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

originally posted by: cachibatches
Just want to chime in and say that people with Gigantism often have double rows of teeth (Andre the Giant, for example).

Can you source the claim that hyperdontia is associated with gigantism?

originally posted by: cachibatches
Though I am not really a proponent of this sort of thing, the double rows of teeth really make it plausible. It it at all possible that people with this disorder were bred for their size?

Hyperdontia isn't hereditary. Plus, the idea that giants with double rows of teeth were found in mounds (or caves) is explainable:

Now we're starting to get into some more serious blunders. This next one was an error of omission. When I talked about strange skulls and other bizarre human skeletal remains, I made many mentions of 7-foot-tall skeletons and creatures with double rows of teeth having been discovered in the United States in the late 19th century. It was almost a fad: Just about every time a railroad crew cut into a hillside, they'd turn up some such oddity. The best I could do was to ascribe this to the PT Barnum mentality that was sweeping the nation at the time. It seemed everyone and his brother were trying to make a buck exhibiting some strange oddity, but every time a scientist or museum wanted to take a look, suddenly the specimen was lost or stolen or otherwise absent. In short, the best explanation I could find for 7-foot-tall skeletons and double-toothed skulls was a lot of tall tales.

But then I heard from archaeologists, and learned that many of these finds were real, just really hard to find pictures or documentation of, especially when you don't know what to search for. For about 700 years the eastern United States was dominated by various cultures from the Hopewell Tradition, and these included the mound builders and other societies. There were cultural practices that can account for all the strange skeletal remains I described. They liked to mutilate the bodies of their slain enemies. One method was the disarticulation of the limbs of a corpse, so that its bones could be hung up as a sort of wind chime. Once finally laid in the ground, the separated bones gave the appearance that this person must have been seven or more feet tall.

Jawbones often received similar treatment. Holes were bored into them to accommodate leather thongs, and to non-expert railroad crews, such jaws appeared to have sockets available for a second row of teeth. Like we often find on Skeptoid, the true explanation is almost always far more interesting than any you can come up with when you stop your investigation prematurely, as I did when I did my original episode. The PT Barnum explanation was pretty humdrum and dismissive. The real reason the bodies appeared to be 7 feet tall, and that the skulls appeared to have a second row of teeth, gives a much more engaging view into history.

source


Harte

originally posted by: mzinga
In Search of Giants is now one of the ever present made for TV Docudramas.. I caught the first episode last night, and have to say I'm slightly intrigued.

I'm a viewer and a believer! Storm the Smithsonian!

a reply to: CoriSCapnSkip

On the show the brothers discovered an old news report about the giant skeleton on microfilm at the local historical society. The news article said it was reassembled at a doctor's office and a photo was taken. The photo shows a 6ft man lying beside the skeleton to show the scale. A later news report said the skeleton was shipped off to the Smithsonian for study.

The Smithsonian better have a good answer for this cover up. They should have covered their tracts because the brother's found a large human incisor in the cave where the 8ft skeleton was found.

If they were 7 feet tall and had a double row of teeth, perhaps they were born in the backwoods and raised by a bear.

Examination should reveal the truth - if so, they will also have a double coat of hair, and it should be obvious if they had cast iron ... testicles.

a reply to: lostinspace

No kidding! Absolutely! There should be a petition for the Smithsonian to fully account for the whereabouts of these acquisitions and arrange for access to any specimens they may still have!

a reply to: CoriSCapnSkip

They took the tooth to the local coroner's office. He was amazed because of its size. The brothers went to New York to show their findings to the scientist they contacted at the beginning of the series. He said he would be interested in the subject if they had physical evidence of any remains. They showed him photos of the microfilm news articles. He even saw the photo of the skeleton. He wasn't that impressed. That changed when they presented the tooth. They all agreed that the next step was to send the tooth out for detailed analysis, including DNA testing of the root.

originally posted by: PurpleChiten
I wonder if this theory (about them being red-headed and the redheads coming from them) is the reason South Park started all the stuff about "Gingers have no soul" ???

From a family of many, many redheads, it was a bit disturbing

That is so not true! Gingers get a freckle for every soul they take!

There have been so many discoveries of unusual 'humanoid-like' beings around the globe! It does appear that mainstream science has a total lack of interest in doing any comprehensive testing on their remains.
We read about new discoveries for a week or two, then nothing else ever seems to come to light. Just seems odd to me.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
These aren't "bigfoot", they are plainly humans of very large proportion.
What they have to do with moundbuilding or megalithic stonework is a tenuous connection at best.
Nowhere does he provide proof or evidence that they coincided.
It's a great lecture though, don't get me wrong.
It just meanders from stoneworks to giants unearthed in the US many with double rows of teeth.
That should tell us something important as no modern humans have any such dental structure.

