Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Time Traveler Spotted At Iron Mike Boxing Event


Sometimes, people see things in photos that look out of place. There are numerous photos around the Internet, that seem to have a person or an object from a different time period. Are they time travelers? Parabreakdown takes a look:


63 comments:

  1. I bet if Joetomi time-travelled back to Bluff Creek in `67 he`d find a large hairy dummy tossed into the bushes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He would claim the dummy was planted there as part of the vast scientific and governmental conspiracy to hide the vast evidence proving Bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, but the only conspiracy I keep reading around here is the culture hopping, gorilla suit wearing secret society that has tried getting people's money for the past few hundred years.

      Delete
    3. The only dummies i see here are the silly trolls who waste their time on here. i suppose their xbox game is broken and they need some excitement in their boring lives
      Rule Britannia !

      Joe

      Delete
  2. 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
    the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
    (published in 1894)
    (Cyrus Thomas' investigations of Etowah)
    Plat of the Etowah Group, Bartow County, Georgia. Grave A (found in the largest mound of the group) contained a seven-foot skeleton having a heavy frame... Cave burials occur in this district in the following counties: In Grayson, Hart, Edmonson, Barren, Warren, and Fayette counties; Kentucky; Smith, White, Warren, Giles, Marion, and Fentress counties, Tennessee, and Bartow county, Georgia.

    12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
    the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
    (published in 1894)
    (explorations in the Tennessee District)
    Underneath the layer of shells the earth was very dark and appeared to be mixed with vegetable mold to the depth of 1 foot. At the bottom of this, resting on the original surface of the ground, was a very large skeleton lying horizontally at full length. Although very soft, the bones were sufficiently distinct to allow of careful measurement before attempting to remove them. The length from 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. At the head lay some small pieces of mica and a green substance, probably the oxide of copper, though no ornament or article of copper was discovered.

    12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
    the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
    (published in 1894)
    (explorations in Roane County, Tennessee)
    No. 5, the largest of the group was carefully examined. Two feet below the surface, near the apex, was a skeleton, doubtless an intrusive Indian burial... Near the original surface, 10 or 12 feet from the center, on the lower side, lying at full length on its back, was one of the largest skeletons discovered by the Bureau agents, the length as proved by actual measurement being between 7 and 8 feet. It was clearly traceable, but crumbled to pieces immediately after removal from the hard earth in which it was encased....

    12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
    the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
    (published in 1894)
    (mounds at Dunleith, Illinois)
    Mound Group, Dunleith, Illinois.
    "Near the original surface, 10 or 12 feet from the center, on the lower side, lying at full length on its back, was one of the largest skeletons discovered by the Bureau agents, the length as proved by actual measurement being between 7 and 8 feet."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
      the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
      (published in 1894)
      (Pike County, Illinois)
      No. 11 is now 35 by 40 feet at the base and 4 feet high. In the center, 3 feet below the surface, was a vault 8 feet long and 3 feet wide. In the bottom of this, among the decayed fragments of bark wrappings, lay a skeleton fully seven feet long, extended at full length on the back, head west. Lying in a circle above the hips were fifty-two perforated shell disks about an inch in diameter and one-eighth of an inch thick.

      12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
      the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
      (published in 1894)
      (Kanawha County, West Virginia)
      Spring Hill Inclosure, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
      In the bottom of Mound 11 (upper left) was found a skeleton "fully seven feet long." Largest in the collective series of mounds, the Great Smith Mound yielded at least two large skeletons, but at different levels of its deconstruction by Thomas' agents. It was 35 feet in height and 175 feet in diameter, and was constructed in at least two stages, according to the report. The larger of the two skeletons represented a man conceivably approaching eight feet in height when living. Nineteen feet from the top the bottom of this debris was reached, where, in the remains of a bark coffin, a skeleton measuring 7½ feet in length and 19 inches across the shoulders, was discovered. It lay on the bottom of the vault stretched horizontally on the back, head east, arms by the sides... Each wrist was encircled by six heavy copper bracelets...Upon the breast was a copper gorget...length, 3½ inches; greatest width 3¾ inches...

