>>16655480

(Please read from the start)

Is this possible for one person to be a cocktail of so many clans and sub clans? I don’t think so. So how did we reach such a result? = from the looks of it, this is a mutation from the younger generation which mixed many people into ONE = making them one person. The divine power of the Light, either it’s healing or seeing is born with you, you cannot steal it or take it/copy it from someone else, and it cannot be taught. Back in the days, there was no blood mixing between the members of the different clans. The mixing occurred after the survivors got out of the Ark. Kumugwe is a flood survivor so he was a pure blood. This is why I said the younger generation mixed different person together, merged them to become one; because there is no way a pure blood like Kumugwe can have powers from other clans. I hope what I’m trying to explain is clear here. By the way, it’s also not the first time we see ThunderBirds connected to the work of metals, with copper when it comes to the Native Americans.

“Sisiutl is a giant three-headed sea serpent whose glance can turn an adversary into stone. Cross beams of clan houses sometimes are carved with his appearance. Blessed ancestors have sometimes received sisiutl's help when he transforms himself into an invincible war canoe, and sometimes into a magic belt with which to gird oneself against all dangers.”

>> We’ve already seen Sisiutl before. What is interesting here is that it’s making it clear that not all the tribes of the Kwakiutl are direct descendants of ThunderBirds, but some are descendants of the Evil Clan = it’s a mixture and this was mentioned before; as in they didn’t form one group.

“Dzunukwa (Tsonokwa) is a type of cannibal giant (called sasquatch by other Northwest Coast tribes) and comes in both male and female forms. In most legends, the female form is the most commonly told; she eats children and cries "hu-hu!" to attract them, she imitates the child's grandmother's voice. Children frequently outwit her, sometimes killing her and taking her treasures without being eaten.”

>> “Hu-hu” sounds like an owl, doesn’t it? Well, it’s obvious we are dealing with pedovores here as in Horned Serpent clan members. I like how they said they are giants because all the warriors from all the clans are almost double our current size as humans. The Sebetti rulers are giants too.

“Bakwas is king of the ghosts. He is a small green spirit whose face looks emaciated like a skeleton, but has a long curving nose. He haunts the forests and tries to bring the living over to the world of the dead. In some myths Bakwas is the husband of Dzunukwa.”

>> Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Because we’ve already encountered similar “beings” with other names before in this thread. No question about it here = Horned Serpent Clan. Ever since I’m seeing those “stars” and celebrities recently without their Adrenochrome “dosage” and how they look….you know….like the walking dead, the zombies….I keep on wondering if these “ghosts and skeletons” from the Native American mythology are not Horned Serpent Clan members suffering from Andrenochrome withdrawals as well. Just some thoughts there.

“U'melth is the Raven, who brought the Kwakwaka'wakw people the moon, fire, salmon, the sun and the tides.

Pugwis is a sort of aquatic creature with a fish-like face and large incisors.”

• Page 2 373 –

>>16655736

(Please read from the start)

“Ceremony

Kwakwaka'wakw spirituality is transmitted at ceremonies, mostly during the winter season. These ceremonies are often referred to as potlatches. They are mostly designed for the transference, justification, and reaffirmation of family and spiritual status inherited from primeval ancestors who contacted the spirit world and were given privileges from beings of a supernatural nature. These beings prefer honor, power, and magic through the gift of Tlugwe, which are supernatural treasures, often taking the physical form of masks and regalia, but also comprising stories, songs, recitations, dances, and other intangible performances.

Kwakwaka'wakw spirits, like those of other Northwest Coast peoples, can be divided into four separate spirit realms: sky spirits, sea spirits, earth spirits, and otherworldly spirits. All four realms interact with one another, and human beings attempt to contact all four worlds and often channel their spirits at sacred ceremonies wherein dancers go into trances while wearing masks and other regalia associated with the spiritworld.”

>> No wonder (((they))) wanted to stop the potlatches ceremonies because it means others than (((them))) can get in contact with the Spirit world, regardless if it’s the good side or the bad side; which apparently (((they))) didn’t like this, because (((they))) tried to put an end to it. (((They))) wanted the contact with the Spirit world to be exclusively (((theirs))) or should I say under (((their))) control. Greedy as always I see and obsessed with control as well.

“Of particular importance in Kwakwaka'wakw culture is the secret society called Hamatsa. During the winter, there is a four-day complex dance that serves to initiate new members of Hamatsa. The Hamatsa dancer represents the spirit of Baxbaxwalanuksiwe ("Man-Eater at the North End of the World"); who can transform into various man-eating birds and has mouths all over his body. Hamatsa initiates are possessed by Baxwbakwalanuksiwe'. On the first day of the Hamatsa ceremonies the initiate is lured out of the woods and brought into the Big House to be tamed. When the initiate returns, he enacts his cannibalistic possession symbolically. Gwaxwgwakwalanuksiwe' is the most prestigious role in the Supernatural Man-Eater Birds ceremony; he is a man-eating raven. Galuxwadzuwus ("Crooked-Beak of Heaven") and Huxhukw (supernatural Crane-Like Bird who cracks skulls of men to suck out their brains) are other participants.”

>> It’s obvious we are talking here about a Horned Serpent warrior whom has stolen the wings of the ThunderBirds.

With this I would have finished taking a general look and a specific look to some of the Native American Nations/tribes/cultures. There are so many of them, they are like all the colors of a rainbow, so it’s better to take a general view and visit closer a few of them since I’m not going that deep into it all and I’m not going into specifics. As the reader can see from what we’ve got from the Native Americans sections, there is a dominant culture/side in each Native American Nation and there is a minor side in it as well.

Like in some of the Nations we’ve seen, it was the Light side which was dominant, with a minor side within the same culture coming/ or being influenced by the Horned Serpent Clan. We’ve also seen it the other way around with the Hopi culture and Mesa Verde site, with the Horned Serpent culture being dominant there while the side of the Light takes a minor, secondary role. The reason behind that is the constant = none stop migrations and the reshuffling of the tribes for many centuries and this is the result we get. This is not an exclusive phenomenon with the Native American Nations, but we’ve also seen a huge and constant migration movement in the Andean region as well as from the Armenian plateau and in the Middle East. This is how a lot of things and cultures got mixed up as centuries went by and the new generations misunderstood things. I’ve explained this so many times, that I’m not going to repeat it. Here, is no different, but we can still distinguish the main traits for this and that…while sometimes it gets hard and trickier to do so. I’m going to stop here and move to the next section, in this part of the world.

• Page 2 374 -

>>16655760

(Please read from the start)

Next I’m going to do what I did to the other regions of the world and check out the Out-of-Place Artifacts which are mentioned in this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact

I’m not going to follow a specific order and just go randomly with them. I’m also not going deep into them, unless I have to/find it necessary. After I finish this, I’m going to add some peculiar and interesting things that are not mentioned in the list of Out-of-Place Artifacts and take a look at them, as I did for the other regions.

“[…]

Examples

• Maine penny: An 11th-century Norwegian coin found in a Native American shell midden at the Goddard Site in Brooklin, Maine, United States, which some authors have argued is evidence of direct contact between Vikings and Native Americans in Maine. The coin need not imply actual exploration of Maine by the Vikings, however; mainstream belief is that it was brought to Maine from Labrador or Newfoundland (where Vikings are known to have established colonies as early as the late 10th century) via an extensive northern trade network operated by indigenous peoples. If Vikings did indeed visit Maine, a much greater number and variety of Viking artifacts might be expected in the archaeological record there. Of the nearly 20,000 objects found over a 15-year period at the Goddard Site, the coin was the sole non-native artifact.”

>> So they are not denying the authenticity of the coin (= being a real coin and not a forgery) but what they are questioning is the direct or indirect route this coin took to reach North American soil = as in if it was brought directly by the Vikings (did they reach the shores of North America?) or if it was brought there indirectly via trade or transit/ contact through another people with the Vikings. This is what I understand from this paragraph from this list Wikipedia page about the Out-of-Place Artifacts. Now let’s take a closer look what it is about with this coin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_penny

“The Maine penny, also referred to as the Goddard coin, is a Norwegian silver coin dating to the reign of Olaf Kyrre King of Norway (1067–1093 AD). It was claimed to be discovered in Maine in 1957, and it has been suggested as evidence of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.

