The Giants Of Ancient America: “8′ Tall With Double Rows Of Teeth”

Also just a thought let me know any thoughts on this, but ive always considered creatures with double rows of teeth to be "apex predators" think about it, sharks, Eels, crocodiles, etc. Not 100% on this but perhaps thats why they were driven to obliteration by the more civilized tribes of native americans, i mean something that big could kill any known animal on this continent, a bear perhaps would give him a run for his money, but not much else, say besides sasquatch, but as reclusive a creature as it is, maybe they had some sort of beef with eachother, squatches are peaceful and introverted were as something tells me these giants probly werent very nice to run into.

reply to post by Harte

I know, no one's ever mentioned people from other planets coming here before

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by Harte

 

Gave you a star for a well written reply

And, why wouldn't you. You two have been jerking each other off this entire thread.

(to be fair, I agree - it was a good response)

What, you want in on the action?

Originally posted by Logarock

Man you guys are hard headed apes! I dont have to back it up.....you can hear it from the source itself for yourself. Dont need me to back up anythng here.

So that's your evidence? "Somebody said it?"

Well, then, here - somebody (me) said it's a line of crap.

Back to square one.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


No somebody checked it out for themselves. Something you could do.

cool

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Harte

 

No somebody checked it out for themselves. Something you could do.

I have checked it out. You have my opinion, which is as valid as your sources.

Harte

Originally posted by Logarock

Man you guys are hard headed apes! I dont have to back it up.....you can hear it from the source itself for yourself. Dont need me to back up anythng here.

We'll take that as, 'sorry guys I made that claim up and you caught me..........'

Originally posted by Logarock


You should know youre subject matter a little better.

Which is why I asked you to quantify it. Do you have numbers to back up your claims?

That or your just running off at the mouth knowing that most that read here are interested but have not taken the time to study the development of archeology in this country. Most folks have little understanding that the golden age of archeology/defusion research took place many years ago in this country with a few high points here and there over the years.

I gave you a chance to provide evidence, you have failed to do so....

deleted

What is it ? : Gelatin is basically processed animal collagen. Though often associated with food, gelatin is very versatile, and is even used for...
"
In this true retelling of the San Diego Giant story, Phil catches Jim Vieira in a lie. Jim mentions the skin sample in his video, but doesn't give the results. Phil does and it's proof of a hoax.' SOURCE : BIGFOOT EVIDENCE (
Phil Breaks Down The San Diego Giant Photo )

well guess that one is done.

The
End

Originally posted by nighthawk1954

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
I have seen the one in Mass. No way ancient Indians or early settlers made these structures.
Once again science denies their true origins.

If you mean the stones "balanced" on three smaller stones, you're right.

Those are made naturally when glaciers melt.

I believe they had some glaciers in Mass. at some point in the past, right?

Harte [/quote
No I am talking about stone structures with 3 ton plus on top for roof's .
I have seen 3 ...very cool , no way people's of the time could do this in New England.

I dont think a 8 ft tall person of any time could lift 3 tonnes either.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


If it is part of why they do it then why does no Jewish website mention this as one of the reasons?

--------------------

BTW a giant just died in China. Look at the size of her. If you found her skeleton in 1000 years what would you think?

Gigantism has been around for a long time. Perhaps a group of people were genetically predisposed to the condition, I don't know. But finding a larger than normal skeleton is not sufficient proof of anything supernatural, fallen angels, watchers, or any of that crap.

www.cbc.ca...

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Yeah, that Ted Talk didn't give enough time to really lay out any concrete scientific theory about anything, much less anything contra-paradigm.

But if you enjoyed it, try looking at this one, where he has an hour to lay it all out.



It really is interesting. Even if you don't wanna believe it, it's fun to watch.

