Post subject: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
The more I look at old photo the more I am convinced that the remains we
have so long sought have been found numerous times over. There are dozens
of old newspapers and even scientific journals showing skulls with features
that are A) consistent with each other, B) infer anatomy that matches the
shutterbug subject's, and C) seem to have features that are outside of human
range. All of these finds were found and labeled as paleo-indians (falsely due to
the scientific establishments racism at the time) because the features were
primitive. The answer to the riddle is likely sitting in the archives of an old
museum, forgotten about and awaiting rediscovery.
- 1933, Canonsburg PA.
note the lack of a forehead
- pittb5.jpg (7.5 KiB) Viewed 10355 times
- 1878, Waldo FL
- Florida_archaic_mound_builder.jpg (4.06 KiB) Viewed 10355 times
- 1935, Crystal Springs FL
One skull is of a modern Amerindian, the other.....
- 1880 Serpent mound, OH
The skull cap is at an angle, so it give the illusion of having a big rounded brain case,
but you can tell by looking at the angle of the zygomatic bone that the skull is at an
angle and likely very flat when viewed level. Also it was from a skeleton over 8 ft in
height
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Something to ponder. Do they have burial grounds per say or could they just bury where they can? All questions that are needing to be looked at. Is there by chance drawing of these Mounds that they were digging? Or were they just random small mounds found in a location? At this point that may be some good information to have if they are different than the natives made. Is there some particular details we can keep an eye open for when in the woods?
Author: TC85 [ Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:32 pm ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Do they mention length of bones etc.
Author: Biggjimm [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Reb, I suspect it may be a case of natives finding the remains and building the mounds close to or on top of them. Keep in mind these
creatures frequently pop up in petroglyphs. Some of the remains are considerably older than the mounds, like the Nebraska Leoss crania.
That particular crania is close to 1 million years in age, dug out of a Pleistocene leoss deposit, with the mound built on top and much more
recent.
TC85, size is not a good indicator to use, as it changes absurdly fast in the fossil record. Most people are unaware that during the ice age,
white tailed deer weighed in at around 500 lbs, and cougars where bobcat sized. but the Ohio skull was stated at being over 20 inches tall
when fully constructed.
Author: Rebelistic [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:04 am ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Biggjimm wrote:
Reb, I suspect it may be a case of natives finding the remains and building the mounds close to or on top of them. Keep in mind these
creatures frequently pop up in petroglyphs. Some of the remains are considerably older than the mounds, like the Nebraska Leoss crania.
That particular crania is close to 1 million years in age, dug out of a Pleistocene leoss deposit, with the mound built on top and much more
recent.
TC85, size is not a good indicator to use, as it changes absurdly fast in the fossil record. Most people are unaware that during the ice age,
white tailed deer weighed in at around 500 lbs, and cougars where bobcat sized. but the Ohio skull was stated at being over 20 inches tall
when fully constructed.
With older and newer stuff together I guess it would show that there was plenty of the necessary stuff there like food water etc. and is a stable place to live.
Updates every