      12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to
      the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
      (published in 1894)
      (Union County, Mississippi)
      A large Indian mound near the town of Gastersville,
      [Gastonville?-Ed.] Pa., has recently been opened and examined by a committee of scientists sent out from
      the Smithsonian Institute. At some depth from the surface a kind of vault was found in which was discovered the skeleton of a giant measuring seven feet two inches. His hair was coarse and jet black, and hung to the waist, the brow being ornamented with a copper crown. The skeleton was remarkably well preserved...On the stones which covered the vault were carved inscriptions, and these when deciphered, will doubtless lift the veil that now shrouds the history of the race of people that at one time inhabited this part of the American continent. The relics have been carefully packed and forwarded to the Smithsonian Institute, and they are said to be the most interesting collection ever found in the United States.

      Delete
    2. So sorry, but those reports don’t cut it. First of all, the reason that reports of giants generally ended around 1920 is that professional archaeology started around then as a discipline. Before then, the “excavators,” more appropriately called looters, who dug up mounds and reported to the Bureau lacked academic training and were totally untrustworthy either to measure skeletons (which is no easy task) or to infer living height from those skeletons. Nor could they be trusted to report accurately or even truthfully, since they often were making money from the sale or display of what they unearthed. Powell was constantly riding herd on what he knew was malarkey.

      That was added to the technical problem that many “skeletons” in the mounds were not from single individuals, as the Indians most often had complex reburial and group burial practices. That is, it was typical practice to bury or otherwise store the bones of the deceased for months or years before they were retrieved and then reburied in a mound or mass grave. Interpreting the result is not easy even for modern archaeologists and often requires genetic testing for correct analysis.

      That said, there is no reason that individuals between 6 feet and 7 feet should not have been frequent.since many thousands of skeletons were unearthed, tragically, and since the average height for adult males as estimated by modern archaeologists was about 5’9″. Additionally, studies of height among various Indian tribes as judged by U.S. military records of inductees have shown that Algonquians (which would include descendants of the Ohio mound-builders) were the tallest on average, though that average (5’9″ or 5’10”) is far from gigantic. Jim Thorpe, a Sac-Fox Indian who lived for awhile in Portsmouth, himself became a professional basketball player, and he recruited others to form a winning professional team. Law of averages applies.
      Perhaps the best indication that the “giant” reports were only tall tales are the silly attempts to suggest a “racial” difference between the “Adena” and “Hopewell” mound-builders, two completely artificial and meaningless terms (as they have been used) which substituted for the equally fictional “Alligewi” and “Lenape” mound-builders of 19th century lore. (The Lenape are a real people but they were not in the Ohio Valley prehistorically.) The hokum of the Hopewellian nonsense lay in the sometime claim that the Adena were tall while the Hopewell were short, or sometimes it was the other way around. In reality, the archaeological and genetic data shows that there was no “racial” distinction, and no significant difference in average height between different mound-builder times and places.

      That’s the fundamental reality — no racial distinction. Hence no separate “race of giants,” no supernatural assistants, no angels, no Nephilim, no Raphaim, no ETs, no Bigfoot monsters. A single civilization of Algonquian Indians built the major earthwork complexes of the Ohio Valley in the early-middle Woodland period. To propagandize otherwise is to disrespect their wondrous heritage. The giant reports that followed upon the Cardiff Hoax were inextricably tied to, indeed caused by, that flimflam.
      http://portcitiesreview.com/lincolns-mystery-mound-tour-by-geoffrey-sea/#sthash.tcasMFmW.dpuf

      Delete
    3. "So sorry, but those reports don’t cut it. First of all, the reason that reports of giants generally ended around 1920 is that professional archaeology started around then as a discipline. Before then, the “excavators,” more appropriately called looters, who dug up mounds and reported to the Bureau lacked academic training and were totally untrustworthy either to measure skeletons (which is no easy task) or to infer living height from those skeletons."
      ... I'm sorry, but the copy and paste does not even begin to address the fact that thw Smithsonian are not easily labelled "looters". These are academics in one of the most important periods of American archeology;

      "Archaeology later concerned itself with the antiquarianism movement. Antiquarians studied history with particular attention to ancient artifacts and manuscripts, as well as historical sites. Their focus was to collect artifacts and display them in cabinets of curios and were usually wealthy people. Antiquarianism also focused on the empirical evidence that existed for the understanding of the past, encapsulated in the motto of the 18th-century antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, "We speak from facts not theory". Tentative steps towards the systematization of archaeology as a science took place during the Enlightenment era in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]"
      ... What's more, is there are sources indicating large skeletal remains were found after this alleged "beginning of professional archeology". The photograph below is of a very large skeleton that was exhumed from Puckett's cave in 1933;
      http://greaterancestors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/QUOTETHEFINDER3.png

      So for a source to claim that the anthropological elite of the time was untrustworthy, kind of bears a burden to demonstrate how, if everything else documented in the age of antiquarianism is held in such high regard to this day?