“Discovery

Guy Mellgren, a local resident and amateur archaeologist, said he found this coin on August 18, 1957, at the Goddard Site. This was an extensive archeological site at an old Native American settlement at Naskeag Point on Penobscot Bay in Brooklin, Maine. A 1978 article in Time called the discovery site an ancient Indian rubbish heap near the coastal town of Blue Hill. Over a lengthy period, a collection of 30,000 items from the site was donated to the Maine State Museum. The coin was donated in 1974.”

>> Listen to this beauty: “TIME called the discovery site an ancient Indian rubbish heap […]” = this tells a lot on its own without me commenting much about it. Anons NOW know what this really means.

• Page 2 375 –

>>16655764

(Please read from the start)

“The coin

Much of the circumstances of the finding of the coin were not well preserved in the record (as was the case with the majority of the 30,000 finds). The coin was at first mis-identified as a British penny from the 12th century. In 1978, experts from London considered that it might had been of Norse origin. Today the identity of the Maine Penny as an Olaf Kyrre silver coin is not in doubt. Kolbjørn Skaare of the University of Oslo determined the coin had been minted between 1065 and 1080 AD and widely circulated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The penny was found with a perforation, probably for use as a pendant. This area of the coin has since crumbled to dust from corrosion.”

>> The level of neglect is incredible. With everything I’ve read so far = in general, about North America, mostly the States, the preservation of sites and how the artifacts are handled is worse than countries with no laws in them. Now, can I get curious and ask what the heck is going on with the States on how to handle artifacts and sites? Also did anyone reading notice the patterns of “record” loss or not correctly registering the crucial information when it comes to notable or intriguing artifacts? We’ve seen this before with Narmer’s palette and all the controversy about it….and these were not the only artifacts which were mishandled = all “interesting” artifacts were. This is a pattern anons, and this is done on purpose, if you haven’t guessed it yet.

This is an indication that there is something (((they))) don’t want the general public to know about this specific artifact, because whatever that information is, it’s a threat to the carefully doctored History (((they))) created for us = it will shatter the illusion of the matrix. Just look at what (((their))) tool = the Time, used as words to blur the image. This is another indication (((they))) don’t want people = the public, looking into this.

“Norse origin

The Goddard site has been dated to 1180–1235, within the circulation period of pennies of this type. The people who lived at the site at that time are generally considered to be ancestors of the Penobscot. While the date is around two hundred years after the last of the Vinland voyages (c. 1000) described in Norse sagas, it is well within the period during which the Norse lived in Greenland (10th to 15th centuries) and could have visited North America.

The penny's coastal origin has been offered as evidence either that the Norsemen from Greenland traveled farther south than Newfoundland or that the coin might have been traded locally. However, the penny was the only Norse artifact found at the site, which according to substantial evidence was a hub in a large native trade network. For example, a single artifact generally identified as a Dorset culture burin was also recovered there, and may support the idea that both the burin and the penny could plausibly have come to Maine through native trade-channels from Norse sources in Labrador or Newfoundland.”

>> Yes, this is the general idea that we all got about how this coin reached Maine.

• Page 2 376 –

>>16655776

(Please read from the start)

“The Maine State Museum website favors the view that the coin was found at the site and is therefore evidence of Norse presence on the North American continent, although the Museum states "the most likely explanation for the coin's presence is that it was obtained by natives somewhere else, perhaps in Newfoundland where the only known New World Norse settlement has been found at L’Anse aux Meadows, and that it eventually reached the Goddard site through native trade channels".The Maine State Museum describes it as "the only pre-Columbian Norse artifact generally regarded as genuine found within the United States".”

>> This is one possibility but not a certainty. We should have found the trade trail and other items from the same genre in other places of trade.

“However, the possibility that it may be a hoax has been raised. Notably this Norwegian silver coin and other similar coins of that era were available on the open market during 1957. Thus Mellgren could have had the means and the opportunity to plant the coin at the site, or he could have been deceived by someone planting the coin – though it is unclear what the motive would have been. There are enough questions regarding the provenance of the coin to leave its archaeological significance unclear. An assessment of the validity of the find by anthropologist Edmund Snow Carpenter concluded: "Not proven”.”

>> So they are not questioning the authenticity of the artifact itself, but how it got there = as in the Main Stream History is trying to “frame” this coin as a hoax because (((they))) are trying to peddle the narrative that it’s planted on the site. You gotta ask yourselves why (((they))) are doing that? What are (((they))) hiding? What is it (((they))) don’t want us to find out about this issue? What (((they))) are fighting is not the authenticity of the coin but how it got to where it was found; so ask yourselves = what is hiding in this specific tunnel?

“Robert Hoge, writing for the American Numismatic Society in 2006, stated that "There is no reliable confirmation on the documentation of the Goddard coin, and much circumstantial evidence suggests that someone was deliberately trying to manipulate or obfuscate the situation. The Norse coin from Maine should probably be considered a hoax."

A November 2017 paper by Norwegian numismatist Svein Gullbeck suggests that the coin is a genuine find.”

>> I’m saying it again, the issue is not about if the coin is real or not; the issue is how it got to where it was found = dug out. The coin is real and it’s very clear (((they))) don’t want the public to go digging into HOW this coin arrived/got to where it was found = this is where anons whom are interested should dig. (((They))) are hiding something about HOW it got there; (((they))) don’t want us to find out how it got there because (((they))) are aware it will shatter the historical narrative (((they))) have pushed forward and expose things (((they))) don’t want the public to be aware/know about.

This is it for the Maine Penny.

• Page 2 377 –

>>16655781

(Please read from the start)

The next Out-of-Place artifact is the Kensington rune stone. From Out-of-Place artifacts page of Wikipedia:

“[…]

Questionable interpretations

[…]

• Kensington Runestone: A runestone unearthed in 1898 in Kensington, Minnesota, entangled in the roots of a tree. Runologists have dismissed the inscription's authenticity on linguistic evidence, while geologists disagree as to whether the stone shows weathering that would indicate a medieval date.

[…]”

Let’s take a closer look to this stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone

“The Kensington Runestone is a slab of greywacke stone covered in runes that was allegedly discovered in central Minnesota in 1898. Olof Öhman, a Swedish immigrant, reported that he unearthed it from a field in the largely rural township of Solem in Douglas County. It was later named after the nearest settlement, Kensington.

The inscription purports to be a record left behind by Scandinavian explorers in the 14th century (internally dated to the year 1362). There has been a drawn-out debate regarding the stone's authenticity, but since the first scientific examination in 1910, the scholarly consensus has classified it as a 19th-century hoax, with some critics directly charging Öhman with fabrication. Nevertheless there remains a community convinced of the stone's authenticity.”

>> Oh my! Look how this is worded. From the get go (((they))) are shooing us here = kicking our rears out and telling us there is nothing to see here, so get out of this. Oh my! Why the rush in classifying this as a hoax? Why not say it’s controversial? Whom are the scholars whom made that consensus about this stone? Give us some names so we can check them out.

“Provenance

Swedish immigrant Olof Öhman said that he found the stone late in 1898 while clearing land he had recently acquired of trees and stumps before plowing. The stone was said to be near the crest of a small knoll rising above the wetlands, lying face down and tangled in the root system of a stunted poplar tree estimated to be from less than 10 to about 40 years old. The artifact is about 30 × 16 × 6 inches (76 × 41 × 15 cm) in size and weighs 202 pounds (92 kg). Öhman's 10-year-old son Edward noticed some markings, and the farmer later said he thought they had found an "Indian almanac".”

• Page 2 378 –

>>16655788

(Please read from the start)

>> Will I be stunning the reader if I told you that this smells like authentic? I think I’ve mentioned this before in this thread, but the best archaeological finds were found out exactly in this same method = someone plowing the land and found something. This is what we call a “coincidence” find but it’s also the most authentic type of finds since it’s not planned or orchestrated. So for me, this is not the first time that I read about a site or an artifact (even important ones) discovered this way = by accident. For me, this doesn’t discredit at all Olof nor the stone itself, right the opposite, it pushes more and more towards being an authentic artifact.

“During this period, the journey of Leif Ericson to Vinland (North America) was being widely discussed and there was renewed interest in the Vikings throughout Scandinavia, stirred by the National Romanticism movement. Five years earlier Norway had participated in the World's Columbian Exposition by sending the Viking, a replica of the Gokstad ship, to Chicago. There was also friction between Sweden and Norway (which ultimately led to Norway's independence from Sweden in 1905). Some Norwegians claimed the stone was a Swedish hoax and there were similar Swedish accusations because the stone references a joint expedition of Norwegians and Swedes. It is thought to be more than coincidental that the stone was found among Scandinavian newcomers in Minnesota, still struggling for acceptance and quite proud of their Nordic heritage.”

