Andy White Anthropology
  • Home
  • Fake Hercules Swords
  • Research Interests
    • Complexity Science
    • Prehistoric Social Networks
    • Eastern Woodlands Prehistory
    • Ancient Giants
  • Blog

How About "Three Rows of Teeth"?  A Closer Look at the Description of Skeletons from Amelia Island, Florida

12/20/2014

 
PictureAmelia Island, Florida: not the home of a giant skull with three rows of teeth.
I have been challenged twice by Chris Lesley to explain a skull with “three rows of teeth” found in Amelia Island, Florida.  Commenting on my blog, Lesley wrote (emphasis added):

"I think what is written above is a good skeptical attempt, and i think some people may need an "out" door, any will do. There is simply more room for a double row of teeth in a person whose skull is abnormally thick (Concord, New Hampshire) as in many accounts. These jaws are said to be able to slip over the head of a full grown man and perfect all the way around in many accounts. I think its dishonest to assume some alternative to the semantics of a few (teeth were double) and assume intent of the writer. While so many other articles Like the finds in Amelia Island that not only that two skulls are said to have two rows of teeth, One of the skulls from Florida is said to have 3 rows of teeth. No explanation necessary, i will chose option 5) The author's rebuttal is cherry-picking. This research has been done by a handful of us giant-researchers now there is too many to count. For my part: by next year i will double the accounts that are available now. (with double rows of teeth) GAWM"

The acronym “GAWM” stands for Greater Ancestors World Museum, which Lesley runs.  The GAWM website has the following statement about the Amelia Island skeletons:

"Amelia Island Skulls with two rows of teeth

Amelia Island is practically in my back yard, about 40 miles from my location,  so this story strikes a higher interest level for me. On Amelia island multiple burial mounds were found containing skeletons, and artifacts. Out of the hundreds of skeletons only perfect teeth were found.

A skull was found on the island that i hope to replicate with some information. An extremely large skull with perfect teeth, and perfectly preserved was found on the island a massive skull with two rows of teeth, and one with three rows.  The third set being the start of a nucleus of a tooth. The skull was dry, not filled with soil in the cavities, perfect and complete.

Within a short time span of a couple of hours the skull crumbled to dust upon exposure to air.
"

Spoiler alert:  there is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.  Lesley has mixed up different parts of the account and misinterpreted/misrepresented a description of an unusual, unerupted supernumerary tooth as “three rows of teeth.”

Lesley is referring to a description in the 1874 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (available here).  The following is a transcript of the paragraph about the teeth of the Amelia Island skeletons by Augustus Mitchell in a section titled “Antiquities of Florida” (pages 391-392) [number 440 in my database]:

    “The teeth of many of the crania of this mound were, without exceptions, in a perfect state of preservation, the vitrified enamel of these organs being capable of resisting exposure for centuries.  These teeth presented distinctive appearances throughout, in the absence of the pointed canines; the incisors, canine, cuspides, and bicuspids all presented flat crowns, worn to smoothness by the attrition of sand and ashes eaten with the half-cooked food.  A bi-section of some of these teeth showed the dental nerve to be protected by an unusual thickness on the surface of the crown.  Not one carious tooth was found among the hundreds in the mound.  Many were entire in the lower jaw, the whole compactly and firmly set. In some the second set was observed; while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw, whose alveolar process was gone, and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge; none showing the partial loss of teeth by caries and decay.
    . . .
    Pursuing my investigations, and excavating further toward the southeast face of the mound, I came upon the largest-sized stone ax I have ever seen or that had ever been found in that section of the country.  Close to it was the largest and most perfect cranium of the mound, not crushed by the pressure of the earth, complete in its form, quite dry, and no sand in its cavity; together with its inferior maxillary bone, with all the teeth in the upper and lower jaws.  Near by the side of this skull were the femoris, the tibia, the humerus, ulna, and part of the radius, with a portion of the pelvis directly under the skull.  All of the other bones of this large skeleton were completely or partially decayed.  Contiguous to this was nearly a quart of red ocher, and quite the same quantity of what seemed to be pulverized charcoal, as materials of war-paint.  Anticipating a perfect specimen in this skull, I was doomed to disappointment; for, after taking it out of the earth and setting it up, so that I could view the fleshless face of this gigantic savage, in the space two hours it crumbled to pieces, except small portions.  According to the measurement of the bones of this skeleton, its height must have been quite 7 feet.”