      "That was added to the technical problem that many “skeletons” in the mounds were not from single individuals, as the Indians most often had complex reburial and group burial practices."
      ... Um, no. If you carefully take two minutes to actually read the comments up top, you'll notice time and time again, these skeletons were seen to be laid down individually. This has been noted by even be most sceptical of sources, in that a school of thought claims that these large remains were purposefully buried apart from other smaller individuals so as to celebrate a deviation from the norm, a warrior king if you like.

      Delete
    4. "We know from Webb, Snow & Dragoo in their excavations at Adena mounds in 1950 to 1959 that in at least two mounds, taller than average persons were buried, even identified as shamans– men 6 feet tall, and some times a 7 foot man buried in the center of the mound, perhaps the central figure behind the mound’s very construction. (See Dragoo’s photo of the Cresap mound burial 54, and Webb & Snow’s notes on Dover mound burial 40). The most interesting prestige burial from The Dover Mound: A bark tomb in the center bottom of the mound (burials 40 to 43) held 4 skeletons; 3 of them 25-30 year old men, and 1 skeleton of a 13 yr old girl. A 7 foot man (#40) an approx. 6 ft man (his femur was 19.25 inches, #41) a large cranially deformed man with wide cheeks and a hooked nose # 42, and the skeleton of a 13 to 15 yr old girl 5’3″ inches tall buried with some beads."
      https://rephaim23.wordpress.com/

      ... Notice the dates, notice the mention of Adena Mounds.

      Delete
    5. Do you not know what the word "generally" means? It means not in every case, but with a definite pattern. And can you provide even one biographical detail of any of the excavators (looters) involved in the reports you cite? Their educational background, whether they were employees of the Smithsonian, or criminal backgrounds. Mr. Sea has spent a lifetime studying the historical legacy of the Smithsonian and I'm more willing to take his word than a semi-literate buffoon who mindlessly accepts wherever crazy conspiracy theories suit his pet Bigfoot obsession.

      Delete
    6. Sure!! I can find their details if I can be bothered to go through the Bureaus! Until now I'll leave you with the excavations in the 50's of the Adena mounds, that you no doubt missed whilst frantically typing out your response, that makes you look like an idiot.

      : )

      Delete
    7. You'll have to do a little bit more than merely claiming the Smithsonian are looters! Ha ha!! Ad hominem doesn't quite cut it, old boy.

      Delete
    8. "That bureau, which changed its name to the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1897, was directly connected to the Smithsonian Institution, which had been established in 1846 through the will of the British chemist James Smithson."

      "The Bureau of American Ethnology (or BAE, originally, Bureau of Ethnology) was established in 1879 by an act of Congress for the purpose of transferring archives, records and materials relating to the Indians of North America from the Interior Department to the Smithsonian Institution. But from the start, the bureau's visionary founding director, John Wesley Powell, promoted a broader mission: "to organize anthropologic research in America."

      Delete
    9. You're too stupid to realize that they were not Smithsonian employees, but were independent looters who reported their findings to the bureau and were trying to make a buck off the giant craze. They were untrained and completely unscientific and had a track record of lying and manufacturing evidence. Actually, they remind me a lot of you! Ha ha ha!

      Delete
    10. Ok... If these were "Independant looters", prove it! That's all I seem to see is a lot of nonsense from you and a mid-20th century excavation that lends to the credence of the Smithsonian finds in the late 18th century.

      I think with that, you're just about toasted nicely, eh? Cue to insults and grammatical attacks, tee hee!

      Delete
    11. Ikjomi puts the burden on someone else to prove it. That's rich!

      Delete
    12. 5:47... If you are critical of the evidence, you bear a burden.

