Blog Archives

NEWS FLASH: Teddy Roosevelt was a Nephilim Giant with a Double Row of Teeth

1/13/2015

Teddy Roosevelt: Spoke softly, carried a double row of teeth.

As I mentioned in this post, I’m collecting information on the use of the phrases “double row of teeth” and "double rows of teeth" in late 19th and early 20th centuries American newspapers. These phrases are thought by giantologists to describe the peculiar dental characteristics associated with a lost race of giants.

There are numerous examples of the use of this phrase to be found, compiled, and analyzed, so it’s going to take a little while.

But I wanted to take a moment before my analysis is complete to immediately relay an important finding: Teddy Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, was described in the newspapers as having a “double row of teeth.”

A story reacting to an editorial about Roosevelt tips us off about his incredible teeth (Amador Ledger, December 16, 1904):

“All through his marvelous message the chief gentleman of the land, as the “elected president,” magnifies his accidental predecessor. It is the same stale and unprofitable stuff over and over again and again. Always short on common sense and the manners becoming his office, and long on uncommon impudence, chiefly about the “cravens,” “cowards” and “weaklings,” who don’t care a continental nor a colonial curse for him, his “big stick,” his double row of teeth, or ferocious mouth. He cannot care less for them than they do for him, nor have a worse opinion of them.”

How's that for a Nephilim smoking gun?

Roosevelt’s teeth became celebrities in their own right. As described in this article printed in the Kansas City Star (May 16, 1910), one could purchase one’s own set of “Teddy teeth:”

“The manufacturer of faker’s goods gave a rush order to some factory and placed on sale one day in New York City thousands of sets of “Teddy teeth.” They were of wood, of mighty size, like little tombstones in a double row, bared by the grin of tensely drawn red wooden lips.”

A metal version of “Teddy’s Teeth” that included a whistle was a popular campaign novelty item during his 1904 re-election campaign, and is still a collectible today.

If you remember from my previous post, President Millard Fillmore and his daughter were also described as having a “double row of teeth.” I look forward to seeing how giantologists and Nephilim enthusiasts incorporate these new data points into their interpretations of America’s ancient past. I suppose it is possible that use of the phrase “double row of teeth,” may not always describe the presence of multiple, concentric rows of teeth associated with a quasi-supernatural lost race of giants. It looks like it could be just way to describe the presence of a mouth full of teeth. Hmmm. What do you think, giantologists? Are we on to something here?

Sarcasm aside . . . nah, I can't put sarcasm aside. Sorry.

2 Comments

Four Individuals with a "Double Row of Teeth" to add to your Giant Nephilim File

1/10/2015

4 Comments

Proponents of the existence of an ancient “race” of giants are fond of quoting 19th century sources that describe skeletons with “double rows of teeth,” “double teeth in front,” and “double teeth all around.” Giant enthusiasts who take an uncritical view of those accounts tend to see these phrases as equivalent, interpreting all of them as evidence that the lost race of giants was characterized by remarkable dental characteristics revolving around the presence of “double rows of teeth.”

Here are some examples:

In A Tradition of Giants (2007:18-19), Ross Hamilton writes that the “recessive trait” of “double rows of teeth” was “always associated with extra-large frames.”

In The Nephilim Chronicles (2010:33), Fritz Zimmerman also implies that “double rows of teeth” is some kind of inherited trait:

"Another physical characteristic that is evident within this population is the physical abnormality of possessing a double row of teeth. While a large skeleton would appear to be rare, in combination with a double row of teeth would imply that a single people is being represented."

Richard Dewhurst's attempt at synthesis in The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America (2014:66) is limited to a single sentence:

“Throughout the Indian lore of giants are also stories of skulls being found with double rows of teeth, called double dentitions.”

And if I had a nickel for every time Jim Vieira said “double rows of teeth” I wouldn’t have to be on the job market.

One problem, of course, is that the various phrases that are simplistically glommed into the category of “double rows of teeth” didn’t all mean the same thing. I have addressed the meaning and use of the phrase “double teeth all around” and how it relates to the meaning of the term “double tooth” as a synonym of molar or grinder. In my first post on the subject, I provided a single example of the use of the phrase “double row of teeth” to describe a person with normal (even ideal) teeth. The “double” in that example was clearly referring to the presence of upper and lower rows of teeth rather that the presence of multiple, concentric rows of teeth in each jaw. There are indeed two rows: one in the maxilla and one in the mandible.