If you don't want to watch it, or don't have time, I understand...but let me respond then to a few things you said:

The connection between the 'mounds' or mound-builders and the 'giants' is because, at many of the largest sites that were akin to inhabited cities, when excavating the burial mounds, archaeologists found that the deeper (and thus older) layers of bodies would change from the normal natives we are all familiar with, to increasingly large and strange bodies of these 'giants', and the deepest layers would yield 8' - 12' long skeletons, humanoid in shape but not human (meaning not Homo Sapiens) by any means. Humans do not have multiple rows of teeth, like sharks. The jaws were decidedly different, as were the occipital structures. Some had 'protrusions of bone' on the upper foreheads. Many had twelve fingers and toes. Many were wearing large metal adornments, mostly copper. One was reported wearing a crown. Some were reported as wearing full copper plate armor, which must have been a terrifying sight when alive (over ten feet, in full plate? sweet jaysus).

So:

1) They were always found in positions of honor, with any attendant "normal Native American" bodies, if they were there, reflecting that. Often the normal natives were not found at all in the deeper levels.

2) They were humanoid, but not Homo Sapiens

3) It was not, apparently, "just a few bodies here and there" that were found. Many thousands of separate remains are on record as having been sent to the Smithsonian. Of the remains that were sent to other institutions, almost all of those institutions respond that they do show receipt of said remains in their records, but that the remains were later stolen or otherwise lost.

Really, you should watch the longer lecture

Giants make sense to me so I'm guessing the humanoid form happens naturally on earth-like planets. So maybe earth was a little behind in the universe from having so many mass extinctions. So a planet out there with humanoid people came to earth and saw primitive monkey man was the best we had for whatever reason mining gold or w/e they threw their dna into us to kind of give us a push up the evolutionary ladder. Some of their guys were like oh man those girls we made are pretty hot. They were different yet genetically similar enough to make babies kind of like a lion and tiger. So ligers have natually gigantism why not us too. the si te cah and the anakim probably both had similar traits. I read an article about the tribe of dannu of india and ireland and the indian texts describe them being pale with red hair. What do you think of when you picture the physical traits of an irish person. Them being giant probably got thinned out by now .

Deganawidah the huron who created the six nations federation of iroquis, the oldest functioning democracy on the planet, and the acknowledged inpiration for the US constitution (according to even folks like GWB ) had two rows of teeth and was rumored to be virgin birth..

was correct, the name “Dekenahwideh” means “double row of teeth.”

www.biographi.ca...

eta
here are some giant indians from the west coast:
www.bigfootencounters.com...
The Seeahtic tribe

Um, Excuse me everyone. Hello ? I just well. Can someone tell me why none of the high dollar videos in this thread work ? Except for the one on the last page................Please ? Before I have an aneurysm .

Originally posted by randyvs

Um, Excuse me everyone. Hello ? I just well. Can someone tell me why none of the high dollar videos in this thread work ? Except for the one on the last page................Please ? Before I have an aneurysm .

edit on 11-2-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

[Whispering into your ear very very quietly, because its a conspiracy]. Thats why...........

I believe this is the original video that was, "privatized" No "aneurysm's" please, they can get messy

reply to post by All Seeing Eye

[Whispering into your ear very very quietly, because its a conspiracy]. Thats why...........

Quit flirt'in !

And thank you very much.

This guy seems to have done his homework.

Originally posted by Logarock
Yea nuck.....the guy I had to show that american indian tribes were found to have copper ax at the time of early explorers.

Is my name being taken in vain? You may have mentioned copper axes to me, but it was no revelation. I see FN pre-contact copper all the time. Wanna clarify?

------------------------------------------------

Just as a general comment on this thread. So much is being made of 19th century American newspaper reports of these ''giants". If you look at commentary on the moundbuilders during the same era, you'll note that they are always attributed to some other people than the First Nations who lived on those lands. Both are reflections of the same themes, that the FN had no claims over the lands and could therefore be eliminated from them by European settlers. There was also that annoying conundrum created by a lack of mention of the FN in the Bible, so their history had to be re-jigged to accommodate that discrepancy. Not to forget the Mormons, who needed to create a human landscape that matched their newly-invented religion.

