posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by coredrill
It doesn't appear to me to be 'in' the ads section in any obvious way. Right below it is another news article as is everything to the left of it.
If you are familiar with newspapers from that era, you will note that filling of all spaces in whatever manner is necessary is the norm. We are so
accustomed to seeing well-defined sections, columns and segregation of news material by genre that we lose the fact that this was 1919 typesetting and
publishing technology at work here.
I don't think that anyone seeing these articles today is in a position to definitively claim that they are fabrications or exaggerations any more
than they are truthful coverage of a discovery in a back yard. This is simply an account that I found by pure chance while doing a genealogical
search for an obit. It is not an account of a 'giant' discovery that I had ever come across before and thought it of interest to ATS members and
worthy of discussion and follow-up.
My original intent of posting this find, of which I am making no
claims about giants one way or the other, is to find out more about this
particular incident and the follow-up to it. Even if this article is "yellow journalism", a great number of questions remain and continue to crop
1. Why/how did the physicians so grossly misidentify what this mummified body was upon initial inspection? It sounds like more than one physician was
involved in its examination.
2. Oren Nierman in Jackson, MI, as a person, was not a fabrication. The census proves this. Why was this corpse in the rear yard of a local
patrolman? Did he have a role in this?
3. How did an ex-con plant a corpse in a patrolman's rear yard without his knowledge?. Is this
version true, or is it a hasty cover-up story a
la Roswell because the find did not 'fit' with the science of the day and challenged conventional thought?
4. What was the ultimate fate of this corpse/mummy/giant/dummy after the exhumation and examination?