>> This argument about the authenticity of the stone is based on “possible” political rivalry which means nothing. This argument has no value if it’s not backed up with evidence proving this really happened; like shipment papers or an expert in runes was living in the area etc. You know, something tangible and factual to back up this hypothesis and not just basing it on some “possible” political rivalry between 2 countries. Besides Olof thought it was writing from the Native Americans, it never crossed his mind what was written is actually Runes ^_~

“A copy of the inscription made its way to the University of Minnesota. Olaus J. Breda (1853–1916), professor of Scandinavian Languages and Literature in the Scandinavian Department, declared the stone to be a forgery and published a discrediting article which appeared in Symra in 1910. Breda also forwarded copies of the inscription to fellow linguists and historians in Scandinavia, such as Oluf Rygh, Sophus Bugge, Gustav Storm, Magnus Olsen and Adolf Noreen. They "unanimously pronounced the Kensington inscription a fraud and forgery of recent date".

>> This is much better; now we have names that we can check and dig into to see whom is getting the big checks and whom is paying them. For those interested in this dig, you should check if these “scholars” are part of the “paid experts” club or not.

“The stone was then sent to Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Scholars either dismissed it as a prank or felt unable to identify a sustainable historical context and the stone was returned to Öhman. Hjalmar Holand, a Norwegian-American historian and author, claimed Öhman gave him the stone. However, the Minnesota Historical Society has a bill of sale showing Öhman sold them the stone for $10 in 1911. Holand renewed public interest with an article enthusiastically summarizing studies that were made by geologist Newton Horace Winchell (Minnesota Historical Society) and linguist George T. Flom (Philological Society of the University of Illinois), who both published opinions in 1910.”

• Page 2 379 –

>>16655798

(Please read from the start)

“According to Winchell, the tree under which the stone was found had been destroyed before 1910. Several nearby poplars that witnesses estimated as being about the same size were cut down and, by counting their rings, it was determined they were around 30–40 years old. One member of the team who had excavated at the find site in 1899, county school superintendent Cleve Van Dyke, later recalled the trees being only 10 or 12 years old. The surrounding county had not been settled until 1858, and settlement was severely restricted for a time by the Dakota War of 1862 (although it was reported that the best land in the township adjacent to Solem, Holmes City, was already taken by 1867, by a mixture of Swedish, Norwegian and "Yankee" settlers).

Winchell estimated that the inscription was roughly 500 years old, by comparing its weathering with the weathering on the backside, which he assumed was glacial and 8000 years old. He also stated that the chisel marks were fresh. More recently geologist Harold Edwards has also noted that "The inscription is about as sharp as the day it was carved … The letters are smooth showing virtually no weathering." Winchell also mentions in the same report that Prof. W. O. Hotchkiss, state geologist of Wisconsin, estimated that the runes were "at least 50 to 100 years". Meanwhile, Flom found a strong apparent divergence between the runes used in the Kensington inscription and those in use during the 14th century. Similarly, the language of the inscription was modern compared to the Nordic languages of the 14th century.

The Kensington Runestone is on display at the Runestone Museum in Alexandria, Minnesota.”

>> So the physical, tangible evidence from the stone are indicating the inscription or should I say the epigraphy is of a few hundred years old – but certainly not ancient (=thousands of years) nor freshly made. It makes you wonder what’s the big deal about this stone if it’s an authentic one, doesn’t it?

“Text and translation

The text consists of nine lines on the face of the stone, and three lines on the edge, read as follows:

Front:

8 : göter : ok : 22 : norrmen : po :

…o : opdagelsefärd : fro :

vinland : of : vest : vi :

hade : läger : ved : 2 : skjär : en :

dags : rise : norr : fro : deno : sten :

vi : var : ok : fiske : en : dagh : äptir :

vi : kom : hem : fan : 10 : man : röde :

af : blod : og : ded : AVM :

frälse : äf : illü.

Side:

här : (10) : mans : ve : havet : at : se :

äptir : vore : skip : 14 : dagh : rise :

from : deno : öh : ahr : 1362 :”

• Page 2 380 –

>>16655804

(Please read from the start)

“The sequences rr, ll and gh represent actual digraphs. The AVM is written in Latin capitals. The numbers given in Arabic numerals in the above transcription are given in the pentimal system. At least seven of the runes, including those transcribed a, d, v, j, ä, ö above, are not in any standard known from the medieval period (see below for details). The language of the inscription is close to modern Swedish, the transliterated text being quite easily comprehensible to any speaker of a modern Scandinavian language. The language, being closer to the Swedish of the 19th than of the 14th century, is one of the main reasons for the scholarly consensus dismissing it as a hoax.

The text translates to:

"Eight Geats and twenty-two Norwegians on an exploration journey from Vinland to the west. We had camp by two skerries one day's journey north from this stone. We were [out] to fish one day. After we came home [we] found ten men red of blood and dead. AVM (Ave Virgo Maria) save [us] from evil."

"[We] have ten men by the sea to look after our ships, fourteen days' travel from this island. [In the] year 1362."

>> I’m unable to say anything about this since I’m totally clueless about the Nordic History. I never got interested about it. So I’m going to keep on reading and see what it’s about with this stone. So far, both sides have good points/arguments.

“Linguistic analysis

Holand took the stone to Europe and, while newspapers in Minnesota carried articles hotly debating its authenticity, the stone was quickly dismissed by Swedish linguists.”

>> Honestly, the behavior of these “scholars” and now the linguists is making me scratch my head. Do you even know how many times we review an inscription before making a publication about it in archaeology? The behavior is odd = it’s either pointing the experts are hiding something and they want to dismiss this as a hoax fast. Or, the forgery is so blatant, so obvious that it’s ridiculous to spend a split second to read this inscription. The speed in which this is dismissed is indicating this is either a very obvious forgery or they are hiding something about it.

“For the next 40 years, Holand struggled to sway public and scholarly opinion about the Runestone, writing articles and several books. He achieved brief success in 1949, when the stone was put on display at the Smithsonian Institution, and scholars such as William Thalbitzer and S. N. Hagen published papers supporting its authenticity. At nearly the same time, Scandinavian linguists Sven Jansson, Erik Moltke, Harry Anderson and K. M. Nielsen, along with a popular book by Erik Wahlgren, again questioned the Runestone's authenticity.”

>> This is getting more and more suspicious. Lots of odd behavior and reactions from both sides = the ones believing the stone to be fake and the ones believing the stone to be real.

• Page 2 381 –

>>16655815

(Please read from the start)

“Along with Wahlgren, historian Theodore C. Blegen flatly asserted Öhman had carved the artifact as a prank, possibly with help from others in the Kensington area. Further resolution seemed to come with the 1976 published transcript of an interview of Frank Walter Gran, conducted by Paul Carson, Jr. on August 13, 1967 that had been recorded on audio tape. In it, Gran said his father John confessed in 1927 that Öhman made the inscription. John Gran's story however was based on second-hand anecdotes he had heard about Öhman, and although it was presented as a dying declaration, Gran lived for several more years, saying nothing more about the stone.”

>> Is the audio tape accessible to the public? Can we listen to the confession?

“The possibility of the Runestone being an authentic 14th-century artifact was again raised in 1982 by Robert Hall, an emeritus professor of Italian language and literature at Cornell University, who published a book (and a follow up in 1994) questioning the methodology of its critics. Hall asserted that the odd philological problems in the Runestone could be the result of normal dialectal variances in Old Swedish of the period. He further contended that critics had failed to consider the physical evidence, which he found leaning heavily in favor of authenticity.”

>> I fully agree with R. Hall. The physical, tangible evidence are pointing in favor of this stone being authentic, but the “language” is not according to the “experts”. He also has a point when he says that there might be dialectal variances. I’ve seen this many times before in archaeology in my lifetime, so it’s not uncommon to have dialectal variances.

“In The Vikings and America (1986), Wahlgren again stated that the text bore linguistic abnormalities and spellings that he thought suggested the Runestone was a forgery.”

>> I wish we had more details about these linguistic abnormalities and spellings to check for ourselves if it’s real or not.