I can’t say exactly what each of the giantologists has in mind when he says “double rows of teeth,” but I’m guessing it’s more than a nice smile. Maybe one of them could draw us a picture of what exactly a “double dentition” or “double rows of teeth” is supposed to be. Then we'll have some clarity.

Dewhurst’s book was one of the first (and worst) of the recent books on giants that I’ve purchased. I couldn’t even make it through the whole thing. I wrote a review of it on Amazon.com (if you want a more thorough treatment, read Jason Colavito’s review). One person who commented on my review defended the book and went after my first blog post on “double rows of teeth,” noting that I’d only given a single example of the use of that specific phrase.

Fair enough. The time has come to address the issue of what these accounts meant when they used the actual phrase “double row of teeth” or “double rows of teeth.” I’ve started collecting data on that and it’s taking a while. Hundreds of examples of the phrase came up in my first search, and it is clear that this phrase (unlike “double teeth all around") has several different meanings. In some cases (often in reference to animals, but sometimes in reference to humans) it actually does mean “double rows of teeth” in the way that I think giantologists imagine it. In other cases it very clearly was NOT intended to mean multiple, concentric rows of teeth. And in some cases it is not yet clear to me what the intended meaning was. It is going to take some sifting and sorting to try to figure out the patterns of usage of the phrase(s) when the intent is unknown. The use of the phrase is somewhat nuanced.

I wanted to go ahead and provide a few examples, however, of individuals who were described in the press as having a “double row of teeth.” I think you will agree that the descriptions of these individuals are not meant to imply anything but a normal mouth full of teeth. If we are to believe that having “double rows of teeth” is a marker that can be used to identify and track an ancient race of giants, we are going to have to substantially modify who we’re including in that "race."

Mary Abigail Fillmore: does having a double row of teeth qualify her to be an antediluvian giant?

Mary Abigail Fillmore, daughter of President Millard Fillmore, was described in a story entitled “A Night at the White House” which ran in The Pittsburgh Gazette (February 11, 1850):

“In one personal feature alone she mirrors forth her sire—in a double row of teeth, strong, white and beautifully regular. They are a predominant feature in the President, and so they are with his lovely daughter.”

[See addendum below: The story was actually about Mary Elizabeth Bliss, daughter of the 12th President of the United States, Zachary Taylor.]

A politician or lobbyist named Cassady (who I was unable to further identify) was described in a story about the politics of railroads in Illinois (The Edwardsville Intelligencer, February 18, 1874):

    “Cassady of McLean, a representative of the most radical and rampant extremists who are clamoring for more railroad legislation . . .
     “A man of gigantic frame, with large features, the jaws and chin indicating an iron will; a cavernous mouth, disclosing a double row of teeth that look solid enough to enable him to make a dinner on ten-penny nails, and withal a habit of showing his teeth when laughing derisively and twisting his face into various contortions that are absolutely beyond description . . .”

Miss Annie Pauline Scott, reported winner of a $10,000 prize in a beauty contest sponsored by circus magnate Adam Forepaugh, was described in a March 31, 1881, story in the Wyandot Herald:

“Her lips are full and expressive, of a bright vermillion tinge, and when severed by a smile reveal a double row of teeth that are typical in their regularity and dazzling whiteness.”

[Note: although irrelevant to the subject of giants, I will mention that other sources I found online state that Louise Montague, rather than Annie Pauline Scott, was the winner of the prize. It is not clear to me which of these women actually won what might have been the first beauty pageant in American history, but both are described as having very nice teeth.]

Frederick Robinson, a circus or sideshow performer, was described in a June 8, 1884 story in The Times-Picayune:

    “Mr. Frederick Robinson was paid $350 a week for puffing out his fat belly, rolling his eyes, and showing his double row of teeth the size of headstones. Mr. Robinson at 10 per cent of that sum would be well paid for all the acting he is capable of doing.”

Finally a description of a church sermon leaves little doubt what is meant by a "double row of teeth" (The Weekly Sun, March 9, 1900):

"One of our great divines has said “God put the tongue under the most secure guard possible—in the center of the skull, guarded by a double row of teeth and then again by a pair of lips.” Yet it has been known to outwear that same double row of teeth, outwit the lips, and do untold mischief to the possessor and all others.”

So, if the presence of a “double row of teeth” is any indicator, our current roster of Nephilim giants is woefully under-staffed: we should add the daughter of the thirteenth President of the United States, a beauty queen, and an overpaid fat guy, as well as numerous other living people described in nineteenth century newspapers. And, actually, everyone in creation.