Two major discrepancies are notable between the 1874 description and Lesley’s characterizations of it. First, the account says "third set of teeth," not "three rows of teeth. Those are not the same thing. Second, the "largest and most perfect cranium" is not the one with the "third set of teeth."

The Accounts Says “Third Set” of Teeth, not “Three Rows of Teeth”

First, nowhere in account does Mitchell describe a skull with three “rows” of teeth (or two rows of teeth, for that matter).  On page 392, he writes (emphasis added):

"In some the second set was observed; while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw, whose alveolar process was gone, and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge; none showing the partial loss of teeth by caries and decay."

The use of the word “set” is the key here.  The term “second set” refers to the permanent teeth (as opposed to the “first set” or deciduous or “baby” teeth).  His reference to a “third set” is very specific, and involves observation of a single “nucleus of a tooth” that can be seen beneath the neck of one of the permanent teeth.  This “nucleus of a tooth” can only be seen because the alveolar process (the bone surrounding the teeth) was damaged, allowing an observer to see the roots of one of the permanent teeth.  The “evident signs of a third set” of teeth was a tooth developing among the roots of a permanent tooth.  This was noteworthy because it is not common for “new” teeth to develop after eruption of all the permanent teeth.  As is shown by the quotes below, however, the phenomenon was not unknown.

The following passages from The Pathology of the Teeth (1872) by Carl Wedl (available here) illustrate use of the term “set” to describe the succession of deciduous and permanent teeth and show what is meant by a “third set” of teeth (emphasis added):

"The second upper molars not unfrequently make their appearance before the corresponding lower teeth. With these, the first set of teeth, the milk or deciduous set is completed, generally by the end of the second, or occasionally not until the end of the third year" (pg. 74).

    "SECOND DENTITION.—The eruption of the first molars ushers in the shedding of the teeth.  They appear in the seventh year . . ." (pg. 76)

    "THIRD DENTITION.—The possibility of the occurrence of a third dentition is doubted, and even openly denied by many.  Its opponents assert that cases of presumed third dentition are merely instances in which the teeth have not emerged, but have remained imbedded within the jaw until the occurrence of senile resorption of the alveolar processes.  Deceptions may easily occur in regard to them, particularly among the ignorant, as well be evident from reference to the section upon the retention of teeth.  On the other hand, however, we ought not to persist in the denial of the occurrence of a third dentition, on the ground that it is contrary to the current physiological doctrines.
    The writers of former times,* Aristotle, Eusachius, and Albinus, mention a repeated renewal of the teeth.  In recent times, Fauchard, Bourdet, J. Hunter (the latter observed a third set of teeth in both jaws), Van Swieten, Haller, collected several such cases from different writers.  Hufeland describes a case which came to his knowledge.  In the one hundred and sixteenth year of life, new teeth were said to have made their appearance; six months after the loss of these, new molars appeared in each jaw.  Serres observed two cases in the Hopital del Pitie; one of a man thirty-five years old, who two lower central incisors fell out, and were replaced after a few months; the other of a man seventy-six years old, who, during convalescence from a bilious fever, experienced pain and swelling in the gum of the under jaw, which disappeared on the eruption of a tooth with several eminences in the place of the second molar on the left side.  The margins of the alveoli had not yet disappeared in this old man.
    C. A. Harris has no doubt that a third dentition does occur in extremely rare cases, and instances a number of examples where individuals, who for a long time had been toothless, acquired several teeth, or even an entire set, in extreme old age. . . ."
(pg. 87)

Wedl continues with his discussion of purported cases of “third dentitions” and teeth erupting very late in life.  Though an oddity (and a controversial one), there was nothing supernatural about these cases.  These were normal people with somewhat anomalous dental characteristics.