“Lexical evidence

One of the main linguistic arguments for the rejection of the text as genuine Old Swedish is the term opthagelse farth (updagelsefard) "journey of discovery". This lexeme is unattested in either Scandinavian, Low Franconian or Low German before the 16th century. Similar terms exist in modern Scandinavian (Norwegian oppdagingsferd or oppdagelsesferd, Swedish upptäcktsfärd). "Opdage" is a loan from Low German *updagen, Dutch opdagen, which is in turn from High German aufdecken, ultimately loan-translated from French découvrir "to discover" in the 16th century. The Norwegian historian Gustav Storm often used the modern Norwegian lexeme in late 19th-century articles on Viking exploration, creating a plausible incentive for the manufacturer of the inscription to use this word.

Grammatical evidence

Another characteristic pointed out by skeptics is the text's lack of cases. Early Old Swedish (14th century) still retained the four cases of Old Norse, but Late Old Swedish (15th century) reduced its case structure to two cases, so that the absence of inflection in a Swedish text of the 14th century would be an irregularity. Similarly, the inscription text does not use the plural verb forms that were common in the 14th century and have only recently disappeared: for example, (plural forms in parenthesis) "wi war" (warum), "hathe" (hafðe), "[wi] fiske" (fiskaðum), "kom" (komum), "fann" (funnum) and "wi hathe" (hafðum).”

• Page 2 382 –

>>16655827

(Please read from the start)

“Proponents of the stone's authenticity pointed to sporadic examples of these simpler forms in some 14th-century texts and to the great changes of the morphological system of the Scandinavian languages that began during the latter part of that century.”

>> Maybe I misunderstood what is written here, but did they just say in the second paragraph that changes started to occur linguistically during the same century the stone was dated back to? Such changes don’t happen overnight, and it takes many decades for the change to be finalized. This opens the possibility of the inscription being actually authentic and correct. This is a FACT which cannot be dismissed because of the various different forms the language could have taken, depending on the geographic location and other influences and variables.

“Paleographic evidence

The inscription contains "pentadic" numerals. Such numerals are known in Scandinavia, but nearly always from relatively recent times, not from verified medieval runic monuments, on which numbers were usually spelled out as words.

S. N. Hagen stated "The Kensington alphabet is a synthesis of older unsimplified runes, later dotted runes, and a number of Latin letters … The runes for a, n, s and t are the old Danish unsimplified forms which should have been out of use for a long time [by the 14th century] … I suggest that [a posited 14th century] creator must at some time or other in his life have been familiar with an inscription (or inscriptions) composed at a time when these unsimplified forms were still in use" and that he "was not a professional runic scribe before he left his homeland".”

>> It’s clear from the text that these were travelers and it’s not written by a “professional” runic scribe. There is something that has been bothering me about this stone ever since I saw it for the first time in the pictures = it doesn’t have a smooth, flat, clean, clear surface.

Worldwide, there is a certain “way” for scribes, regardless to which age or civilization/culture they belonged to. What I’m saying is that scribes worldwide are kinda picky on which “surface” they write on = they like flat, smooth, clean surfaces to write on and not rugged or bumpy ones; regardless which type of material they are writing on = stone, clay, metal, paper, leather etc. Please take a good look at the picture I’m posting with this page – the surface of this stone is not smooth enough to please a scribe to write on. I’m not talking about the broken section which I’m pointing to with a green arrow. I’m talking about the “bump/dent” I’ve put in a yellow box and pointing to with a red arrow. This is a “flaw” in the material used as a surface to write on; which, in this case, is a stone. Most of the time professional scribes avoid using such surfaces with bumps in them because it will disrupt the parallel lines of the text. If you don’t believe me, just go back and take a look to the many steles I’ve put pictures of in this thread from many cultures/civilizations. Scribes always chose smooth, clean cut surfaces to write on so that the lines remain parallel and won’t overlap or go zigzag. This is not the case here. Here there is a flaw in the stone which could very well make the lines of the inscription overlap one another if it’s not written with care. It’s clear this is not written by a scribe.

So if it’s not a scribe whom wrote this, then whom did? It’s obviously someone whom can write and even count. No brainer there. But it’s also someone whom is aware that he should mark the stone with a date. He knows directions too; like North and East. When you read the inscription it feels like this is a marker or a record left behind by an adventurer or an explorer, but then, you also get the feeling he is somewhat worried or scared when he mentioned the 10 men of blood and dead. An adventurer or an explorer would be mentally ready to encounter any sort of danger, including thieves or murderers. So it’s not that. When you combine all of those details together, what possibilities do I have: a trader, a scholar, a clergyman maybe. Anyone reading has another suggestion?

• Page 2 383 –

>>16655874

(Please read from the start)

“A possible origin for the irregular shape of the runes was discovered in 2004, in the 1883 notes of a then-16-year-old journeyman tailor with an interest in folk music, Edward Larsson. Larsson's aunt had migrated with her husband and son from Sweden to Crooked Lake, just outside Alexandria, in 1870. Larsson's sheet lists two different Futharks. The first Futhark consists of 22 runes, the last two of which are bind-runes, representing the letter-combinations EL and MW. His second Futhark consists of 27 runes, where the last 3 are specially adapted to represent the letters å, ä, and ö of the modern Swedish alphabet. The runes in this second set correspond closely to the non-standard runes in the Kensington inscription.

The abbreviation for Ave Maria consists of the Latin letters AVM. Wahlgren (1958) noted that the carver had incised a notch on the upper right-hand corner of the letter V. The Massey Twins in their 2004 paper argued that this notch is consistent with a scribal abbreviation for a final -e used in the 14th century.”

>> This is like having different hand writings anons. If you take different epigraphic inscriptions from one civilization, you will notice that the letters are the same but their form is a bit different = making the hand writing different. I’m talking about alphabet letters here anons and not pictograms or symbol way of writing. If I take 50 people and ask them to write the ABC in English, I will have 50 different looking letters despite it being the same alphabet of the same language. Same thing for Greek, Arabic, Russian etc. I hope the reader understands what I’m saying here.

But it is also true that there are some “special” features of how the letters are written that are specific to some eras or should I say centuries. Just take a look of how the letters are written/form in Old English and compare them to how they are written/formed now. The difference is huge. Sometimes, depending on the case, the way the letters are written/formed, can help us identify in which era/century they were written in.

“Purported historical context

Norse colonies are known to have existed in Greenland from the late 10th century to at least the 14th century, and at least one short-lived settlement was established in Newfoundland, at L'Anse aux Meadows, in the 11th century, but no other widely accepted material evidence of Norse contact with the Americas in the pre-Columbian era has yet emerged. Still, there is some limited documentary evidence for possible 14th-century Scandinavian expeditions to North America.”

>> This is carefully worded in order to limit the damage and trying to contain the idea of the Vikings have reached the Americas before Columbus did. It’s more than obvious (((they))) don’t want any researcher to go digging into that tunnel and disturb the carefully crafted History (((they))) made up for us.

“In a letter by Gerardus Mercator to John Dee, dated 1577, Mercator refers to a Jacob Cnoyen, who had learned that eight men returned to Norway from an expedition to the Arctic islands in 1364. One of the men, a priest, provided the King of Norway with a great deal of geographical information. In the early 19th century, Carl Christian Rafn mentioned a priest named Ivar Bardarsson who had previously been based in Greenland and turns up in Norwegian records from 1364 onward.”

• Page 2 384 –

>>16655913

(Please read from the start)

>> A priest. I didn’t think of it, but yes, it’s possible. It could be a trader, it could be a priest. Both are possible. But does a priest have the tools and the experience to carve rather neat letters on a stone?

“Furthermore, in 1354, King Magnus Eriksson of Sweden and Norway issued a letter appointing a law officer named Paul Knutsson as leader of an expedition to the colony of Greenland, in order to investigate reports that the population was turning away from Christian culture. Another of the documents reprinted by the 19th-century scholars was a scholarly attempt by Icelandic Bishop Gisli Oddsson, in 1637, to compile a history of the Arctic colonies. He dated the Greenlanders' fall away from Christianity to 1342 and claimed that they had turned instead to America. Supporters of a 14th-century origin for the Kensington Runestone argue that Knutson may, therefore, have travelled beyond Greenland to North America in search of renegade Greenlanders, whereupon most of his expedition was killed in Minnesota, leaving just the eight voyagers to return to Norway.”