Sorry about this one but, I am one of those modern people that had this dental anomaly. My mother thought I just had bucked teeth when my teeth starting coming in askew. The dentist called me, way back then, a bi-numerary. My mom described it as me never losing my first set of teeth, and my second set growing in behind the first set. Anyway I had, for a bit of time, 2 sets of teeth. It required surgical removal of one set and according to the dentist, even back then, it wasn't that unheard of.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
Sorry about this one but, I am one of those modern people that had this dental anomaly. My mother thought I just had bucked teeth when my teeth starting coming in askew. The dentist called me, way back then, a bi-numerary. My mom described it as me never losing my first set of teeth, and my second set growing in behind the first set. Anyway I had, for a bit of time, 2 sets of teeth. It required surgical removal of one set and according to the dentist, even back then, it wasn't that unheard of.

If you search Google images there's at least one picture of a kid with this condition.

not only science but religion hide these finds as they as it is a slap in the face to them as we all came from adam and eve any knew historical finds any new discoveries god made it , yet 2,3 hundred years a go this would of been blasphemy people with these notions and ideas would have been stoned or burnt to death , cant imagine what they have in the great vaults under the Vatican
a reply to: nighthawk1954

a reply to: nighthawk1954

Well, I guess you people have gotten too close to the truth.
If you click to watch the vid in the OP, it now says "This Video is Private."

Whatup???

a reply to: new_here

I am getting the same video is private message. Might be this:



Found this:
Link" Tedx Explains why it was removed

a reply to: game over man

Hey thanks. I think that may just be the one.

originally posted by: normipoo
not only science but religion hide these finds as they as it is a slap in the face to them as we all came from adam and eve any knew historical finds any new discoveries god made it , yet 2,3 hundred years a go this would of been blasphemy people with these notions and ideas would have been stoned or burnt to death , cant imagine what they have in the great vaults under the Vatican
a reply to: nighthawk1954

Ah no religion would have welcomed with open arms as giants ARE mentioned in the bible - as noted below. Science would have welcomed them also.

The 'they are going to hide them' idea only rose up as way to explain why no evidence can be found to support the idea.

Oh my the 'old vault in the Vatican' lie. Think about it why would they keep something like that?

Question when Napoleon conquered Rome he took the entire Vatican library back to Paris and everything else he wanted - how come he didn't find any of the 'good stuff' the Vatican was hiding?

Sort By: Relevance Scriptures Old Testament (19) New Testament Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants Pearl of Great Price (2) Study Helps (8) Search Type Verses Headings Footnotes Related Topics TG - Giant IN - Giant BD - Goliath of Gath BD - Giants BD - Rephaim TG - Life, Lives GS - Goliath View all 11 Deuteronomy 2:20 20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; Numbers 13:33 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. 2 Samuel 21:22 22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants. Deuteronomy 2:11 11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. Job 16:14 14 He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant. Joshua 13:12 12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out. 1 Chronicles 20:8 8 These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants. Moses 7:15 15 And the giants of the land, also, stood afar off; and there went forth a curse upon all people that fought against God; Joshua 12:4 4 ¶And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

There are lots more

a reply to: Hanslune

Well Hans, obviously the erroneously short Napoleon was much jello of these giants and had a hissy fit and threw them in The Seine. It quite obvious really.

Forget the Giants - people need to take a serious look at some of the monolithic structures these guys have found in the North Eastern United States.

originally posted by: 131415
Forget the Giants - people need to take a serious look at some of the monolithic structures these guys have found in the North Eastern United States.

How about some examples? Could be they have received a serious look.

originally posted by: skalla
a reply to: Hanslune

Well Hans, obviously the erroneously short Napoleon was much jello of these giants and had a hissy fit and threw them in The Seine. It quite obvious really.

I think you might be right and all the other conquerors of the Papal states also didn't find anything either. odd eh/

originally posted by: normipoo
not only science but religion hide these finds as they as it is a slap in the face to them as we all came from adam and eve any knew historical finds any new discoveries god made it , yet 2,3 hundred years a go this would of been blasphemy people with these notions and ideas would have been stoned or burnt to death , cant imagine what they have in the great vaults under the Vatican
a reply to: nighthawk1954

IMO, you should spend a few seconds more thinking before you post. The above is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read here, and that's saying a lot. A WHOLE lot.

First: who exactly is it, do you think, that promotes the idea of Giants in our past? If you stop for a mere moment and consider, for example, the Book they so fervently believe in - and what it says about giants -you might come to the realization that the very people you cite as "hiding" these "finds" are the ones that are doing the "finding" and the promoting of the "finds."

Second: as for what you claim concerning the recent past. In the days of the Inquisition, you could die if you let someone know that there was a single thing in the Bible that you didn't believe. Considering that the Bible says there were giants, I'd say that belief in giants in those days was a survival skill, at least among skeptical people that had no political weight to throw around, and certainly not something that anyone anywhere on the Earth would be persecuted for.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Harte, for what it's worth, when I Googled the subject, every second site was by Fundamentalist Christians claiming ungodly scientists are suppressing the truth about giants to the point of destroying evidence because they don't want to admit the Bible is right.