Here is other example of the use of the term “set” from the 1894 book The Anatomy and Pathology of the Teeth by Carl F. W. Bodecker (available here) (emphasis added):

"The Temporary, Deciduous, or Milk Teeth.--In the mouth of an infant, about the sixth month after its birth, we observe the appearance of the first teeth, which belong to the so-called “temporary” or “deciduous” set" (p. 22).

"Originally, the temporary teeth, like those of the permanent set, are possessed of roots which gradually become shortened by absorption, as the growth of the permanent teeth proceeds" (p. 264).

And again, from the 1896 book Dental Pathology and Practice by Frank Abbot (available here):

"The term “children’s teeth,” as here used, refers more particularly to the temporary or deciduous set, which are twenty in number . . ." (p. 90).

"It must be remembered that the permanent set of teeth—those that are to take the places of the temporary ones (ten in each jaw)—depend almost entirely for their regularity upon proper care and timely removal of the temporary teeth" (p. 92-93).

It is pretty clear to me that, in his description of the Amelia Island skeletons, Mitchell was simply saying that many of the skeletons had their permanent teeth (“the second set” or the "second dentition") and therefore were adults.  This was worthy of noting because of the low incidence of tooth decay that he observed (which was higher in the living populations at the time).  He noted the lack of tooth decay and specified that that the population contained adults rather than children (who would have naturally had a lower incidence of caries). This goes along with his discussion of the wear of the teeth (which is a great example of a wear pattern that could have easily been called “double teeth all around” if this was a less formal description in, say, a newspaper).

Mitchell mentioned a particular incidence of an unerupted tooth that was developing beneath a permanent tooth because it was an oddity.  In no way was he saying that the skull had "three rows of teeth."  Lesley is misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what Mitchell said in his description.

The “Massive Skull” Did Not Have a “Third Set” of Teeth

Second, Lesley has combined different parts of Mitchell's 1874 description to make it appear as though the largest skull had "three rows of teeth."  On his website, Lesley states that:

"A skull was found on the island that i hope to replicate with some information. An extremely large skull with perfect teeth, and perfectly preserved was found on the island a massive skull with two rows of teeth, and one with three rows.  The third set being the start of a nucleus of a tooth. The skull was dry, not filled with soil in the cavities, perfect and complete."

This is a jumbled up statement that equates "set" with "rows" and leaves the impression that there was a single large skull with three rows of teeth. That's simply not true.

As is plainly evident from the 1874 description supplied above, the “extremely large skull” is not the one with “three rows of teeth.”  Mitchell (1874:392) states that the “largest” skull (to which Lesley is referring) had “all the teeth in the upper and lower jaws.”  The skull with a “third set” of teeth, however, was described as missing most or all of the teeth on the mandible (“and the whole lower jaw ossified to a sharp edge”). These are not the same skulls: one has teeth in the mandible (lower jaw) and one does not.  It doesn't take a nuanced reading of the account to figure that out.

What the Giantologists Got Wrong

There is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.  Lesley has mixed up different parts of the account and misinterpreted/misrepresented a description of an unusual, unerupted supernumerary tooth as “three rows of teeth.”

Why does Lesley conflate the two descriptions and interpret a clear description of a single supernumerary tooth as "three rows of teeth"?  That’s a question for him to answer.  Maybe he’ll clear it up for us here.  I can only speculate based on what he's told me on Facebook.  I suspect he mixes up the two parts of the account  because he really wants there to be a “giant” skull with multiple rows of teeth near where he lives.  Again, I'll let him explain why the existence of such a skull would be important. There isn’t such a skull described in the 1874 accounts from Amelia Island, however.