>> Yes, this makes sense. This might be a good explanation. I’m not expert in this matter so it’s better for those interested to look deep into this; verifying everything.

“However, there is no evidence that the Knutson expedition ever set sail (the government of Norway went through considerable turmoil in 1355) and the information from Cnoyen as relayed by Mercator states specifically that the eight men who came to Norway in 1364 were not survivors of a recent expedition, but descended from the colonists who had settled the distant lands several generations earlier. Those early 19th-century books, which aroused a great deal of interest among Scandinavian Americans, would have been available to a late 19th-century hoaxer.

Hjalmar Holand adduced the "blond" Indians among the Mandan on the Upper Missouri River as possible descendants of the Swedish and Norwegian explorers. This was dismissed as "tangential" to the Runestone issue by Alice Beck Kehoe in her 2004 book The Kensington Runestone, Approaching a Research Question Holistically.”

>> The BLONDE Native Americans can be the descendants of such Swedish and Norwegian explorers as suggested here. But they can also be descendants = pure bloods, of another group of BLONDE people with BLUE EYES; a very specific group whom had wings and could fly.

“One possible route of such an expedition, connecting the Hudson Bay with Kensington, would lead up either Nelson River or Hayes River, through Lake Winnipeg, then up the Red River of the North. The northern waterway begins at Traverse Gap, on the other side of which is the source of the Minnesota River, which flows south to join the Mississippi River at Saint Paul/Minneapolis. This route was examined by Flom (1910), who found that explorers and traders had come from Hudson Bay to Minnesota by this route decades before the area was officially settled.”

>> Yes, this is very possible. Waterways are roads connecting people just like land roads.

This is it for this Wikipedia page, but not about the Kensington Stone.

• Page 2 385 –

>>16655921

(Please read from the start)

This is what was written in Wikipedia, let’s take a look what the other side of the coin looks like: https://www.thekensingtonrunestone.com

“The Kensington Runestone

UPDATED: 07/28/2017

Introduction

The Kensington Runestone has been the subject of discussion and controversy since its discovery in 1898 by a Swedish farmer, named Olof Ohman, while clearing land for his farm near Kensington, Minnesota (45 48' 46.17"N - 95 40' 01.53"). Due to inherent skepticism, and the fact that Olof was himself Swedish, many people thought the stone was a forgery. This controversy has existed for over 100 years up until this very time. Well the controversy is over. There is now physical proof that the runestone is authentic and plays a large role in American history. The Kensington Runestone, pictured above, is 31 inches high, 16 inches wide, six inches thick and weighs 202 pounds. On the face and one side are characters known as "runes", a type of writing used in the Middle Ages only by inhabitants of northwestern Europe, such as the Norwegians, Danes, and Gotland Islanders.

Geoglyphology

The information gathered for presentation on this website was gathered through the rediscovery of an ancient science called Geoglyphology. (Google keyword: Geoglyphology). The calculations performed on both this website and the Newport Tower website require the use of a special software called "Google Earth". Google's software is able to calculate true spherical bearings on a curved surface and then display them correctly on a flat plane. This software can be acquired, free of charge, by searching the internet using the keywords "Google Earth".

The advantage of Geoglyphology, as it relates to Archeology, is to expand both the search area and the knowledge base available to the Archaeologist.

Until now the majority of the information available to the Archaeologist was gleaned from the information recovered at the dig site. In recent years it has been discovered that a great majority of the ancient architectural, monolithic and geoglyphic structures built around the world have something in common. That commonality is that the structures were aligned in such a manner that the study of their linier alignment unveils a much larger story and immensely expands the data available to the archeologist and the related disciplines. It should be noted that many ancient geoglyphs contain both astrological and geoglyphological information in their alignments.”

>> We’ve been thinking a lot about this issue = the alignments. We think this is done solely by the Light side; like a signature mark from the Light. This is not something practiced by the Dark side back then. It has a big meaning, but we don’t know what it is for sure. We know the flying jet suits the ThunderBirds had, helps a lot with this type of construction, but apart that we are still trying to figure things out.

• Page 2 386 –

>>16655930

(Please read from the start)

“Data recovered from sites, which included Geoglyphology in their study, included obtaining the geographical range of the culture being studied, the level of sophistication that existed in relation to their understanding of mathematics and geometry, their knowledge of world geography, the discovery of other archeological sites that were unknown prior to the studies, and the dating of the culture itself by the data collected at related offsite locations.

The success of these studies shows that Geoglyphology can play a major role in expanding the knowledge base available to the Archeologist. The protocols used to determine the termination points of the radials are not included in this article, but were established over 30,000 years ago and only recently rediscovered. (Geoglyphology is explained at http://www.thefaramfoundation.com )”

>> Putting a date = chronology, for us on anything has been impossible, a true date that is. When I talk about possible dates, I use the dates given by the Main Stream History. I explained this before to the readers. But we don’t trust these dates, we think loads of them are “fixed”/manipulated dates.

“The Kensington Runestone

If you visited the Newport Tower website ( Newport Tower Link ) you will understand how the Kensington Runestone fits into that puzzle. The Newport Tower was previously tought to work with the Kensington Runestone and Inspiration Peak to outline an ancient North American territory which was later defended against the a Norse invasion. Well, all that is true except that the Newport Tower construction was to designate a territory which was negotiated c1450CE with Portugal. It was the "location" of the Newport Tower which was used to establish the boundaries of the original and ancient North American Territory.

The Northern boundary of the Templar Territory, as was Inspiration Peak, was identified by two radials projected from the Stonehenge geoglyph. The original boundary was a line running between the current ends of the US northern boundary. The Northern US boundary changed in the "Treaty of Paris" after the Revolutionary War with Britain. Further changes were made during negotians in the coming years. Interestingly, the two ends of the original US boundary, as designated by Stonehenge, remains the same today. More proof that the Stonehenge Geoglyph is valid.”

>> This is rather interesting, unexpected and strange. There is definitely something about this line for the Bloodlines to draw the US border/boundary on it. This is no coincidence. I always thought it was strange how the Northern borderline of the States was more or less a straight line like that on maps. Also, I took a quick look at Inspiration Peak in Minnesota; I think there is something there, but it’s covered with the flora and it has blended with the territory there. I have no idea what it could be, but there is something hidden in there, most probably fossilized. Call it my intuition if you want.

• Page 2 387 –

>>16655937

(Please read from the start)

“As you saw in the Newport Tower presentation, the Newport Tower lead us to two important geographical, and historically important, points. One was Inspiration Peak, MN USA and the other was the Kensington Runestone Location. The Newport Tower, Inspiration Peak, and the Kensington Runestone were important in outlining the territory given to the Celts/Templars by the Portuguese. (ref: The book "La Merica - 2014) There was a previous North American Territory which existed prior to the Newport Tower being constructed. Based on the fact that Inspiration Peak and the Newport RI locations were identified by geoglyphs, as far back as 7000 BCE, it is safe to assume that said territory existed prior to the Newport Tower. The Kensington Runestone was carved to designate the revision of the original territory. That revision came about through an agreement between the Templars and the Portuguese to deed Mesoamerica to Spain. (More on this later)”

>> Oh Lord! This sounds to be WAY bigger than what I thought it would be. Smells like a “conspiracy theory” is floating in the air when it comes to the Kensington stone. Is what we read in this paragraph the real reason why (((they))) don’t want us to go looking into the authenticity of this stone? But I also wonder why wasn’t this stone connected to the Maine Penny and other “Nordic” artifacts discovered in the States?

“The Kensington Runestone Solution

Upon submitting the runestone to a handwriting analysis it was determined that the writing had been done by two different persons. The first five rows were done by one person and the last four rows, and side, were done by a second person. The first tip off is the slant of the work. If you will check the slant in the pictures above you will notice a distinct difference from one persons writing to the other. Another tip off is the way the letters are formed. For example; the first person brings the right leg of his "R" all the way down to the baseline, the second person stops short of the baseline. As is common when someone is attempting to copy another person’s writing, the first half of the sixth line is similar to the first five lines. But as is always the case, the copier gets tired of trying to copy the other person’s style and towards the end of the first line and thereafter he reverts back to his own style.

It is believed that the second persons writing was added to more clearly define the boundaries of the North American territory after an agreement to deed Mesoamerica to Spain. As is depicted in the Newport Tower solution, Central America was once part of a North America land claim.