The descendants of these four people and other individuals described as having a "double row of teeth" should be on alert: a crew from Search for the Lost Giants may ask to disinter the remains of your deceased relatives in order to look at their skulls. They ended last season, after all, making a plea to dig up the grave of Benjamin Bucklin, who was described as having “double teeth all around.”

Or maybe, just maybe, it is starting to sink in that this whole "double rows of teeth" thing is not as simple as it once seemed. I sure hope so.

ADDENDUM (1/17/2015): After reading a different printing of the story referenced above with the title "A Night at the White House," I realized the story was actually about President Taylor's daughter, Mary Elizabeth Bliss, rather than Fillmore's daughter. I regret the error. Here is a picture of Mary Elizabeth Bliss. I could not find one of her smiling.

Mary Elizabeth Bliss: does having a double row of teeth qualify HER to be an antediluvian giant?

4 Comments

Gregory Little's Book "Path of Souls:" Some Preliminary Thoughts

1/9/2015

7 Comments

I recently purchased Gregory Little’s (2014) book Path of Souls. I became aware of the book after seeing it quoted online, and I was interested in having a look at it because of its discussion of “giant” skeletons in eastern North America. I wanted to offer some preliminary thoughts after only quickly skimming through it because I found several aspects of the book to be a refreshing departure from much of the recent writing I’ve seen on “giants.” There are also parts of the book that I take strong issue with, and other parts that I have little interest in and don’t plan on commenting on. But I thought I’d take a few minutes to discuss what seem to me to be some strengths of Little’s approach to the topic of “giants.”

To be clear, I’m in no way saying that I agree or disagree with any of the substantive conclusions of the book. I haven’t yet looked at the sources from which Little draws his information, and I haven’t yet worked my way through his book in a detailed fashion. I’ll wait to comment on his conclusions after I have the opportunity to examine the data he presents and do my own analysis. What I want to discuss in this post is what makes his approach different from some of the other recent books I’ve read (e.g., Dewhurst, Zimmerman, Chouinard).

Little’s main takeaway point about the accounts of “giant” skeletons is that “There were a lot of these tall people, far more than would be expected by chance” (pp. 189-190). He reaches this conclusion by doing a simple statistical test comparing the proportion of “tall” or “large” skeletons reported in the Bureau of Ethnology’s 1887 and 1894 reports to that which would be expected from a random sample of a population with a “normal” size distribution. He states that

“quite a few unusually tall skeletal remains were found in mounds and detailed in formal reports. The numbers of these far exceed what would be expected in a population where height fits a normal distribution” (p. 118).

Guess what? That’s a potentially falsifiable statement that can be formally evaluated. Hallelujah. And that is why Little’s approach interests me. He has attempted to move the needle forward by doing two things: (1) trying to discern “credible” from “non-credible” accounts; and (2) performing an analysis that focuses on isolating and describing a problem.

By relying on information from the Bureau of Ethnology reports (rather than unattributed tales from country histories and newspapers), Little attempted to be conservative in selecting which accounts are “credible.” In fact, this is a concern throughout the book. Little spends some effort discussing examples of size exaggeration, measuring errors, and outright hoaxes that color the record of “giants.” I found his discussion of those sources of noise to be (for the most part) quite different from the wide-eyed, uncritical refrain of “look at all these accounts of giants!” that seems to be a main thesis of much popular coverage of the topic on television, in books, and on the internet.

While I’m not at all convinced that Little’s conclusion about the greater-than-expected number of "tall" skeletons is correct or supportable based on the data he has presented, I do appreciate what I perceive as an interesting approach that is qualitatively different from anything else that I’ve seen out there so far. My sense is that there are several key assumptions built into Little’s analysis, any one of which could potentially be problematic. I look forward to having a closer look at what he presents. I’ll return to this topic in the future.

7 Comments

An Eyewitness to a Giant? Additional Information on the Conewango Mound

1/6/2015

1 Comment

I recently wrote about the tale of a reported eyewitness account of the discovery of a skeleton of enormous proportions in an earthen mound in New York in 1876. The story was that Charles Huntington carved a 9’ statue to represent the individual whose giant skeleton he claims he saw as a child in 1876. According to the documents I found (T. Apoleon Cheney’s “Ancient Monuments in Western York,” published in 1860), however, the excavation that produced the report of a large femur upon which Huntington’s statue was based actually took place before Huntington was born. The reported 28” femur was fragmentary, causing me to suspect its size had not been accurately estimated. Some cranial fragments were also reported from the mound.