      Delete
    13. He's toast thanks to iktomi

      Delete
    14. Did you not read Geoffrey Sea's piece above:

      ". . . (T)he “excavators,” more appropriately called looters, who dug up mounds and reported to the Bureau lacked academic training and were totally untrustworthy either to measure skeletons (which is no easy task) or to infer living height from those skeletons. Nor could they be trusted to report accurately or even truthfully, since they often were making money from the sale or display of what they unearthed. Powell was constantly riding herd on what he knew was malarkey."

      See more at: http://portcitiesreview.com/lincolns-mystery-mound-tour-by-geoffrey-sea/#sthash.9eumFVbA.dpuf

      Mr. Sea has a History and Science degree from Harvard, so his credentials are peerless.

      https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-sea-8765753a

      The burden has been shifted to you to prove that Sea is incorrect.

      Delete
    15. Fascinating article right here:

      http://wwwsmithsonianmag.com/history/exclusive-greatest-haul-native-american-artifacts-looted-180956959/?no-ist

      Delete
    16. 6:08... I do believe that there is no reference to Smithsonian Bureaus in that quote, and having actually researched the topic, I would be confident in stating that it's aimed towards the many instances of newspaper articles that have been known to be hoaxes. This is why he Cardiff Hoax was mentioned. Reports such as this were not found in reputable sources of the day. Please learn something about the topic, not to mention trying to better understand that sources your referencing.

      For someone with a science degree in Harvard, he misses key aspects of the archeological data that I've easily sourced and listed in my countering comments... And he is NOT an archeologist and therefore as qualified as me at commenting. What I've got that trumps that, is actual evidence. For example;
      https://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cresap-mound-skeleton.jpg

      ... An actual photo of a 7 foot Adena skeleton.

      Delete
    17. If you'd bothered to read the link (I know you're afraid to read anything that conflicts with your bizarre world view), you'd have noticed that Sea was reponding directly to someone who cited all the same bureau reports that are part of your regular copy and paste routine. See refers to Powell and even the giant enthusiast who was arguing in favor of the reports admitted that the excavators were "hucksters"! Just face it, those reports are dead in the water.

      Delete
    18. Um... No... This is where I can prove that Sea's research is inaccurate. Powell had never promoted the skeletal remains that were documented;
      "In the monuments of antiquity found throughout North America, in camp and village sites, graves, mounds, ruins, and scattered works of art, the origin and development of art in savage and barbaric life may be satisfactorily studied. Incidentally, too, hints of customs may be discovered, but outside of this, the discoveries made have often been illegitimately used, especially for the purpose of connecting the tribes of North America with peoples or so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world. A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts."
      - J W Powell
      http://www.scienceviews.com/lostcivilizations/powelldoctrine.html

      ... It's in black and white there that though documented, such remains would not be studied due to a tug of war over human antiquity at the time. I really don't think Sea knows what he's talking about, does he? Here is someone with a PhD on anthropology, someone who's actually qualified, who has dedicated much of his time debunking biblical giant claims;

      "You are correct, of course, that there are reports by professionals of very tall individuals excavated from various Early Woodland mounds (I would hesitate to call a 7' or 7.5' person a "giant" . . . those heights fall within the range of human variation and don't require any kind of "supernatural" explanation)."
      - Andy White PhD

      And again... Pretty rich that you accuse anyone else of not taking in what questions their stance. In this link, you have a 7 foot skeleton from the 1950's excavations. If you didn't realise, this obliterates you, Sea, and every other unqualified joke you can source;
      https://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cresap-mound-skeleton.jpg

      Are you done yet? I smell burning...

      Delete
    19. So by shifting away from the bureau reports to Adena, you're effectively admitting to all of Sea's points about the bureau looters and that their reports can be discarded.

      Two other points:

      1. The commentator on Sea's site who admitted that the excavators who reported to the Smithsonian were hucksters was none other than Rephaim 23!!!! The same person upon whom you're relying for Adena!!! Your own source agrees with me!

      2. For evidence of Giants, Rephaim relies heavily upon "double rows of teeth" which has been totally debunked by Dr. Andy White and you have admitted to the debunking yourself.

      More later!

      Delete
    20. Right... I know when I'm being trolled, so I'll set this straight and I'll be off. Your source mentions Adena peoples and their mound building, therefore sourcing you a photograph of a giant Adena skeleton does nothing but prove you and that source wrong.

