More archaic skulls that may not be our species

This is for anything not covered by other forums here, it's the general discussion forum.
Forum rules
This forum will sometimes contain copyrighted information, however, it is placed here under Title 17

Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Post Reply
admin
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:34 am

More archaic skulls that may not be our species

Post by admin » Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:23 am

Author: Biggjimm [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:29 pm ]
Post subject: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
The more I look at old photo the more I am convinced that the remains we
have so long sought have been found numerous times over. There are dozens
of old newspapers and even scientific journals showing skulls with features
that are A) consistent with each other, B) infer anatomy that matches the
shutterbug subject's, and C) seem to have features that are outside of human
range. All of these finds were found and labeled as paleo-indians (falsely due to
the scientific establishments racism at the time) because the features were
primitive. The answer to the riddle is likely sitting in the archives of an old
museum, forgotten about and awaiting rediscovery.
1933, Canonsburg PA.<br />note the lack of a forehead
1933, Canonsburg PA.
note the lack of a forehead
pittb41.jpg
pittb3.jpg
pittb5.jpg
pittb5.jpg (7.5 KiB) Viewed 350 times
1878, Waldo FL
1878, Waldo FL
Florida_archaic_mound_builder.jpg (4.06 KiB) Viewed 350 times
1935, Crystal Springs FL<br />One skull is of a modern Amerindian, the other.....
1935, Crystal Springs FL
One skull is of a modern Amerindian, the other.....
1880 Serpent mound, OH<br />The skull cap is at an angle, so it give the illusion of having a big rounded brain case,<br />but you can tell by looking at the angle of the zygomatic bone that the skull is at an<br />angle and likely very flat when viewed level. Also it was from a skeleton over 8 ft in<br />height
1880 Serpent mound, OH
The skull cap is at an angle, so it give the illusion of having a big rounded brain case,
but you can tell by looking at the angle of the zygomatic bone that the skull is at an
angle and likely very flat when viewed level. Also it was from a skeleton over 8 ft in
height
Author: Rebelistic [ Thu Apr 09, 2015 7:47 am ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Something to ponder. Do they have burial grounds per say or could they just bury where they can? All questions that are needing to be looked at. Is there by chance drawing of these Mounds that they were digging? Or were they just random small mounds found in a location? At this point that may be some good information to have if they are different than the natives made. Is there some particular details we can keep an eye open for when in the woods?

Author: TC85 [ Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:32 pm ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Do they mention length of bones etc.

Author: Biggjimm [ Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Reb, I suspect it may be a case of natives finding the remains and building the mounds close to or on top of them. Keep in mind these
creatures frequently pop up in petroglyphs. Some of the remains are considerably older than the mounds, like the Nebraska Leoss crania.
That particular crania is close to 1 million years in age, dug out of a Pleistocene leoss deposit, with the mound built on top and much more
recent.

TC85, size is not a good indicator to use, as it changes absurdly fast in the fossil record. Most people are unaware that during the ice age,
white tailed deer weighed in at around 500 lbs, and cougars where bobcat sized. but the Ohio skull was stated at being over 20 inches tall
when fully constructed.

Author: Rebelistic [ Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:04 am ]
Post subject: Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species
Biggjimm wrote:
Reb, I suspect it may be a case of natives finding the remains and building the mounds close to or on top of them. Keep in mind these
creatures frequently pop up in petroglyphs. Some of the remains are considerably older than the mounds, like the Nebraska Leoss crania.
That particular crania is close to 1 million years in age, dug out of a Pleistocene leoss deposit, with the mound built on top and much more
recent.

TC85, size is not a good indicator to use, as it changes absurdly fast in the fossil record. Most people are unaware that during the ice age,
white tailed deer weighed in at around 500 lbs, and cougars where bobcat sized. but the Ohio skull was stated at being over 20 inches tall
when fully constructed.

With older and newer stuff together I guess it would show that there was plenty of the necessary stuff there like food water etc. and is a stable place to live.

cliffordcope@att.net
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:56 pm

Re: More archaic skulls that may not be our species

Post by cliffordcope@att.net » Tue Jun 02, 2020 6:06 pm

I think the question about: Do they bury or not and if so where and how, is a really great question. Makes me wonder about those small mounds I have seen once in a while out looking for someone and ignored. But then I guess it was irrelevant at the time.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”


  • You do not have permission to post in chat.
@ BrianDriver « Sat 12:59 pm »
Good quality pics. How long were the cams out?
@ admin « Thu 9:09 pm »
Just to get the chat going, it’s going to take some time to move over all the data, but in the end, hope everyone likes the layout here.

Who is chatting