After writing that piece, it was pointed out to me by Micah Ewers that the reported skull measurements (which I called “normal-sized” in my post) actually suggested a fairly large skull. He is right, I think, but the problem of course is that the skull was also fragmentary and those reported measurements were based on a reconstruction that we have no way of assessing at this point.

There was some discussion in the comments to the last post about Frederick Larkin’s role in the excavations. Other than finding and skimming parts of “Ancient Man in America” (1880), I knew nothing much else about Larkin. Or Cheney for that matter. Micah also mentioned that Brad Lockwood had done some work on Cheney and Larkin and this very case. I found Lockwood’s video about this case - here are links:

On Giants, Chapter 4: “Doc” Cheney (part 1)

On Giants, Chapter 4: “Doc” Cheney (part 2)

On Giants, Chapter 4: “Doc” Cheney (part 3)

These videos were produced in 2010. They contain interesting details related to the story that I was not aware of and are well worth watching if you're interested in this sort of thing or this case in particular.

Lockwood was not aware of the key point of my piece: that the excavation took place in 1859 rather than 1876. I’m not sure exactly what is going on, but for some reason Lockwood states that “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” contains only illustrations with no text. The version I found contains text as well as illustrations. I’m wondering if a “stand-alone” version of the publication (perhaps for wide distribution) consisted solely of drawings, while the version incorporated into the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Regents of the University also included the text? If so that might explain some of the confusion about when the actual excavation took place.

Lockwood’s video tries to piece together what happened on the assumption that the excavation took place in 1876. I wonder if the story might be easier to figure out knowing that the excavation actually took place in 1859 and the materials were reportedly donated to “The Historical and Antiquarian collections in the State Cabinet of Natural History.”

1 Comment

New Website Section on "Ancient Giants"

1/3/2015

0 Comments

As the next semester gets closer, I will have to slow down the writing I've been doing on "ancient giants." I'll probably also start writing about some others things again, and start putting some energy into the Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project, which has been in hibernation for a while. I've added a new section to this website to list the various posts I've done on "giants" since November. I'll add new entries as they appear.

0 Comments

An Eyewitness to a Giant? Not so Fast, Zimmerman and Vieira

1/1/2015

32 Comments

Charles M. Huntington and his statue (1938).

My always-thoughtful wife, having listened to me rattling on about “giants” recently, picked up a copy of the magazine Ancient American (Volume 18, Issue 105) while doing some Christmas shopping last week. She bought it for me because the cover listed a story titled “Ancient New York Giants.”

The article, by Fritz Zimmerman, is built around the story of a man named Charles Huntington, of East Randolph, New York. The article states that Mr. Huntington was present as his neighbors excavated a giant skeleton from a local mound in 1876. Sixty-two years later, Mr. Huntington’s memories and notes from that day inspired him to carve a 9’ statue representing the giant human he saw buried in the mound.

Here are some quotes from Zimmerman's article (emphasis added):

“The model was built life-size according to measurements taken by Mr. Huntington when a mound on the Conewango Road was opened 62 years ago.”

“In 1876, a young man [Charles Huntington] accompanied several of his neighbors in excavating a burial mound that was to leave an indelible impression on him. What he witnessed that day would inspire him 62 years later to carve a replica of the remarkable find.”

“To make sure that the measurements he had were correct, he contacted the Assistant State Geologist in Albany, New York, who confirmed them as accurate. Mr. Huntington’s motivation was to recreate exactly what he saw so many years ago, using the measurements taken by Mr. Cheney who was present at the dig.”

“The original account of the burial mound was printed in the History of Cattaraugus County, New York in 1879.”

So far so good, right? Mr. Huntington was present at this mound excavation in 1876, a giant skeleton was unearthed, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Huntington took measurements, the discovery was reported in 1879, and many decades later Mr. Huntington carved a life-size statue of the 9’ tall giant that he had seen.

This “eyewitness” story is also told by Jim Vieira on his blog in March of 2014. Vieira quotes from an article he wrote for Ancient American:

“Charles Huntington was present when the skeletons were unearthed in 1876 and secured the exact measurements made by Dr. Franklin Larkin and Dr. T. Apoleon Cheney to be the basis for the wooden Mound Builders.”