In order to discover how the runestone and the tower were connected it would be necessary to study a translation of the Runestone done by Dr. Richard Neilsen. As previously stated, the builders of the Newport Tower and creators of the Kensington Runestone have little use for words and place most of their emphasis on numbers, geometry and symbols. Attention was directed to the numbers contained in the translation.”

• Page 2 388 –

>>16655947

(Please read from the start)

“The 1362 number, the last characters on the runestone, rather than being a date were found to be a code which validates the runestone as genuine. This information will be retained for future use. Spain took over Central America in 1519CE when Cortez invaded Mexico. This territory seems to have been deeded to Spain sometime before this. Prior to 1492CE, at the end of the Iberian/Moorish War, the Templars and Portugal agreed to deed Central America to Spain. c1820 CE Portugal constructed the Guimar Pyramids on the Island of Tenerife, Canary Islands, to validate the deeding of the new boundaries of the North American territory to what was now the United States. Spain already had an interest in Mexico long before Cortez made his move. There are numerous geoglyphs, which were planted along the path of Columbus' first voyage, in 1492CE, to outline the territory given to Spain by the Portuguese/Etruscans and the Celts. At one time the Etruscans, now the Portuguese, claimed all of North and South America. The ancient survey markers that support this can be seen in the book "Ancient Signposts".”

>> This is stretching it a bit too far for me. I understand and accept the possibility of a secret deal being made behind closed door by the Bloodlines of the time. But to link the Portuguese to the Etruscans…oh Lord! Whomever wrote this/thought of this, doesn’t know of all the Blood mixing that took place, the colonies and the migration waves. After so many centuries, there is no such thing as a pure blood in BIG numbers anymore among the Light clans. This is why the Armenian Genocide happened, the real reason for it. The Armenians are pure blood of the Light.

If you have been paying attention to what I’ve talked about when it comes to the Taurus mountain chain, you would have understood that we are suspecting this territory at the corner of the Med Sea was either a Phoenician one or under the influence of the Phoenician culture = I’m talking the region just to the North of Aleppo in the Taurus mountain chain. There were Phoenicians living there for sure. But did they rule the City-States there? We don’t know. So when the Kingdom of Armenia (Cilicia) was formed, it expanded to cover, more or less, the ancient territory inhabitant by the Phoenicians on the North of Aleppo.

I already showed anons that the Armenians and the Phoenicians were ONE tribe, One clan, which split. We think they were, at first, one group living in the vicinity of Mount Nemrut. Once the Flood water level went down, this group was split into 2 sub-groups: one with Hayk as a leader went to live in Mesopotamia and the second group with the Crown Prince of Atlantis as its leader went West and became the Phoenicians.

The Armenians under the leadership of Hayk went to stay in Mesopotamia first, then they left because of king Belus and they went on a long journey and resettled at the feet of Mount Ararat, in the end, where they originated from = they came out of the Ark. As for the Phoenicians, they separated from the group lead by Hayk before they entered Mesopotamia and headed West to settle on the East shores of the Med Sea. They were under the leadership of the Crown Prince and after some time this group was called by the Greeks as the Phoenicians.

• Page 2 389 –

>>16655950

(Please read from the start)

After many centuries and after their descendants of both have forgotten their common origin and ancestry, some Armenians left Motherland Armenia and created the Minor/Smaller kingdom of Armenia (also known as Cilicia). This is when the Armenian pure blood, mixed with the blood of the locals in Cilicia, which some were direct descendants of their Phoenician ancestors. After this happened, at some point in time, the Bloodlines, whom knew of the prophecy, were also obsessed with blood purity. Since the Armenians and the Phoenicians descendants were both descendants of ThunderBirds (for most of them), the Bloodlines feared a pure blood ThunderBird will be born AGAIN from THAT specific group of people whom are direct descendants of their ThunderBird ancestors. (((They))) feared the child mentioned in the prophecy will be born as a pure blood ThunderBird = the White Knight (((they))) were wary of.

The Bloodlines didn’t go after the Armenians in Motherland Armenia; there are rumors that (((they))) were, but it didn’t happen in History. Instead (((they))) aimed for the Armenians whom were living in what was known as the Kingdom of Cilicia. The Bloodlines ordered (((their))) henchmen = the Turks/Ottomans/Seljuks and the Kurds, to kill as much Armenians from the Kingdom of Cilicia as they could, regardless of gender, age, social status, because (((they))) were fearing the White Knight will be born as a pure blood ThunderBird from there. (((They))) thought that by killing as much as (((they))) could from the descendants of the ThunderBird clan, the child won’t be born, or at least the chances of the child to be born will lessen.

It never occurred to (((them))) that the child of the prophecy (((they))) feared his birth was born from a totally different place and not from the ThunderBird’s Bloodline, but the Lamassu Bloodline. It never occurred to (((them))) the child has the blood of another Light clan. It also never occurred to (((them))) that migration through ages have spread the blood of all the Light clans to the 4 corners of the globe. (((They))) remained focused on the Middle East and the ThunderBirds, but neglected other parts of the world and the other clans.

So here is the big question: why are the Bloodlines so obsessed with the ThunderBirds and the Middle East? Think about it a bit: why would (((they))) order the total annihilation of the Armenians of the Kingdom of Cilicia? = it’s because (((they))) know about the Armenians are pure blood ThunderBirds, and the locals living there before the Armenians established the kingdom there, were mostly descendants of Phoenicians? (((They))) realized that if the blood of those 2 mix, the chances are high that a pure blood ThunderBird would be born. We think it’s because (((they))) know the Phoenicians are the descendants and clan of the ThunderBirds and (((they))) know that Christ is a pure blood ThunderBird. This is what we are suspecting. And we suspect (((they))) feared that another person like Christ will be born and that child would take (((them))) out. We suspect (((them))) to know the real identity of the Armenians, of the Phoenicians and somehow (((they))) know the real identity of Christ; as in he is a Phoenician.

We keep on wondering what it is (((they))) have as evidence to believe these things. We just hope it’s still there and not destroyed; or at least some records are kept of all of this. We know for certain that in all of that has happened in History a lot of mixing and remixing of blood happened because of nonstop migration.

• Page 2 390 –

>>16655953

(Please read from the start)

“The new North American Territory, the territory agreed to by the three countries, correlates perfectly with the territory depicted by the Newport Tower. To recap, we have the original North American territory depicted by the Kensington Runstone, Inspiration Peak, and the Newport Location. Notice I said "location" not "Tower". The tower was added c1472CE, by the Celtic immigrants which followed the Templars, to designate the new North American boundaries. These boundaries, with some realignment due to the Mexican American War and negotiations with England, became what we now know as the United States. The Oak Island swamp triangle also depicts this same original 7000 year old North American territory. The Templar era ended c1450CE with the building of Rosslyn Chapel.

The Newport, RI location has been an important location, as discovered by the ancient Science of Geoglyphology, for over 7000 years. The Newport Tower was constructed c1472CE to designate the new territory agreed upon between the Templars, Portuguese and Spain. Spain was apparently in the dark about the New World prior to the collaboration of the three countries to win the Iberian/Moorish War. Not by coincidence the war ended in the spring of 1492CE. Columbus set sail for the new world in the fall of 1492CE. During his visit to the New World he placed geoglyphic survey markers on several islands to claim the territory for Spain.”

>> Yes, it seems Newport, R.I. location is quite important for the Bloodlines: we’ve already seen the Vanderbilt mansions there, mostly Marble House. I’ve been hovering around it in previous digs, but I still cannot put my finger on it. I know I was close. So this location might turn out to have some spiritual meaning or to be some energy point of some type which the Bloodlines were aware of, this is why (((they))) built all of those mansions there and made it (((their))) little vacation spot. What are the odds there are loads of tunnels down there, linking the mansions to one another?

“The above translation is the original translation by Dr. Neilson. The decoding was performed by the Faram Research Foundation and led to the information concerning the ancient territories spoken of herein.

One solution derived from the numbers given on the runestone was a heading of 10 degrees at 22 miles. This was from where the Kensington Runestone was found to "The Spacer" mentioned below. Although this interpretation seemed to be headed in the right direction, toward Inspiration Peak, it still did not give any indication that it was a correct solution to the puzzle. Neither did any of the other combination of numbers. Research was done to see if the method of measurement had changed from 1362 CE until now. Sure enough Queen Elizabeth had changed the Universal Standard of measurement, the mile, from 5000 feet to 5280 feet, after becoming Queen, in 1592 CE. That meant that 22 miles in old English miles would convert to 20.8 miles in new English miles. Curiously enough most of the explorer’s maps that have been discovered are dated in the 16th Century. Could this change in universal measurement have come about to mask all the measurements done before that?”

