I have done several online searches, but my previous comment stands. they are anecdotal, no scientific credentials held by the reporter, and no physical proof. I know that sounds snobbish but it is what you need in a world of today run by influencers, or people who say they are experts and you find out the furthest they have travelled is their computer chair, and they heard it from cousin billy bob, who heard it from a person who said they saw it with their own eyes.
Are these people the origin of the well known tall white American men still ruling the world? The Paracas have a digfferent dna from humans, what about the Adenoes? And from the ruling cabal?
I wish we knew! Unfortunately, as we’ve seen time and again, anything controversial in archaeology is often suppressed due to the conflicts it could create, not to mention the challenge it poses to the established archaeological "logics" (yes, they do exist... everywhere).
No, it’s not too much to ask. I don’t believe there’s one specifically for this topic, but you can find plenty of similar findings with a quick online search.
I am an American archaeologist who specializes in moundbuilder cultures and I can guarantee you have no idea what you are talking about--or what nonsense you are spreading as truth.
There are dozens if not more articles from old newspapers dating back to the 1850's to the 1940's on the discovery of giant skeletons in mounds. Research is very easy. These articles, from far flung states all share common insights about giant skeletons found in ancient mounds. These papers had no communication with each other. Mail was the only way to communicate. Still, so many similar findings. The skeletons being tall and robust. Many had very unusual dental features. Many times the articles referred to Doctors or highly placed citizens confirming the skeletons existence & large size. Many times the Smithsonian was contacted only to come in, swoop up the skeleton and dissappear. So, to make a statement that this article was nonsense is not fair. I'm not stating that everything in this article is correct, it could be the opposite. That giant skeletons have been found in times past is not nonsense. The fact that archeologists hammered the "Clovis First" theory as fact for decades only to see that it was ultimately proved incorrect shows that all the answers are not always forthcoming.
uh he is a archaeologist who specializes in mound builder cultures. I am in archaeologic forensics, all we want is scientific proof before you jump in the deep end, this article gives nothing but anecdotal history like my uncle used to tell about his fish. what credentials do the authors give you?
The article isn’t a scientific paper meant to provide proof. Unfortunately, once access to the original material is lost, it becomes difficult to conduct any scientific research or make definitive claims!
In many cases, the people who supposedly found these skeletons report shipping them to the Smithsonian. The article also indicates two Smithsonian workers found one as well. I'd be interested to know what documentation the Smithsonian had on this, and if they have the remains from these multiple sources.
Obviously these were Coneheads, as I remember these were members of an alien race, probably here illegally from another planet.
Many a red indian in North America is also of tall built, dna coupling with those giants?
I have done several online searches, but my previous comment stands. they are anecdotal, no scientific credentials held by the reporter, and no physical proof. I know that sounds snobbish but it is what you need in a world of today run by influencers, or people who say they are experts and you find out the furthest they have travelled is their computer chair, and they heard it from cousin billy bob, who heard it from a person who said they saw it with their own eyes.
Are these people the origin of the well known tall white American men still ruling the world? The Paracas have a digfferent dna from humans, what about the Adenoes? And from the ruling cabal?
I wish we knew! Unfortunately, as we’ve seen time and again, anything controversial in archaeology is often suppressed due to the conflicts it could create, not to mention the challenge it poses to the established archaeological "logics" (yes, they do exist... everywhere).
I read fairly widely and have an interest in this sort of thing, but these giant skeletons are entirely new to me.
Thank you for sharing your writings.
when i see at least a actual photo of a skeleton, and dna I will believe this article. is that too much to ask
No, it’s not too much to ask. I don’t believe there’s one specifically for this topic, but you can find plenty of similar findings with a quick online search.
I am an American archaeologist who specializes in moundbuilder cultures and I can guarantee you have no idea what you are talking about--or what nonsense you are spreading as truth.
There are dozens if not more articles from old newspapers dating back to the 1850's to the 1940's on the discovery of giant skeletons in mounds. Research is very easy. These articles, from far flung states all share common insights about giant skeletons found in ancient mounds. These papers had no communication with each other. Mail was the only way to communicate. Still, so many similar findings. The skeletons being tall and robust. Many had very unusual dental features. Many times the articles referred to Doctors or highly placed citizens confirming the skeletons existence & large size. Many times the Smithsonian was contacted only to come in, swoop up the skeleton and dissappear. So, to make a statement that this article was nonsense is not fair. I'm not stating that everything in this article is correct, it could be the opposite. That giant skeletons have been found in times past is not nonsense. The fact that archeologists hammered the "Clovis First" theory as fact for decades only to see that it was ultimately proved incorrect shows that all the answers are not always forthcoming.
That's good, your creds are what? I love to have both sides of the story. Adams county OH also has a mound, I lived there for a few years.
uh he is a archaeologist who specializes in mound builder cultures. I am in archaeologic forensics, all we want is scientific proof before you jump in the deep end, this article gives nothing but anecdotal history like my uncle used to tell about his fish. what credentials do the authors give you?
The article isn’t a scientific paper meant to provide proof. Unfortunately, once access to the original material is lost, it becomes difficult to conduct any scientific research or make definitive claims!
In many cases, the people who supposedly found these skeletons report shipping them to the Smithsonian. The article also indicates two Smithsonian workers found one as well. I'd be interested to know what documentation the Smithsonian had on this, and if they have the remains from these multiple sources.