Vieira, like Zimmerman, presents the story as an open-and-shut case where the recollections and information of multiple, independent witnesses corroborate an eyewitness account of the discovery of a skeleton of enormous proportions. Vieira closes his post by expressing his frustration that people continue to question the existence of giants even in the face of such overwhelming evidence:

“Does Mr. Huntington strike you as a hoax master? What part of his story seems false? I guess I need to adopt more of a take it or leave it attitude when it comes to this research but for God's sake how can you read all of these reports and not understand that giants in the America's were a reality?”

In his piece, Zimmerman writes:

“Archaeologists would dismiss Mr. Huntington’s wooden model as a fabrication. I would ask what his motivation would be? Why would they report the giants in the county history and the newspaper? Why would the state archaeologists confirm Mr. Huntington’s measurements that he received from Mr. Cheney who was also at the dig? The preponderance of evidence would suggest that Mr. Huntington was correct in his reproduction.”

Clearly they think they’ve got a good case here. The “I saw a giant being exhumed” story is becoming entrenched in the modern mythology of giants.

Too bad it’s not true.

The stories put together by Zimmerman and Vieira use the same two sources: the History of Cattaraugus County New York (1879) and an article in the Randolph Register (Zimmerman identifies it as September 21, 1936, but I think it is actually from 1938). It is the story in the Randolph Register that states that Huntington “witnessed the exhuming of the skeletons of pre-historic mound-builders at the N. E. G. Cowan farm on the Conewango Road.” The story identifies T. Apolean Cheney as “a Randolph man, who was present at the time the mound was opened.”

T. Apolean Cheney was indeed present when the mound was opened. He wasn’t just “a Randolph man,” however, he was a civil engineer who was a central figure in New York prehistory in the mid 1800s. And he didn’t open the mound in 1876, but sometime before 1860, the year that “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” was published (available here).

This is the description from “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” (1860) (emphasis added):

    “The Tumulus, represented upon Plate III., from the peculiar construction of the work, and the character of its remains, appears to belong to a class of mounds different from any others embraced in this exploration. It is located upon the brow of a hill, still covered by ancient forest, and overlooking the valley of the Conewango. This work has some appearance of being constructed with the ditch and vallum outside of the mound, as in the Druid Barrows, but perhaps more accurately belongs to the class composed of several stages, as the Trocalli of the valley of Anahuac. The form of the Tumulus is of intermediate character between an ellipse and the parallelogram; the interior mound, at its base, has a major axis of sixty-five feet, while the minor axis is sixty-one feet, with an altitude above the first platform or embankment of ten feet, or an entire elevation of some thirteen feet. This embankment, with an entrance or gateway upon the east side thirty feet in width, has an entire circumference of one hundred and seventy feet. As previously remarked, the work itself, as well as the eminence which it commands, and the ravines upon either side, are overshadowed by the dense forest. The remains of a fallen tree, imbedded in the surface of the mound and nearly decomposed, and which, from appearance, had grown upon the apex, measured nearly three feet in diameter, and heavy timber was growing above the rich mold it had formed. Thus we have some indicia of the age of this work. The mound, indeed, from the peculiar form of its construction, as well as from the character of its contents, has much resemblance to the Barrows of the earliest Celtic origin, in the Old World. In making an excavation, eight skeletons, buried in a sitting posture, and at regular intervals of space, so as to form a circle within the mound, [illegible] disinterred. Some slight appearance yet existed, to show that frame-work had enclosed the dead at the time of interment. These osteological remains were of very large size, but were so decomposed that they mostly crumbled to dust. The relics of art here disclosed, were also of a peculiar and interesting character,--amulets, chisels, &c., of elaborate workmanship,--resembling the Mexican and Peruvian antiquities” (pp. 40-41).
. . .
    “In the tumulus at Conewango, the relics of art, together with osteological remains, were of the most interesting character. The several skeletons were very much decayed, crumbling upon exposure to the atmosphere to the atmosphere, but were all of very large size. A cranium, as well as could be ascertained from the restored fragments, was of the following dimensions:

                Occipito-frontal arch,……………….. 19 inches
                Longitudinal diameter, ……………. 9   “
                Parietal diameter,………………….. 8 1-5 “
                Zygomatic diameter, ……………… 7 2-5 ”
                Facial angle,………………………… 73 degrees

The ethmoid, and both the superior and inferior maxillary bones were wanting. An Os-femur disclosed here, from accurate measurement, was found to have a length of twenty-eight inches” (pg. 43).

