 years ago in a richly decorated California grave bear some unusual but unmistakable features — a protruding brow, a lantern jaw, thick leg and arm bones, and teeth so crowded together that at one point they erupt in rows three deep.Text


Everyone likes giants here is a poor guy who was ill and had some interesting features - do these features bring to mind any legends about Giants in North America?

This is interesting in that the skeleton shows signs of gigantism yet he was only 170 cm tall but his teeth and other parts of his body shows he was affected by the disease.




edit on 9/5/14 by Hanslune because: Added photo




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Here is a more recent case of Acromegaly. People says he inspired "Shrek".




Maurice Tillet, a wrestler suffering from Acromegaly. He died in on September 4th 1954 from heart disease and was the inspiration for the character Shrek–though the creators at DreamWorks Animation have never openly commented on this.


imagesofhistory.wordpress.com...
edit on 9-5-2014 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
We have the giantism gene in my family's genetics. It doesn't work right, it is a bit of a curse. I know others who have this problem and only one works right. He has to duck when he goes into the grocery store, those seven foot doors are too short for him. I am 6'2'' and am not used to looking up at people. I felt like a kid. He seems to be a nice guy, pretty mellow. I didn't see any problems and he is already in his fifties.

My sister suffered the most from this genetic trait, her wrist bones were way bigger than my wrist.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Yep, one does get oddities did recover a skull once that had a wisdom tooth in it 3x the normal size which distorted the guys jaw yet he lived until his 50's



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I had huge teeth, had to have the wisdoms pulled when they came in too. I still have the teeth in a jar in the cupboard. They used to call me bucks, my sister was called beaver.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune
Hey Hans,
Nice post,
Isn't western digs.org an awesome site, I found it while waiting for my mother for an outpatient procedure.
I read the whole site that afternoon



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
My friends wer 6.2 at 13 years old. Love them all.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Hanslune
Hey Hans,
Nice post,
Isn't western digs.org an awesome site, I found it while waiting for my mother for an outpatient procedure.
I read the whole site that afternoon




Yep I go once or so every week especially for the paleontology uupdates



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
We have the giantism gene in my family's genetics. ...

My sister suffered the most from this genetic trait....


Again, you are "sharing" disinformation. There is no acromegaly/gigantism gene - it's caused by an excess of growth hormone, which in turn is usually caused by a (benign) pituitary tumor.


Acromegaly is caused by pituitary adenomas that mostly result from epigenetic mechanisms - only 5% are familial, and of those, many are inherited epigenetically, not genetically.


Gigantism

Gigantism is abnormally large growth due to an excess of growth hormone during childhood, before the bone growth plates have closed.

Causes, incidence, and risk factors

The most common cause of too much growth hormone release is a noncancerous (benign) tumor of the pituitary gland.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
There are tales of the North American continent being the place for giants with "two rows of teeth" to roam all over the place. Stories from the natives involved epic fights, brutal wars and scenes depicted with these giants. It has been found in newspapers and published books across the country that skeletons with large statures and double rows of teeth were discovered by archaeologists long before photographs were invented. These stories and published books aren't talked about much and the conspiracy crowd has turned them into nothing but myths.

If one does some research on the subject, they will see the newspaper articles and old books still have the records of these giants being exhumed by men yet quickly hushed about by modern academia.

So to see a real skull actually on stage with the same features, although not the same height...is an excellent discovery!





posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

I tend to think of epigenetics as directly related to genetics. I have never believed that the section of DNA that they call our DNA was capable of forming us into who we personally are. It is just a small part of our genetics. Now if a person were to believe that the small strand of our DNA they call DNA is the only DNA we have, I will acknowledge their right to believe in it. I will not believe it though. Everything that is epigenetic is part of our DNA. Just because they defined it differently does not mean that their definition was right. Just think of Pluto...or how about the new multiverses where they redefined something because perception was erred. I wish they would straighten their thinking out about this already, admitting what they thought was real is far from real. Trouble is that will cause a complete changing of the way we think of things.

Lots of chemistry interacts with gene expression though, this causes susceptibility to disease. If they changed the definition, they would have to reassess a lot of chemicals out there used in our food and to wrap our foods. I can almost guarantee that the FDA and the Chemical producers will not allow this change. We are stuck with an increased susceptability to disease.

Now giantism is caused by a metabolic issue, which is triggered by gene expression which is triggered by eating certain food chemistry. With each change in each expression another issue arises, and a slipslide occurs to various manifestations of disease. It is still related to genetics and properties of our DNA. My familiar trigger is a condition caused by certain chemistry in the ground water and foods grown in that water. The problem can be treated by additions or exclusions in the diet. This diet is not what is said to be a recommended diet by the health sciences. A Traditional diet of the older people here keeps the demons away. That is Not something you are going to find in a textbook anywhere.

As for the tumor causing the giantism.....the tumor growth is adjuvated by excessive copper, as copper is necessary for blood vessel formation. Building more blood vessels creates more ability for a body to grow bigger also. The trigger for this could be a wilson's disease epigenetic trait correction.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: soficrow

....I will not believe it though. Everything that is epigenetic is part of our DNA.


Science has nothing to do with "beliefs" - it's evidence-based, not faith-based.

Epigenetics by definition is about gene expression not DNA - I call it a system of rapid response mechanisms that deal with environmental change.


Epigenetics

The study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself:

epigenetics has transformed the way we think about genomes


One cannot change one's DNA through diet. However, one sometimes can modify one's gene expression.

My issue is that you routinely bandy about a lot of misunderstandings, misinformation and disinformation, claiming it's based on your "research," which you never reference. I have no problem with you having your own faith-based beliefs - but I have a HUGE problem with your claims that your faith-based beliefs are founded on "scientific research." They're not. It's misrepresentation at it's most irresponsible.



new topics




 
7

log in

join