Additionally, you might note that Canada has not been blessed with all these apparent giant burials. Our settlement process was different, in that the FN were cheated out of their lands by something resembling a legal process...no giants needed.

My final assessment on the topic?
In the words of the Prophet: "Don't step in that Wilbur..."

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
So much is being made of 19th century American newspaper reports of these ''giants". If you look at commentary on the moundbuilders during the same era, you'll note that they are always attributed to some other people than the First Nations who lived on those lands. Both are reflections of the same themes, that the FN had no claims over the lands and could therefore be eliminated from them by European settlers.

I see.

Although the American Mound Builder myth had made its first appearance in the late eighteenth century, it was not fully endorsed by the American scientific community until 1848. In that year, the recently created Smithsonian Institute published E. G. Squire’s and E. H. Davis’ Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. This publication connected the Mound Builder race with ‘advanced’ pre-conquest civilizations in Peru and Mexico.

Wait, does that mean they thought that there might be a connection between large pre-columbian constructions in North America and large pre-columbian constructions farther south? Hah! How ridiculous.

By 1892, the Smithsonian Institute had revised its initial opinion. A subsequent systematic examination of ancient American mounds resulted in the 1890-1891 Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. This report finally established the builders of the Ohio and Mississippi mounds as the ancestors of America’s contemporary Native peoples.

Source: The Manitoba Historical Society

So let's look at that report then...

[...]some instances in which the bodies have been found encased in stone slabs, and afterwards embedded in clay or ashes[...]the flesh of the bodies was preserved and the hair was yellow and of fine texture[...]In two cases the bodies, placed in a sitting or squatting posture, were encased in baskets.

Well, no giants here. Just blondes in baskets! ಠ_ಠ

[...]on the original surface of the ground, was a very large skeleton lying horizontally at full length[...]the base of the skull to the bones of the toes was found to be 7 feet 3 inches. It is probable, therefore, that this individual when living was fully 7½ feet high.

An old Indian mound has been opened[...]four miles east of Jackson, Ohio, and two skeletons of extraordinary size and a great quantity of trinkets have been removed.

[...]a number of bones not together as skeletons, but mingled in confusion and probably from scaffolds or other localities. Excepting one, which was rather more than 7 feet long, these skeletons appeared to be of medium size and many of them much decayed...

Nineteen feet from the top[...]a skeleton measuring 7½ feet in length and 19 inches across the shoulders, was discovered[...]

the skeleton of a large, strongly built man lay extended at full length with the face up, the head toward the east...The skull was obtained almost entire. Under it were thirteen water-worn quartz pebbles. The femur measured 18½ inches...

At some depth from the surface a kind of vault was found in which was discovered the skeleton of a giant[...]hair was coarse and jet black[...]the brow being ornamented with a copper crown. On the stones which covered the vault were carved inscriptions[...]The relics have been carefully packed and forwarded to the Smithsonian Institute[...]

Source: Bureau of Ethnology to the Sec. of the Smithsonian Inst., Vol.12, 1890-1891
...in their own goddam report it says they found this stuff, and sent it to HQ. And there's plenty more interesting stuff in that report, which officially concludes that no physical differences were found, by the way.

Additionally, you might note that Canada has not been blessed with all these apparent giant burials.

Speculation: Glaciers.

Our settlement process was different, in that the FN were cheated out of their lands by something resembling a legal process...no giants needed.

Funny.

[...]the idea of a distinct Mound Builder race was advanced to explain the artificial mounds found in what was then Rupert’s Land. Donald Gunn was responsible for initiating this first step towards a Manitoba Mound Builder myth[...]Although Gunn referred to the creators of the burial mounds as a red skinned people, he did not believe that the mounds’ builders were related to the area’s current Native populations:
"[The] race who reared [the mounds] and whose remains they cover have passed away, or become absorbed in a race of red men; barbarous, possessing less energy and industry; for certainly the present race of red men are in every respect incapable of undergoing the labor necessary to accumulate such heaps of earth."

The Manitoba Historical Society again.