This is the later description from History of Cattaraugus County, New York (1879) (available here):

    “About two miles south of the village of Rutledge, in the Connewango, on lot No. 45, at a point about sixty rods east of Connewango Creek and near the residence of Norman E. G. Cowen, there was discovered by the first pioneers of this section a sepulchral mound, nearly circular in form, and having an entire circumference of one hundred and seventy feet. The height of the mound was about twelve feet. Mr. Cheney spoke of this work as “having some appearance of being constructed with the ditch or vallum outside of the mound, as in the Druid Barrows, but perhaps more accurately belongs to the class composed of several stages, as the Trocalli of the vally of Anuhuac.” At the time of its discovery the site was surrounded by the primitive forest, and upon the tumulus there were growing several large trees, among them being a hemlock two feet in diameter, and a maple and beech each eighteen inches in diameter.
    “Within the mound there was discovered nine human skeletons, which had been buried in a sitting posture, and at regular intervals of space, in the form of a circle, and facing towards a common centre. There was some slight appearance that a frame-work had inclosed the dead at the time of their interment. The skeletons were so far decayed as to crumble upon exposure to the atmosphere, but were all of very large size. An os femur (the largest found here) was twenty-eight inches in length. The dimensions of the cranium were (as nearly as could be ascertained from the restored fragments) as follows: occipito-frontal arch, 19 inches; longitudinal diameter, 9 inches; parietal diameter, 8 ½ inches; facial angle, 73 degrees. There were also found here several interesting relics of ancient art,--among these being very perfect arrow- and spear-heads, a small triangular perforated stone, of which the surface was painted and glazed, chisels amulets, and other articles of quite elaborate workmanship,--thought by some to resemble the Mexican and Peruvian antiquities” (pg. 12).

I think we can all agree that these passages are describing the same excavations at the same earthwork with the same results. The 1879 account quotes directly from the 1860 account, provides the same cranial measurements, and mentions the same 28” femur. In fact, prior to the description of the earthwork given above, the History of Cattaraugus County, New York specifies “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” as the source of the information (see page 11).

So the excavations at the Cowen farm reported in the 1879 History of Cattaraugus County took place in the 1850s, not the 1870s.

This presents a slight problem for the “I saw a giant being exhumed” story, because Charles M. Huntington wasn’t born until 1864. Here is a census record from 1940. Here is a listing from the local cemetery.

It’s pretty safe to say Charles M. Huntington wasn’t at the excavation in the 1850s that is described in the 1879 History of Cattaraugus County, New York.

What really happened here? The most charitable reading is that Charles Huntington actually was present at a later (1876) excavation that took place at the earthwork. This might explain why the 1860 account states there were eight skeletons while the 1879 account specifies nine. An article in the Times Herald (Olean, New York), dated May 12, 1938, states:

    “For years Mr. Cowen would not permit the mound to be disturbed until hunters, digging for game, found a shin bone and a jaw bone.
    Scientists were then notified and the entire skeleton removed. Mr. Huntington was present and took notes on the measurements as the bones were removed. The skeleton was removed to Buffalo but reportedly disintegrated within twenty-five years so that the only evidence of its existence are the measurements taken by Mr. Huntington, which also are on file at Buffalo and at Washington."
    Before starting to create his statues of wood, Mr. Huntington checked with authorities at both Buffalo and Washington and found that the measurements he had taken as a boy were accurate.
    The man stood nine feet in height, had a shin bone twenty-eight inches in length, a foot fourteen inches long and measured thirty-five inches across his shoulders.”

Maybe someone re-opened the mound in 1876, when Huntington was 12-years-old? Even if Huntington was present at an excavation that took place during his lifetime (i.e., 1876), however, his “measurements” were reported decades earlier. The 28” length of the “shin bone” (called an “os-femur, or bone between the ankle and knee” in the newspaper account that Zimmerman and Vieira rely on) matches exactly the length of the femur reported by Cheney in 1860. I think the most likely story is that Huntington got “his” measurements from either the 1860 or 1879 accounts (they are the same, after all) and then those measurements were later “verified” by someone else looking at the same published account. A later article in the Randolph Register (November 14, 1984, available here) provides an account of the creation of the statues that supports this idea:

“As a young boy in 1876 Mr. Huntington watched as the Cowen Indian Mound in Randolph was opened. One bone found was exceptionally large. In 1938 Mr. Huntington created a statue of a man based on this large bone. He figured his height to be about nine feet.”