I'm not sure how you create a "replica" of something that never existed.  I will look forward to seeing Lesley’s planned "replication."  Maybe he will post a picture of it so we can all compare its details to Mitchell’s description. 

I also look forward to Lesley's explanation, if he wishes to provide one. I interacted with him briefly on Facebook, but quickly decided it would be more useful to have those interactions in a place where they were open for others to see. I'm under no illusions about changing Lesley's mind about anything.  Having a discussion in public, however, opens the possibility that I might be able to change someone else's mind about the validity of some of these claims.

Chris L Lesley link
12/26/2014 06:33:48 am

I think we need to consider options for what "double teeth" are. Not limit or cherry-pick from one use of the word, in fact there are many. Many of these options describe what giantologists refer to. As far as my position in greater ancestry, which is a model of maturity, many of the different types represent this decline. I am not looking for "Nephilim-traits" I am showing that "extra teeth" large skulls, and 7 foot plus skeletons are from individuals of higher maturity. I do have archaeological references to nephilim traits, but all these are outside the model of Greater Ancestry. So I think these are examples of extra teeth. "Double teeth" shown in this link: See figure 1 for a visual of a bud, growing from the root of the tooth. http://www.rdhmag.com/articles/print/volume-30/issue-1/columns/8216double-teeth39-leads-to-differential-diagnosis.html

Chris L Lesley link
12/26/2014 07:55:05 am

The term “rows”,
are used frequently by giantologists to communicate the simplicity of a common term as it needs to be understood by everyone. I could use the term “set” and still communicate the same outcome. One single tooth from root would rarely if at all, called a third set. It is not a set.
In two instances you describe set as being multiple teeth. In the third you insinuate that it is a single tooth only, if this is a single tooth the word “set” would not be used.

Jason Colavito,
“His reference to a “third set” is very specific, and involves observation of a single “nucleus of a tooth””

Here is the statement before Jason’s interpretation:
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
I continue to read “third set” up to the comma. If it was a single tooth It would not have called it a set.

Here is an example of how I read into it, as I understand it.
example one: I went to the mall over the weekend, I stopped into the Men’s Warehouse. . .
The exclusion in no way signifies that the only place I stopped in the mall was the Men’s Warehouse, nor does it limit the mall to having only one store.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
It is describing the location of the bud in comparison to a tooth, in a set and indicates that we are talking about a set of these relationships between a tooth and its host tooth.
Again the logic follows this path.
Example two:
(I went to the dentist to get a cleaning, one particular tooth was difficult. )
Conclusion: Therefore I had only one tooth cleaned.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
The article I believe clearly demonstrates an explanation of a bud, which could be an eye tooth or “double teeth” as in the link provided.
Again here is the wording which talks about the 3rd set you deny.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
From the article: “evident signs of a third set,”
a massive skull with two rows of teeth, . . . (NEXT SUBJECT) and one with three rows.
The point is: two subjects!
Jason’s Spoiler alert: “there is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.
Revelation: There is a “massive skull”, and one with “three sets (rows) of teeth”. I actually downplay it, in using the term “large”.
Changes:
The article uses the term “massive skull” and the “extremely large skull” which I do see the page needs to be updated to include. I will also be using the word “set” with “rows” in parenthesis. The term set would imply that the baby teeth are present, and have not fallen out, with the buds of a “third set”.
I would like to see one tooth being referred to as a set, not just an isolated case but in general. I would also like to see where I described the skull with 3 sets (rows) as being massive. Mistakenly I may have, but it wasn’t in the material above, or in the links above.

Andy White
12/31/2014 03:20:39 am

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the comment. I believe I understand the points you are trying to make. I’m going to go through the main ones one at a time. Correct me if I've misrepresented anything.