      And no... If you actually read Rephaim's comments properly, he actually supports everything I've said to the last detail. I also very much adhere to White's work on double rows of teeth and think it spot on.

      (Sigh)

      ... Your burned to a crisp.

      Delete
    21. Ha ha ha -- you still haven't mastered the difference between "your" and "you're" and you do it as you're attempting to taunt me!!!!! Like a spastic crashing his bike when he's trying to do a wheelie!!! You're hilarious, I'll give you that!

      Delete
    22. lktomi lost that debate. Game, set, match!

      Delete
    23. Rephaim23 says:
      March 5, 2013 at 3:42 am
      "Thank you for the reply Geoffrey. I agree, I am attempting to salvage the giant hucksterism."

      See more at: http://portcitiesreview.com/lincolns-mystery-mound-tour-by-geoffrey-sea/#comment-79

      Rephaim agrees that the excavators were hucksters, but he thinks they should be trusted anyway. No debate that they were hucksters though!

      Delete
    24. "Thank you for the reply Geoffrey. I agree, I am attempting to salvage the giant hucksterism, only because those Hucksters who measured the skeletons were documenting their finds to the bureau of ethnology..."

      I think there is an air of sarcasm there after being addressed in a rude manner, just like most psuedosceptics who have their belief systems threatened... And he does nothing support every last thing I've said.

      I'm going down the pub. Get some cream on those burns!

      Delete
    25. When Iktomi says he's going to the pub it really means he just got humiliated publicly and he's going to cry himself to sleep.

      Delete
    26. No, what you have there is an uneducated dolt who was too lazy and/or stupid to accomplish anything with his life, so he took a shortcut when he became older and latched onto a fringe topic so that he could pretend to be someone important on the Internet.

      When he encounters truly educated people, he is intimidated and tries to overcompensate. What he doesn't realize is that people who paid their dues and did the hard work of going to school and earning multiple degrees can easily recognize when someone is of the lazy/stupid type. Those kind of people never learned how to write past a 4th grade level and often confuse "you're" and "your" and "effect" and "affect." Does this sound familiar to you?

      Delete
    27. You're right 7:42, it also means that he's had enough of getting his ass whooped.

      Delete
    28. https://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cresap-mound-skeleton.jpg

      Seven foot Adena skeleton... Don't get too angry now kids.

      Delete
    29. Good to know that you've given up trying to defend the Bureau of Ethnology reports and now accept that they came from looters and scam artists!

      Delete
    30. Sorry kid... But I am still to see any proof that Ethnology reports are from looters, and the actual photo evidence of a 7 foot skeleton does nothing but substantiate those reports.

      Try harder.

      Delete
    31. So a Harvard educated scholar isn't good enough for you? You're the one who is always braying about the supposed elite in academia supporting Bigfoot, but in this case you choose to ignore a brilliant thinker's definitive findings? This would be a good example of Bryan Sykes' declaration that Bigfoot enthusiasts lack the proper degree of self-criticism. Try to follow the example of your hero Sykes!

      Delete
    32. You simply can't get better substance to claims of 7 foot skeletons in mounds in the 1800's... Than the same find being documented and photographed by archeologists in the 1950's.

      It's basically a slam dunk... Now back to my Stella.

      Delete
    33. From Harvad educated Geoffrey Sea:

      "Webb, Snow, and Dragoo were operating in the age before genetic testing was available. They, in fact, were victims of the giant hoax. They were educated believing that there were two different, perhaps even warring, groups of mound-builders in the Ohio Valley, and that these groups were anatomically distinct, with one being more tall and stout. They therefore described some finds as falling into these preconceived categories. They even tended to identify human remains as being “Adena” or “Hopewell” on the basis of these physical types.

      "We now know better. Genetics and archaeology have showed that there were not demographic distinctions between types over the large expanse of the civilization in question. No warring tribes, indeed little or no evidence of warfare at all during the classical mound-building period. It is now understood that the population was diverse and mixed, with remarkably few signs even of social hierarchy. There were tall and short individuals as there are in any civilization that has a far reach, but there was no angelic giant race. That was only the invention of misguided Christian missionaries and con men. The so-called eight footers were mismeasured or misreported or both — you can’t take bad data and make it good by crunching numbers.