Huntington had the reported 28” measurement from the femur and created a statue based on that single dimension. One might guess that Huntington calculated a 9’ height for his statue by multiplying the reported length of the femur (28”) by 4, which seems to have been a common practice for estimating stature. In fact, I wonder if the statue doesn’t actually measure 9’4” (112”), which would be exactly 4x the femur length. The measurement of 35” “across his shoulders” can be obtained by dividing a height of 112” by 3.2, suggesting the shoulder measurement may have been calculated using a simple proportional ratio rather than measured from a skeleton as implied by the “eyewitness” version of the story told by Zimmerman and Vieira.

It is interesting to note that while the reported femur length (28”) and facial angle (73 degrees) are part of the story, the cranial measurements reported in both 1860 and 1879 are not. Why not? That’s easy: they’re from a normal-sized skull.

To me, reliance on the memory of an individual that was not yet alive at the time an event occurred seriously weakens the strength of an “eyewitness” story. Sarcasm aside, this is a fair answer to the “what is wrong with this story” question posed by both Vieira and Zimmerman. If your argument that the eastern United States was “the ancient land of the Biblical Nephilim” rests on the reported recollections of a man who was not yet born, I think you should be prepared to temper your exasperation that no-one believes you.

But what of the 28” femur? Other than the measurement and the statement that the skeletons were “all of a very large size,” no other details were provided in the main narratives of the 1860 and 1879 accounts. Two pieces of information are relevant to evaluating whether this femur (which would indeed be consistent with an individual over 8’ in height) was as large as reported. Both suggest that it was not as large as reported.

First, the femur was described in the “Donations” section of the 1860 report in which Cheney’s “Ancient Monuments in Western New York” appeared:

“5. FRAGMENTS OF THE OS FEMUR, superior and lower extremities, from the Conewango mound.”

In other words, the whole femur was not recovered: they were missing the shaft and did not have a complete bone to measure! This casts some serious doubt on what the length of the original bone really was. If the bone was from a robust individual, the proximal and distal sections were likely large, prompting an overestimation of the original length of the bone. There is no way to "accurately" measure the length of a bone that was missing part of the shaft.

The second piece of information relevant to understanding the supposed “giant” femur comes from Dr. Frederick Larkin, a medical doctor who was a part of Cheney’s explorations in New York. In his book Ancient Man in America (1880, available here) written two years after Cheney’s death, he gives his opinion of the “giant” skeletons that were described (emphasis added):

“It is stated in a paper written by Dr. Cheney, in 1859, that the skeletons found in the mounds at Cassadaga were those of giants, and that one in particular measured seven feet and five inches. I suppose he got that information from some persons who saw then at the time they were exhumed, and their organ of marvelousness greatly exalted. That the Mound-Builders were a trifle larger than the present type, is very probable; but that they were giants eight and ten feet high is all fabulous. I have seen many skeletons from mounds in different states, but have seen none that will much exceed the present people now living. At the Centennial, in one of the annex buildings, was a large amount of fragments of skeletons from the ancient tombs in West Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, and the Mississippi valley, and I saw none that would exceed the Indian tribes of America” (pg. 44).

So let’s review:

Charles Huntington was not alive when the reported 28” femur was excavated, and therefore could not have been an eyewitness. His statue was based on a reported measurement from a single bone, not a firsthand observation of a "giant" skeleton.

The purportedly 28" femur was not complete, missing part (perhaps most) of the shaft. The reported 28” length was an estimate based on the two end fragments. It was likely an overestimate.

The person with experience in anatomy who saw some of the “giant” skeletons reported from New York and other states clearly said they were nothing of the sort. Dr. Larkin saw no “giants,” and he said so after Cheney's death.

There’s your simple answer to why people don’t believe these stories: they shouldn’t. A little bit of digging demonstrates major holes in this story. It would never hold up in court, and it does not hold up as evidence for a claim as fantastic as the discovery of a human larger than any living person on record.

Contrary to what Zimmerman and Vieira assert, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that this story is baloney. I have asked it before, and I will ask it again: where is the scholarship on the side of the giantologists putting forward these claims? Have I missed something? Did no-one bother to check the attribution of the source of the excavation story in the 1879 volume? It’s written right there. I just don’t get it.

Maybe I'll submit a piece to Ancient American and see if it gets published.