Giant native americans

[Loreoffolk]

http://www.sott.net/article/256712-A-giant-mystery-18-strange-giant-skeletons-found-in-Wisconsin-Sons-of-god-Men-of-renown

Here's one for your "Forbidden Archaeology" file.Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912. The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit Collegeand it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone's concept of a textbook standard. They were enormous. These were not average human beings.

[Piney]

"Archeologists?" back then had a bad habit of exaggerating to prove their various "theories" and disarticulated skeletons look taller. There is a thread about this over in the alternate ancient history section.

[Piney]

Ah! The "Great Smithsonian Cover Up" myth. The people who built these mounds in Wisconsin were the "Fort Ancient Culture" the ancestors of the Central Algonquians.

edit: the article cites a Nat Geo article that was actually talking about Mastodons.........

Edited November 21, 2013 by Piney

[keninsc]

I keep hearing about these ancient giant skeletons that are supposed to be hidden from the world in the bowels of the Smithsonian"s infamous basement which is likened to the warehouse scene from the end of "Raiders of the Lost Arc".

Personally, I'd like to see them just to be sure they are as advertised.

[Piney]

I keep hearing about these ancient giant skeletons that are supposed to be hidden from the world in the bowels of the Smithsonian"s infamous basement which is likened to the warehouse scene from the end of "Raiders of the Lost Arc".

Personally, I'd like to see them just to be sure they are as advertised.

You won't it's crap. "The road apples" of some flakes mind

[keninsc]

I figured as much, but you have to wonder why they allow such BS to be continued with their name attached to it. I'd think someone with the reputation of the The Smithsonian, wouldn't want to be associated with such nonsense.

[Piney]

I figured as much, but you have to wonder why they allow such BS to be continued with their name attached to it. I'd think someone with the reputation of the The Smithsonian, wouldn't want to be associated with such nonsense.

American Indian Anthropologists and archeologists who work with the Smithsonian have been debunking it for quite some time. But there are not many of us and many are too busy. I debunk it here constantly. But I grow weary of it and it's become really stale.

Other Smithsonian employees are weary of it too. When they are contacted they deny it but people still believe what they want.

[keninsc]

I do know there have been some rather large human skeletons found, but we're talking seven to seven and a half feet. That is within the normal range for someone with gigantism or someone who was just abnormally large. Some of these "reports" talk about people ten to twelve feet tall. If you were twelve feet tall and them you be two feet taller than a regulation basketball rim. You'd look down on Shaq and tell him, "Go away little man."

[Piney]

I do know there have been some rather large human skeletons found, but we're talking seven to seven and a half feet. That is within the normal range for someone with gigantism or someone who was just abnormally large. Some of these "reports" talk about people ten to twelve feet tall. If you were twelve feet tall and them you be two feet taller than a regulation basketball rim. You'd look down on Shaq and tell him, "Go away little man."

I do know there have been some rather large human skeletons found, but we're talking seven to seven and a half feet. That is within the normal range for someone with gigantism or someone who was just abnormally large. Some of these "reports" talk about people ten to twelve feet tall. If you were twelve feet tall and them you be two feet taller than a regulation basketball rim. You'd look down on Shaq and tell him, "Go away little man."

My Uncle Sonny is 6'6" and many people in The Durham family among the Nanticoke tribe are around that height. If his skeleton was disarticulated and laid out he would look about 8'. On top of that Europeans were a lot shorter in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries. So a skeleton that's about 5'11'' would appear 7' tall after being laid out and /or wired up.

I've seen soooo many American Indian remains in the past 20 years I've forgotten half the sites, museums and private collections I've looked at. But I'm certain an NDN that was 7' would stick in my mind.

We handled a private collection where the guy's family had been looting for 3 generations. He had some serious high quality Adena stuff. His family was targeting Webb Phase and Middlesex Phase sites because they were illegal dealers and that's were the money is. I imagine that half the skeletal remains came from the same loci. None were larger than normal.