>> So (((they))) tempered with time, measurements and the calendar…did I miss anything (((they))) changed on purpose?

• Page 2 391 –

>>16655958

(Please read from the start)

“After converting the old English miles to new English miles the figures 10 degrees at 20.8 miles were used. This placed the end point on what became known as "The Spacer", shown below. It was called this because the measurements are so precise that when you land on the south end of the spacer, and begin your second leg from the south end, you will come up short of reaching the all important Inspiration Peak, by the same length as the spacer. The second leg of the connection must start on the north end of the Spacer. The "Spacer" is the line on the left side of the picture, which looks like a runway. This is in reality a stone wall that someone has mowed around. This object may, or may not, be currently shown on Google Earth.

Now that the Spacer has come into play one must follow the new direction which the Stone wall points at 22 degrees. The Kensington Runestone describes as this leg as 22 degrees at 2 miles in order to reach the main survey marker named Inspiration Peak. But remember, we are dealing in old English miles so the real distance is 1.9 miles. The end of the last line drawn lands precisely where the West vertex of the Newport Triangle solution landed, Inspiration Peak.

THE CAMPSITE

The figures displayed above are the figures used to transition from the place where the Kensington Runestone was found, to "Inspiration Peak". However, locating Inspiration Peak was meaningless unless you already knew the geometry associated with it. It appears that the first writer assumed that the reader would already know the geometry and would only need to locate Inspiration Peak in order to apply the mathematics. There was enough information in the first five lines of the text to locate the "…traps and two shelters one day north from this spot." (This is referring to a campsite containing the stone wall pointing to Inspiration Peak. This campsite is depicted in the next two photos.) However, the second writer had a different agenda and wanted to make the complete solution available to whoever might find the stone. This would be a prudent move if the second writer assumed the details would be lost to time. But this was not the only reason for placing new information on the stone. Since the time that Inspiration Peak was surveyed, thousands of years before, things had changed that required a revision of the boundaries that had existed for millennia. The main reason for the revision was the deeding of Mesoamerica to Spain. (See photo titled "Revised North American Territory" below)

Since the time the Kensington Runestone was first carved (c1362) the Northern Territory had changed. The territory, in its original concept, included Meso (Central) America and Baja California. In 1519 CE Hernando Cortes invaded Mexico City and claimed that land for Spain. The geoglyph in southern Texas, which marks the end of the Southern 1362 mile long radial, lies at the mouth of the Nueces River, just North of the Rio Grande River. The argument over the land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande River is what sparked the war with Mexico.

The critical addition to the Kensington Runestone was the number 1362. As you will see the 110 degree radial and the 140 degree radial were also added and are also critical in solving the revised puzzle. The new information was a crucial part of revising the ancient survey done in North America thousands of years before. The revised North American survey excluded Central America and retained Baja California. Unfortunately Baja California was later lost in treaty negotiations after the Mexican American war.”

• Page 2 392 –

>>16655966

(Please read from the start)

“This campsite is obviously the one mentioned in the first five lines on the Kensington Runestone. The stone wall here is oriented 22 degrees at 2 miles from Inspiration Peak. All that would be necessary from here is to follow the stone wall pointer, a common pointer in Geoglyphology, to Inspiration Peak. The Pre-Columbian geoglyphs confirm this was a campsite, as placing geoglyphs at your campsite to claim a territory, or denote your travels, was a common practice at the time. The radial endpoints shown in the photo are all known, Pre-Columbian, geoglyphic locations. The lines that are generated by this geoglyph, unlike most, do not seem to form an organized territorial boundary. However, the endpoints are geoglyph endpoints used consistently by other geoglyphs around the world.

Notice that by running a line from Bermuda, the termination point of the 110 degree radial, through Amelia Island, the termination point of the 140 degree radial, as described in the Kensington Runestone, you have a line that terminates at the tip of Baja California, the new boundary of the North American Territory. (See below for a further revision of the United States Boundary after the Mexican/American War.)

Origination points for the pointers displayed in the above photo. Included are the approximate dates the pointers were created.

Stonehenge Monolith, UK - c3100BC

Monte Alban Pyramid, Oaxaca Mexico - c500BC

Pigeon Point Geoglyph, Minnesota USA - c1200AD

Manchester, Ohio Geoglyph USA - c1300AD

Geoglyph near 23rd Street NW, Washington DC USA - c1400AD

Point du Raz Geoglyphs, Bretagne, France - c1400AD

Malabo Island Geoglyphs, Equatorial New Guinea, West Africa - c1400AD

Cape of Good Hope Geoglyphs, South Tip of Africa - c1400AD

Atanacio Geoglyphs, Mexico - c1400AD

Newport Tower, Newport, RI USA - c1473AD

THE INSPIRATION PEAK LAND SURVEY

GEOGLYPHS AT THE END OF 1362 MILE LONG RADIAL ENDPOINTS FROM INSPIRATION PEAK pre-3100 BCE.

The date of pre 3100BCE was arrived at considering that the Stone Henge Geoglyph points to Inspiration Peak. It is normal for a major territorial geoglyph to use one radial to identify the adjacent major territorial geoglyph.

Depicted above is the termination point of the Northwest 1362 mile long radial from Inspiration Peak. The associated square geoglyph is a survey marker validating the Northeast corner of the Northern Territory. (Later to become the United States.) This geoglyph is on Stuart Island, the last island before Vancouver Island, Canada, which is still within the US borders. Based on protocols used in constructing the four geoglyphs depicted here, it is believed that the geoglyphs were made by the same group of people that revised the North American Land Claim. It is apparent that they wanted there to be no mistake as to the territory which they claimed, and as would be proved later, were willing to fight for. Unfortunatley the landowner has since destroyed this survey marker.”

• Page 2 393 –

>>16655978

(Please read from the start)

“Depicted above is the termination point of the Northeast 1362 mile long radial from Inspiration Peak. Unfortunately the owners of this property have not taken very good care of this geoglyph. Amazingly, this geoglyph points directly to the island of La Haute-Cote Nord, the island in the Saint Lawrence Seaway that provides the first clue, the termination point of the 013 degree radial, in solving the Newport Tower Puzzle. This geoglyph is located at the original Northern boundary of the State of Maine and the Northern Territory. The land north of here was added to the U.S. later. Unfortunatly this geoglyph has also been destroyed by the land owner.

This geoglyph requires some explanation. When this Southern 1362 mile long radial was added, after the revised North American territory was defined, it extended to within 30 miles of the Rio Grand River. Up until the Mexican-American war, there had always been a dispute as to where the Southern boundary of the United States ended. After Spain had taken over Mexico they claimed that the point where the southern 1362 mile long radial ended, the Nueces River, was the southern boundary of the United States. The US claimed that the Rio Grande River was the boundary between the US and Mexico. This dispute was not settled until the Mexican-American War.

“In the preceding photo is the glyph of the "All Seeing Eye" which is seen in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Masonic icons, and on the US one dollar bill. This glyph, and the key next to it, are of raised earth so that they will stand the test of time. This and similar glyphs are located at numerous locations around the United States as survey markers and reminders of European visitations in ancient times. The last glyph known, at this time, to have been constructed in the USA are the streets of Washington D.C. . The key glyph to the left of the eye is oriented at 360 degrees true, and points right back to Inspiration Peak.

THE FIRST VOYAGE OF COLUMBUS”

>>See maps attached with this page.