      "Webb and Snow actually realized their error as they prepared publication of The Adena People, and their summary of the new evidence is included in the foreword, written in 1945. It was on the basis of that new evidence that the Adena were demoted from a “people” to a “culture,” though unfortunately their insight came too late to change the title."

      - See http://portcitiesreview.com/lincolns-mystery-mound-tour-by-geoffrey-sea/#sthash.ys7tUxfh.dup.

      So much for the Adena giant!

      Delete
    34. Facts and Iktomi mix about as well as oil and water.

      Delete
    35. The really pitiful part of it is that Iktomi has lifted his arguments directly from crazy Nephilim websites and substituted "Bigfoot" and his own mangled English into copy and pastes from other sources (usually without giving proper attribution).

      Delete
    36. That is why he rarely gets away with it. He can barely construct a cogent sentence. When you read one of his plagiarized posts it is obvious that he did not write the content. When the writing switches from clear and concise to a child with a crayon, the transition is jarring to the reader and makes it immediately obvious that he is weaving his own choked English into someone else's words.

      Delete
    37. Joe just had his a$$ handed to him again...go sit quietly in the corner until the grown-ups are done talking.

      Delete
    38. Again... You simply can't get better substance to claims of 7 foot skeletons in mounds in the 1800's... Than the same find being documented and photographed by archeologists in the 1950's.

      It's basically a slam dunk.. Back to my Stella!!

      Delete
    39. Is Stella what you call your blow up doll?

      Delete
    40. 9:50... Someone could quite easily post a counter argument on a comment sections stating otherwise, it doesn't cut it when it comes to actuall archeological documentation. When you lifted that comment, the author needed to know that.

      As always... Photos of giant remains that were documented by three generations of scientists WITH PHOTOS, requires a massive effort. You don't live up to it.

      Delete
    41. And Don doesn't know to use capitals in his name.

      Delete
    42. https://rephaim23.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cresap-mound-skeleton.jpg

      Seven foot Adena skeleton... Don't get too angry now kids.

      Delete
    43. Where can one view this archaeological documentation?

      Try spelling archaeological correctly, Joe.

      Delete
    44. Hey, you're back again Joe. Stella get bored with you?

      Delete
    45. Try opening the ******* links I've given you, you pitifully dense soul.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Yeah. Joe's smokin em all right, if you know what I mean.

      Delete
    2. ^^ In love with Joes bigger "intellect"

      Delete
  4. We can assume time-traveling will not be invented anytime soon. If it was the future Phil would come back to our time and slap the cheeseburger out of the present-day Phil's hand and tell him to get a real life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. More bullshit that has nothing to do with Bigfoot. Fuck this blog!

    ReplyDelete
  6. ""Thank you for the reply Geoffrey. I agree, I am attempting to salvage the giant hucksterism."

    Yes, I was being sarcastic, for the most part. No, I don't think the giants are Bigfoot-necissarily. But yes, I think some did exist as honored chieftains. We have 7 foot people today, even occasionally 8 feet. If the measurements of insitu skeletons exceeding 7 feet, (the 17 references to such remains that do exist in Smithsonian bureau literature) were accurate to within say, 5 or 6 inches of living height, then it would seem there may have been a decent incidence of tall people in some of these Woodland Indian groups, particularly the elites of the Adena. This suggestion is one that has been promoted by some of the early scholars of Adena mounds, Dragoo, Webb and Snow etc. I am quite convinced we had some 7 footers, maybe even taller in the early Adena ranks, I'm not sure why Mr. Sea dissagree with 1950's anthropologists such as Dragoo at least on the 6 to 7 feet tall skeletons they unearthed, unless he has more inside info from their field manuscripts which should lead to doubt as to their work.

    People were on an average shorter 100 years ago, so imagine a thousand years ago. 5-1/2 feet was a decent run of manly stature in those early days, hence a 6-1/2 or 7 foot leader of a tribe was a real person of prestige, I theorize. An 8 footer would be an absolute monster.

    Applying the terms Rephaim and Nephilim, or Bigfoot to anomalous remains of tall former chieftains of an ancient Native American mound culture, are a bit pre-mature and potentially misguided, and I agree with Sea on this note.

    ReplyDelete