First: You are saying no-one would call a single tooth a "set," and therefore Mitchell must have observed multiple teeth that constituted a "third set" although he only mentioned one. He clearly states that he saw “a nucleus of a tooth.” That single, developing tooth was beneath the neck of one of the permanent teeth, and was only visible because the bone around the tooth was broken. That single tooth was the “evident signs of a third set.” He did not see an entire third set of teeth, but noted that there appeared to a new tooth developing beneath a permanent tooth (of the “second set), which suggested that the individual may have been growing a “third set” of teeth. This is anomalous and noteworthy, but not without precedent (see the references I quoted in the post). There is nothing in Mitchell’s description that indicates that there was anything like an entire third row of teeth in the individual’s mouth.

Second: You are saying that sometimes terms/phrases like “double teeth” and “double rows of teeth” in these various old accounts mean exactly what giantologists say they mean: multiple, concentric rows of teeth that are in the mouth at the same time. I have not disputed that some accounts might actually be describing the existence of “extra” teeth: there is no reason to assume that the same dental conditions that occur in living populations did not occur in ancient ones. In many cases, however, confusion about what the term “double teeth” and the phrase “double teeth all around” actually meant in the 19th century has led giantologists to identify many cases of perfectly normal dentition as something remarkable or even supernatural. I have provided many examples of these kinds of misinterpretations, and they are not “cherry picked” but are based on examination of the very accounts that giantologists put forward as evidence. I think there is a lot wishful thinking about strange teeth on the part of giantologists. I can’t explain the strange attraction many of you have to “double rows of teeth,” but I can show that in many cases the accounts you cite are not actually describing anything that fits that description as you are imagining it. Amelia Island is one of those cases.

Third: You seem to be admitting some confusion (or at least text that is confusing) about the “large” skull vs. the skull with evidence for a “third set” of teeth. It is still not clear from the paragraph on your website which skull(s) you are talking about. Sometimes you seem to me talking about multiple skulls, and sometimes a single skull. I still do not know which skull or what exactly you “hope to replicate” and what “information” that replication would be based on. How does one create a single replica based upon a description of one skull as “large” and another with the “nucleus of a tooth”? What will this “replica” look like? It won’t even rise to the level of a a Frankenstein, because Frankenstein was made from real body parts. Your skull will be mostly imagined.

Fourth: I am not Jason Colavito.

chris l lesley link
1/18/2015 11:41:30 pm

"There is nothing in Mitchell’s description that indicates that there was anything like an entire third row of teeth in the individual’s mouth." Except for the terms third "set", The term "set" denotes plurality, along with placement description being confused for a tooth, with the idea that "set" is being used inappropriately. It is not. From reading some of your other work, it is clear that you have some idea that three rows of teeth indicates the paranormal. This is a condition that exists today, Multiple rows of teeth exists in people today, Accepting this concept doesn't make anyone a "fundamentalist", but i am sure it wouldn't help "transmutational beliefs" from monkeys to men. I will just call it presuppositional religious bias on your part. The Amelia Island report speaks of a set, a third set, which are present, no where does it say the first set is not present, which is what you are implying. There is no confusion on my part, i have been to the Amelia Island museum, and the entire team of Amelia Island has been to the GAWMuseum. Large is a comparative term, just for the record the skull with "2 rows" of teeth is described as "extremely large", not large. Maybe the "extremely large" skull with 2 rows will be next. The confusion is yours. ~Chris L Lesley

Andy White
1/19/2015 02:22:34 am

What you've got is a description that you wish meant something else, and some apparently intentional conflation of which teeth go with which skull. I still don't see how you plan to create a "replica" based on that information other than from your imagination. Good luck.

Chris L Lesley link
1/20/2015 01:22:35 am

Andy White: "some apparently intentional conflation of which teeth go with which skull." . . . simply go to the website and you will see where you, Andy misread the sentence or you can post the sentence where i state that the "extremely large skull" was the one demonstrating three sets of teeth. here is the quote: "a massive skull with two rows of teeth," So not only do you state the intent of the original article but also tell me what my intent was. "A massive skull with two rows of teeth" unless there is another sentence i missed, or misspoke in another blog and it was on my website. No need for a defense. If your goal is: to make straw-man attacks and defend ape-men, monkey-men or whatever hybridized-anthropomorphs you imagine we came from, then I will always be on top of these discussions. The accumulation of copy errors, genetic load, loss of information, and seeing that all animals and plants were larger in the past, everything was Giant, that would suggest something better than ape-men for my anthropology answers. My science remains consistent.