[skookum]

So interesting, I just wish there was some more evidence ie photographs.

[Piney]

So interesting, I just wish there was some more evidence ie photographs.

You won't. Read the post above yours.

Even the story about Goliath being 12' tall was added during the Maccabean Period. In the original story he was only 6' tall. Whoever wrote this needs to do some deeper research.

[Stardrive]

I've read a couple of old news articles about this. The size of the skeletons could have easily been sensationalized, as mentioned, but what I find interesting is the descriptions of the skulls. I've seen mounds while out in the woods before, but I'm not motivated to dig them up to see what's in them because they're probably old Cherokee burial sites. And that's a line I won't cross under any circumstance.

[keninsc]

I've read a couple of old news articles about this. The size of the skeletons could have easily been sensationalized, as mentioned, but what I find interesting is the descriptions of the skulls. I've seen mounds while out in the woods before, but I'm not motivated to dig them up to see what's in them because they're probably old Cherokee burial sites. And that's a line I won't cross under any circumstance.

If memory holds the Cherokee didn't use mounds for burial......there were mound building cultures but I don't think the Cherokee were part of that. Still, regardless, Native Americans get very upset when you disturb someone's grave. Can't say as I blame them, I'd get p***ed too if someone started digging up great grand daddy just to see how tall he was.

By the way Piney, you should check up on your facts, skeletal remains can be almost exactly determine actual height within an inch. The only reason that variation exists is due to space between joints and vertebra.

[Stardrive]

I had to do some research to find out for sure ken, I found this: Cherokee Indian Cremation in Burial Mounds

[Midyin]

This is one of those myths that I would like to be real, but know isn't...

[Piney]

If memory holds the Cherokee didn't use mounds for burial......there were mound building cultures but I don't think the Cherokee were part of that. Still, regardless, Native Americans get very upset when you disturb someone's grave. Can't say as I blame them, I'd get p***ed too if someone started digging up great grand daddy just to see how tall he was.

By the way Piney, you should check up on your facts, skeletal remains can be almost exactly determine actual height within an inch. The only reason that variation exists is due to space between joints and vertebra.

They can, but back then people just laid them out and wired them up. Anatomy wasn't so advanced and those "archaeologists" wanted to sensationalize their findings

The Cherokees didn't use mounds. They came down from the North during the Middle to Late Woodland Period. The Mounds were built by Muskogean and "Algic Isolate" speaking people. who moved farther inland as diseases, and warfare began to take hold of the Southeast.

[markprice]

There is a chapter on this in the Suppressed History of America which mentions a skull from one of the giants anyone can see in the back room of a museum. The largest Mississippi mound is 60,000 tons of dirt and that book leaves off after they tried drilling and encountered something they could not drill through then just quit? I have heard of that drilling problem when whoever failed to drill through something that landed...and then they just don't elaborate on what they found. No wonder people speculate.

[Piney]

There is a chapter on this in the Suppressed History of America which mentions a skull from one of the giants anyone can see in the back room of a museum. The largest Mississippi mound is 60,000 tons of dirt and that book leaves off after they tried drilling and encountered something they could not drill through then just quit? I have heard of that drilling problem when whoever failed to drill through something that landed...and then they just don't elaborate on what they found. No wonder people speculate.

Drilling a mound is really bad archaeology. It's only good for geology and a big rock will stop a core bit, which is what probably happened. Generally they are dug out in small increments. Lots of trowel work. Mounds that were meant as platforms for building have rocks in them and along with ashes, FCR, shells and maybe some animal bones. Mostly they are made of clay with layers of clay and sand. Common knowledge so drilling is senseless. If your talking about Cahokia, that sucker was clay/sand/clay/sand. Nothing else.

I don't know why anybody would want to suppress American prehistory. If you find something really amazing, you get published and retire.

[markprice]

I don't know why anybody would want to suppress American prehistory. If you find something really amazing, you get published and retire.

