The relic from Bir Hooker: View from the left side with banknote: Detail one.The giant finger looks very similar to a human finger.The relic from bir hooker: front view with figernail. Detail one.The relic from bir hooker: View from behind with chopped off bone: Detail two.The relic from bir hooker: View from behind with chopped off bone: Detail one.Examples of macrodactyl diseases.X-ray of the relic from Bir Hooker.

Investigating the relic

After my return to Switzerland, I showed the photos to my former biology teacher. But the scientist was as perplexed as I was.
Being very preoccupied with my business at the time, I forgot about the matter for a few years. In 1999, water from a burst pipe destroyed part of my collection of photos and slides. That’s when I began to digitize all the pictures that were still usable. In the process, I also came across the photos from Egypt again, and my interest was rekindled. But when I revisited Bir Hooker, I found out that the area once dominated by palm groves and orchards had been extensively overbuilt. Many houses, including Nagib’s, had disappeared.


Analyzing the images

Image 1: The shot from above, including the bank bill, makes it possible to determine the exact size of the finger. Stretched out, it measures 38.4 centimeters (15⅛ inches). The middle finger of an adult human is about eight to ten centimeters (three to four inches) long. The giant to whom this finger once belonged must have been, like all earthly colossuses (dinosaurs, elephants, whales, etc.), of very strong, compact stature. The thick-walled bone of the proximal phalanx, which protrudes from the tissue, confirms this assumption. The giant would have been about five to six meters (15 to 20 feet) tall. It’s a fanciful notion, but one that coincides with numerous historical records.
For more information, see Reports of Giants.


Image 2: The relic has the same anatomical proportions as a human finger.


Image 3: The relic has the same anatomical structure as a human finger (nails, phalanxes, joints).


Image 4: The right side of the finger is flattened. At the cut, the tissue has shifted sideways and upward. The relatively strong squashing suggests that the finger was resting on the right side during the dehydration / mummification. If it was severed from the hand while the corpse was still fresh, it could be any finger of either hand. If it was cut from an already mummified body, it can only be the index finger of the right hand. Furthermore, the loss of fluid caused several dents / sags in the thick, hairless skin.


Image 5: The finger was separated from the hand below the base joint with a massive blade (machete or similar). First, a circular cut was made. Then the flesh was scraped off the bone with the blade. Finally, the bone was chopped into two parts. The finger has various injuries and damages: broken fingernail, skin abrasions, mildew, gnawing and chewing marks, etc.


Image 6: Examples of macrodactyly, a condition considered by Professor Rühli and Dr. Benecke in diagnosing the images. However, there are important reasons to doubt its presence here:
(1) Macrodactyly is primarily pathological overgrowth of soft tissue. It has little or no effect on bone growth. And to the extent that it does, it concerns mainly the length of the bones (see X-rays). In the case of the relic, however, the bone is enlarged in anatomically correct proportions and corresponding with the surrounding tissue mass (see image 2). A bone this size would never fit a human hand.
(2) Body parts affected by macrodactyly are not only abnormally enlarged but also deformed. In the relic, all proportions appear completely natural and look amazingly similar to a human finger (see image 4).


Image 7: Although only a relatively poor print of this shot exists, the massive bone structure can be clearly seen on the X-ray (scale 1:1)

Gregor Spörri & Dr. Carl Bader

July 1988: Dr. Carl Bader, a scientist and former biology teacher of mine, throws up his hands when he looks at the photos. “This thing really does look like a huge human finger,” he says, but also objects, “From the point of view of evolutionary biology, no such creature ever existed.” Nevertheless, Dr. Bader lets me write letters, which he forwards, along with the photos, to several fellow scientists. However, we receive no responses or follow-ups. Obviously, the paleontological oddity — also known as an out-of-place artifact — doesn’t fit the established system of species formation and is therefore ignored.

September 1995: During another meeting, Dr. Bader explains to me that scientists tend to have a hard time with all things nonconformist, because they need to consider their reputation, their career, scientific consensus, funding, etc., in everything they do and say.

Professor Dr. Dr. med. Frank J. Rühli

April 2012: The Swiss mummy expert Professor Frank J. Rühli of the University of Zürich has previously examined the glacier mummy Ötzi and the remains of Tutankhamun. Rühli comments on the relic of Bir Hooker as follows: An exciting case. A definitive and well-founded evaluation based on the photos is unfortunately not possible. The fingernail, its embedding in the tissue, the surface texture, and the visible skin-tissue injuries look very natural. The “finger” does appear to be significantly enlarged. The differential diagnosis would have to consider primarily an extreme form of macrodactyly (Proteus syndrome or similar). The bone stump seems a bit peculiar to me. It reminds me more of an animal bone, as it looks too thick-walled for a human finger. Since no cross-sectional image of the bone exists, my statement is purely speculative. If the object is a fake, which can not be ruled out, it is very well done. I recommend that you consult a veterinarian to clarify the issue with the bone.

Dr. Mark Benecke

July 2012: The well-known German criminal biologist and specialist in forensic entomology Dr. Mark Benecke comments on the photos of the relic as follows: Unfortunately, it is not possible to make any statement about the exact nature of the object on the basis of the photos. Stories of desiccated creatures, which can also be shown and may well consist of bones and skin, are often found in or placed into this area. I believe that an investigation as to whether the tissue is human, animal, or other, is definitely possible as soon as tissue or material samples are available. On the basis of the photos, nothing can be said about it in view of known forgeries, but also of possible tissue changes (macrodactyly etc.). However, tissue analysis with fine sections and DNA should be feasible or at least allow the inclusion or exclusion of certain assumptions. Without tissue or material samples, I am unable to say anything more about this case.

error: © Gregor Spörri. All rights reserved