Andy White
1/20/2015 01:41:14 am

Ah . . . there we have it: "all animals and plants were larger in the past." Now you have made a statement that is actually scientific (because it is falsifiable). And you have also put forth what is essentially an evolutionary idea: that things change over time. Maybe you could you flesh out your thinking for me by answering a couple of questions:

1) What causes this change over time? Why do you think, as you say, that all plants and animals have a history of going from larger to smaller?

2) Which, if any, fossils do you recognize as human ancestors?

Chris L Lesley link
1/26/2015 08:08:34 am

Evolutionary? No, not hardly. Evolutionism proposes from the goo, through the zoo to you, it magically transforms philosophers from fish. With the pantheist concept of a unified-nature propped up with energy, time and chance deep reaching into supernaturalism, viola! magic. Let's start there i (not others) reject evolutionism on religious a religious reason: That evolution is far too religious, when i operate with a better process "devolution". This is where you say, "You clearly do not understand evolution". I understand it, and that's why i reject it. I would like to say i am the first devolutionist, however that's not the case. Throughout history many people have associated themselves as a devolutionist, evolve means to unroll, devolve means to roll. where your process takes millions of years and is unobservable, devolution is very observable. Actually most of what you consider evolution like Albinism and melanism in peppered moths is devolution. Losses are devolution, that is the only change over time that exist. Not only do today's weaker descendants have a greater ancestor, but they are descended from their greater ancestors, . . . Is that evolution???
Answer one: Copy errors, everything is bigger better faster stronger and smarter in the past (size being only a part of it) due to a loss in MATURITY. <--
Answer two: All of the human ancestors you recognize, Neanderthals average bench 500 lbs, larger brains, thicker skulls, robust skeletons . . .None that require transmutional beliefs charts, tree icons, imagined illustrations common-ancestors represented by a blue line from two dissimilar creatures.

Now i have a question:
1) How many mega-faunal monkeys are you aware of?

Andy White
1/26/2015 09:01:48 am

I believe you have just demonstrated that you do not understand evolution.

Why is a "mega-faunal monkey" important?

Chris L Lesley link
1/28/2015 02:24:22 am

"I believe you have just demonstrated that you do not understand evolution." . . .

ah. . . there it is, in typical troll-form, maybe Jim Vieira was spot-on after all. Now all you have to do is substitute the word science for evolution, and you will fully earn the label troll.

I am detecting something else in your personality.
"control"

You insist on me speaking in your forum, as well as you asking the questions but not answering any of mine.
Granted my questions are a little tough, you can't wiki, google, pull a government text or visit "How to debate a Creationist Website" for answers. To answer that question requires you to think.

This is one of the problems i have when debating a government educator is the self imposed authority, why did you choose government-education over being a field scientist anyway?

1) You're in charge of a class
2) Don't like getting your hands dirty
3) Impressing on young minds
4) Contributing to society
5) Liberal Socialist
6) young girls

Andy White
1/28/2015 02:51:17 am

You realize you're calling me a troll on my own blog?

Maybe you can tell me what your important question is. Was it about the mega-faunal monkey? Off the top of my head I don't know of any "mega-faunal monkey." Shouldn't there be one, though, as the ancestor of all the tiny little modern monkeys?
I guess I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

Your distinction between "field scientist" and "government educator" is strange and does not reflect reality. Most archaeologists who teach also do fieldwork. I've done plenty of fieldwork in the past (look at my CV), and I will again in the future. Right now I have a job that focuses on teaching. I'm not sure why you think that is important.