Because there where white folk already here, so they had to suppress that to be the first. There is a story about encountering giant native women on the beach that is really strange. Basically the Smithsonian had an agenda and history to tell while the led mines were a big deal because some were preparing for war...I forget the details but it is an amazing book in general.

Edited November 23, 2013 by markprice

[Piney]

Because there where white folk already here, so they had to suppress that to be the first.

errrrr.....No, they weren't. Genetic studies have even disproved the "Solutrean Theory" now. We all came from Siberia, by boat or bridge. That was made up to support the racist agenda of a hate groups. One in particular called "One Nation United" really promotes that nonsense.

There were no "giant women" just short Europeans who exaggerated and the only agenda of Smithsonian back then is "who could make the biggest splash" and get the highest paid lecture gigs.

Lead mines out west are no secret. Just don't drink the local water.

What else????

O.K. What are the names of the actual archaeologist who worked on this bomb?????

[markprice]

errrrr.....No, they weren't. Genetic studies have even disproved the "Solutrean Theory" now. We all came from Siberia, by boat or bridge. That was made up to support the racist agenda of a hate groups. One in particular called "One Nation United" really promotes that nonsense.

There were no "giant women" just short Europeans who exaggerated and the only agenda of Smithsonian back then is "who could make the biggest splash" and get the highest paid lecture gigs.

Lead mines out west are no secret. Just don't drink the local water.

What else????

O.K. What are the names of the actual archaeologist who worked on this bomb?????

Not according to that book. That's why they wrote it. The lead was about bullets for war and I had no idea what a big deal that was before I read about it. Like oil later on became a big deal...

[Piney]

Not according to that book. That's why they wrote it. The lead was about bullets for war and I had no idea what a big deal that was before I read about it. Like oil later on became a big deal...

Paul Schrag has no history or archaeological background. From what it looks like from his profile he's just a journalist (which isn't saying much) whose into a lot of Newage horse crap. Xaviant Haze has no educational background. He's just into more Newage horse crap and his website XAVIANTVISION looks like a lot of crap.

I have a educational background in archaeology, anthropology ,history and library science. My actual job title is "Cultural and Education Consultant" for the Nanticoke-Lenape Tribes My job is to consult schools on education programs, identify artifacts and determine their use, construction and cultural and/or spiritual significance. Reproduce artifacts and their methods of construction. Attend archaeological sites to make sure cultural remains are handled properly and make connections between prehistoric and historic groups, identifying fraudulent Indian Groups, practices and artifacts.

I worked (freelance- or sent by tribe) for the Maryland Department of Social Studies Education, the Friends (Quaker) School System, The Smithsonian's Museum of New York, the Cumberland County Prehistory Museum and the Wheaton Arts Down Jersey Folklife Center. I've lectured for many schools, archaeology groups and historical societies on top of teaching to tribal members.

So tell me what these 2 guys are suppose to know that nobody with a actual archaeology or history background doesn't????

Read something written by somebody with a real background who has a real education and has done some real research

[keninsc]

I had to do some research to find out for sure ken, I found this: Cherokee Indian Cremation in Burial Mounds

OK, I wasn't aware of that. I have to agree that is a line I don't want to cross either.

[Piney]

OK, I wasn't aware of that. I have to agree that is a line I don't want to cross either.

Those cremations were later proven to be Southeastern Algonquian by comparing pottery style. The Cherokee were intrusive to that state after disease and slave traders had wiped out the indigenous Chowan population. In the 19th century "comparison analysis" was unknown to archaeologists who were just working from local folklore.

[gantonio45]

I believe that giant humanoid beings could certainly have existed. I have recently started reading and really researching the Nephilim.

This is derived from the Bible, which talks about the sons of God having been cast out of Heaven (the fallen angels) who then took it upon themselves to mate with the female humans. This created a race of have human and half divine giants.

I won't say much more because my research into the topic is really just beginning, but some facts are out there; feel free to investigate and find what you believe.