Chris L Lesley link
2/6/2015 09:55:13 am

Of course you haven't heard the term mega-faunal monkeys, but i find people captured in academia are too comfortable in the their mental restraints.
Greater ancestors exist for every species, no exceptions (especially humans) so what about monkeys? Mega-fauna is a term used by academia as a sub-group for giants. You are completely unaware and disinterested in finding mega-faunal monkeys, so is academia. The reason is simple: It would have you rethink your position on apemen. All examples of the so-called early "apemen" are in fact mega-faunal primates, many of them are the greater ancestors for monkeys. i have found mega-faunal monkeys, i use a better model than is currently used by academia, than currently misused as apemen.

I am certain your transmutational "reality", is not reality. .

Those who don't science, teach and politically indoctrinate. Academia is a faithful parent, even when it tells you lies. I do understand your position, the difference is you are comfortable with inferior answers. .

I was TRAINED in government-endorsed-pantheism, and i understand it enough to reject it. You should wake up to something better when it is presented to you. .

Field scientist someone digging fossils, while others are teaching a political position. (that's the difference)

Andy White
2/7/2015 09:21:40 pm

Okay, so let me get this straight: some of the "apemen" (of which we have fossils) are ancestors of monkeys? Is that what you're saying?

And you could you please point me in the direction of the megafaunal ancestor of the blue whale?

Chris L Lesley link
2/17/2015 04:16:39 am

First the Blue whale article titled: "Blue Whale NOT the exception!" http://greaterancestors.com/balaenoptera-sibbaldina/ you can see a note on my facebook fanpage also https://www.facebook.com/greaterancestors and an album of photos for possible cavity fills for a Greater Blue whale.

Even the blue whale has a Greater Ancestor, all reptiles, all plants, all insects, all single celled organisms and bacteria, so why would monkeys be the sole anomaly? .

The greater ancestors of monkeys (which have been found in the fossil record) are all mislabeled "apemen". .

Sivapithecus, larger than an orangutan is its greater ancestor. .

Gigantopithecus Blacki, according to the four largest molars found would be a giant gorilla. .

"Java man" Dubouis first assessment before pressured stated that he had found a giant chimpanzee. .

The femur of "Java man" which is human, not from the same location, is four inches larger than average, giant human upper 6 to 7 foot range. .
.
So not only is academia mislabeling giant monkeys and other animals as trans-humans but they are aware of it, why else would they be looking in a place so populated with monkeys today (Africa).
The point: is that no apemen exist. When you find giant humans so abundantly from every state in the US and worldwide yet to find a 7 footer in a graveyard you would need to randomly dig up 2.5 million graves to find one 7' skeleton, yet 7 footers are more than abundant in the past. .

Humans, gorillas, orangutans, chimps monkeys etc. , Anthropology and paleontology is covered.
~Chris L Lesley

Melissa
10/20/2016 04:25:05 am

Interesting to me since I have a third row of teeth, four stubs behind my lower set. Just commenting so I can stay posted.

Normandie Kent
9/26/2018 09:49:53 am

Are you a a giant Nephalim too with those "three rows of teeth"!?Maybe Chris Lesley will make you a living ancestor and replicate your cranium and your " three rows of teeth!!

Luke Cage
10/23/2020 09:00:10 pm

You're clearly a troll of the Brothers Grimm sort. Maybe Andy White can stuff you and use you as an example of how trolls "evolved" from living under bridges to acting like jackasses on message boards.

Melissa
10/23/2020 11:53:47 pm

You could either speak with a dentist to confirm this is something often seen or; using your own words, evolve from living under bridges to acting like a jackass. Well done.


Comments are closed.

    All views expressed in my blog posts are my own. The views of those that comment are their own. That's how it works.

    I reserve the right to take down comments that I deem to be defamatory or harassing. 

    Andy White

    Email me: [email protected]

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


    Picture

    Sick of the woo?  Want to help keep honest and open dialogue about pseudo-archaeology on the internet? Please consider contributing to Woo War Two.
    Picture

    Follow updates on posts related to giants on the Modern Mythology of Giants page on Facebook.

    Archives

    January 2024
    January 2023
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014

    Categories

    All
    3D Models
    AAA
    Adena
    Afrocentrism
    Agent Based Modeling
    Agent-based Modeling
    Aircraft
    Alabama
    Aliens
    Ancient Artifact Preservation Society
    Androgynous Fish Gods
    ANTH 227
    ANTH 291
    ANTH 322
    Anthropology History
    Anunnaki
    Appalachia
    Archaeology
    Ardipithecus
    Art
    Atlantis
    Australia
    Australopithecines
    Aviation History
    Bigfoot
    Birds
    Boas
    Book Of Mormon
    Broad River Archaeological Field School
    Bronze Age
    Caribou
    Carolina Bays
    Ceramics
    China
    Clovis
    Complexity
    Copper Culture
    Cotton Mather
    COVID-19
    Creationism
    Croatia
    Crow
    Demography
    Denisovans
    Diffusionism
    DINAA
    Dinosaurs
    Dirt Dance Floor
    Double Rows Of Teeth
    Dragonflies
    Early Archaic
    Early Woodland
    Earthworks
    Eastern Woodlands
    Eastern Woodlands Household Archaeology Data Project
    Education
    Egypt
    Europe
    Evolution
    Ewhadp
    Fake Hercules Swords
    Fetal Head Molding
    Field School
    Film
    Florida
    Forbidden Archaeology
    Forbidden History
    Four Field Anthropology
    Four-field Anthropology
    France
    Genetics
    Genus Homo
    Geology
    Geometry
    Geophysics
    Georgia
    Giants
    Giants Of Olden Times
    Gigantism
    Gigantopithecus
    Graham Hancock
    Grand Valley State
    Great Lakes
    Hollow Earth
    Homo Erectus
    Hunter Gatherers
    Hunter-gatherers
    Illinois
    India
    Indiana
    Indonesia
    Iowa
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jim Vieira
    Jobs
    Kensington Rune Stone
    Kentucky
    Kirk Project
    Late Archaic
    Lemuria
    Lithic Raw Materials
    Lithics
    Lizard Man
    Lomekwi
    Lost Continents
    Mack
    Mammoths
    Mastodons
    Maya
    Megafauna
    Megaliths
    Mesolithic
    Michigan
    Middle Archaic
    Middle Pleistocene
    Middle Woodland
    Midwest
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Mississippian
    Missouri
    Modeling
    Morphometric
    Mound Builder Myth
    Mu
    Music
    Nazis
    Neandertals
    Near East
    Nephilim
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Newspapers
    New York
    North Carolina
    Oahspe
    Oak Island
    Obstetrics
    Ohio
    Ohio Valley
    Oldowan
    Olmec
    Open Data
    Paleoindian
    Paleolithic
    Pilumgate
    Pleistocene
    Pliocene
    Pre Clovis
    Pre-Clovis
    Prehistoric Families
    Pseudo Science
    Pseudo-science
    Radiocarbon
    Reality Check
    Rome
    Russia
    SAA
    Sardinia
    SCIAA
    Science
    Scientific Racism
    Sculpture
    SEAC
    Search For The Lost Giants
    Sexual Dimorphism
    Sitchin
    Social Complexity
    Social Networks
    Solutrean Hypothesis
    South Africa
    South America
    South Carolina
    Southeast
    Stone Holes
    Subsistence
    Swordgate
    Teaching
    Technology
    Teeth
    Television
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Topper
    Travel
    Travel Diaries
    Vaccines
    Washington
    Whatzit
    White Supremacists
    Wisconsin
    Woo War Two
    World War I
    World War II
    Writing
    Younger Dryas

    RSS Feed

    Picture
Proudly powered by Weebly