“GEOGLYPHS WHICH MAKE UP THE VARIOUS TERRITORIES:

Original North American Territory

Stonehenge c3100 BCE

Newport Tower Location - Prior to 7000 BCE

Inspiration Peak - Prior to 7000 BCE

Revised North American Territory

Stonehenge c3100 BCE

Newport Tower Location - Prior to 7000 BCE

Inspiration Peak - Prior to 7000 BCE

Kensington Runestone - c1362 - 1492 CE

Spanish Territory:

Various geoglyphs placed around the Caribbean along the route of Columbus' first voyage. - 1492 CE

Portuguese Territory

Caral Peru Geoglyphs. - c3000 BCE”

• Page 2 394 –

>>16655990

(Please read from the start)

The Kensington stone should NOT be taken alone, on its own. It should be “studied”, considered along with the other artifacts from “Nordic” origins. If we take each artifact on its own then it can be easily disregarded and brushed away as fake or a conspiracy theory or anything else. It’s more than clear that (((they))) don’t want researcher of any kind/type, to go looking or even consider the idea that the Vikings were the first to “reach” the Americas. We gotta ask ourselves why (((they))) do not wish anyone prying into this idea of the Vikings being the first to reach northern America. There could be a multitude of reasons, including that interesting article I’ve put for anons. It could be anything and everything, or nothing remarkable. This should be looked carefully and be open to the many possibilities as to why (((they))) don’t want us to go digging into this tunnel: it could be for shallow reasons, or it could be for deep reasons. Knowing the Bloodlines as I do, I think this matter is more complex and what it appears to be to us. (((They))) always have many layers of things to hide and everything is connected to something else when it comes to (((them))). One secret always leads to another secret with (((them))) around.

Let’s more to another Out-of-Place artifact listed on the same Wikipedia page:

“[…]

Questionable interpretations

[…]

• Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone: Originally thought to be a record of a treaty between tribes, subsequent analysis has called its authenticity into question.”

Let’s take a closer look at the Winnipesaukee stone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Winnipesaukee_mystery_stone

“The Lake Winnipesaukee mystery stone is an alleged out-of-place artifact (OOPArt) found in a town near Lake Winnipesaukee in New Hampshire. The stone's age, purpose and origin are unknown.

The stone is about 4 inches (100 mm) long and 2.5 inches (64 mm) thick, dark and egg-shaped, bearing a variety of carved symbols. Carvings on one side of the stone show an ear of corn and several other figures. The other side is more abstract, featuring inverted arrows, a moon shape, some dots and a spiral.

A hole goes through the stone from top to bottom, seemingly bored from both ends with different size bits (1⁄8 inch (3.2 mm) at the top and 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) at the bottom).”

>> This is a rather peculiar artifact isn’t it?

• Page 2 395 –

>>16655992

(Please read from the start)

“History

The stone was reportedly found in 1872 in Meredith, New Hampshire, by workers digging a hole for a fence post. Seneca Ladd, a Meredith businessman who hired the workers, was given credit for the discovery. In 1892, upon Ladd's death, the stone passed to Frances Ladd Coe of Center Harbor, one of his daughters. In 1927, she donated the stone to the New Hampshire Historical Society.

The stone is currently on exhibit at the Museum of New Hampshire History.

Analysis and interpretation

A contemporary source suggested that the stone "commemorates a treaty between two tribes". Another writer later suggested that it is a thunderstone. With the somewhat limited understanding of the day, the letter said that thunderstones "always present the appearance of having been machined or hand-worked: frequently they come from deep in the earth, embedded in lumps of clay, or even surrounded by solid rock or coral".”

>> And whom are these “contemporary sources”? Not a single name mentioned here so we can check them out.

“In 1994, a borescope analysis of the stone's holes was performed. State archaeologist Richard Boisvert later suggested that the holes had the appearance of having been drilled by power tools from the 19th or 20th century:

"I've seen a number of holes bored in stone with technology that you would associate with prehistoric North America. There's a certain amount of unevenness … and this hole was extremely regular throughout. What we did not see was variations that would be consistent with something that was several hundred years old."

Scratches in the lower bore suggest it was placed on a metal shaft and removed several times.

Analysis has concluded the stone is a type of quartzite.”

>> This Wikipedia page is rather dry and plain, not much in it = the only direction it’s pointing us towards is that this artifact is a fake or a hoax.

• Page 2 396 –

>>16655995

(Please read from the start)

Let’s take another look at this artifact: https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/stone-egg-lake-winnipesaukee-003622

“Out of Place Artifact: The Mysterious Stone Egg of Lake Winnipesaukee

In 1872, construction workers digging a hole for a fence post near the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee in New England found a lump of clay with an egg shaped artifact inside it, six feet below the ground. Called the ‘Mystery Stone’, it is one of New Hampshire's more curious and lesser known relics . Amateur and professional archaeologists have speculated about the origin of this strange artifact for well over one hundred years with no clear answers emerging.

The rock type is not familiar to New Hampshire and there are no other known objects bearing similar markings or design in the United States. It may very well have been the work of someone living in a faraway place and time, as nothing like its fine workmanship has been produced by the Native American tribes living locally in the area.”

>> We have 2 important details we need to highlight about this stone:

1 – The type of rock of this artifact is not found in New Hampshire geology.

2 – The design on the stone itself is not known as that of the Native American tribes living in the area.

These 2 details are indicating that the stone came/was produced somewhere else and was brought/transferred to where it was found.

“Strange Symbols on the Lake Winnipesaukee Mystery Stone

The mystery stone egg is approximately 4 inches (10.2cms) long, 2 1/2 inches (6.4cms) thick, weights eighteen ounces (510.3grams), and has a dark-hue to it. Hard as granite, it is about the size and shape of a goose egg. The stone is a type of quartzite, derived from sandstone, or mylonite, a fine-grained rock formed by the transference of rock layers along faults. There are holes bored in both ends of the stone and it was drilled through from end to end with different sized tools, and polished along its surface.”

>> This drilling is important because this is indicating that this was most probably hanged to be seen from all sides since it was also decorated from all sides, almost.

“Beyond its strange construction and design, the stone is marked with bizarre carvings ranging from astronomical symbols to a human face along its smooth sides. On one side, there are what appears to be inverted arrows, a moon with some dots, and a spiral. Another side has an ear of corn with 17 kernels in the row.”

>> The moon should have one dot in the middle if this was the horns with electricity/energy between them of the horned Sebetti clans. But here, we have more than one dot, so this is not a horned Sebetti weapon we have here.

• Page 2 397 –

>>16655999

(Please read from the start)

“Underneath, there is a circle with three figures; one of which looks like a deer's leg, along with some kind of animal with large ears. The “third” side shows a tepee with four poles, an oval, and a human face. The face is sunken with a nose that does not rise above the surface of the egg and lips that seem to give the image some kind of purposeful expression.

History of the Lake Winnipesaukee Stone Egg

It was Seneca A. Ladd, a local businessman, who hired the workers to dig the fence post that is credited with the discovery of this intriguing artifact. When it was first unveiled to the world, the American Naturalist journal described it as “a remarkable Indian relic.”

Documents and newspaper articles show that by 1872 Seneca Ladd had the “egg” in his possession and by 1885, it was notable enough to be reported in the county history book. Ladd died in 1892, and in 1927, one of his daughters, Frances Ladd Coe of Center Harbor, donated the stone to the New Hampshire Historical Society in the state capital of Concord.

There it was separated from the Native American 1800’s-era cultural artifacts and items of modern day interest.

Controversial Theories on the Origin of the Strange Stone Egg

As for its purpose, there have been attempts made by historians over the years to come up with an explanation for the stone with no clear answer to date. Initial interpretations began with the simplest answer.

In November of 1872, The American Naturalist suggested that the stone "commemorates a treaty between two tribes.” However, this idea did not hold up long and it was later hypothesized that the stone was some kind of ancient tool .

There have also been suggestions that the egg could be Celtic or Inuit in origin and in 1931 a letter was written to the New Hampshire Historical Society suggesting that it was a “ thunderstone.” Also known as "thunderbolts" or "thunder axes," a thunderstone is a worked stone object, often wedge-shaped like an axe blade, that is alleged to have fallen from the sky.

Stories of thunderstones are found in cultures all over the world and are often associated with a thunder god. The writer went on to say that such objects “always present the appearance of having been machine or hand-worked: frequently they come from deep in the earth, embedded in lumps of clay, or even surrounded by solid rock or coral.”

>> IF the theory/possibility of this artifact is actually a thunderstone then from what is written here, the chances are high this artifact is somehow, someway, connected/related to the ThunderBirds. Too many Ifs.

• Page 2 398 –

>>16656005

(Please read from the start)

“Is the Mystery Stone a Native American “Birth Stone?”

Indigenous historian Joe Graveline suggested an interesting purpose for the Mystery Stone – he told Greenfield Recorder in 2018 that he believes it was a Native American birth stone. According to the Greenfield Recorder, a birth stone is “a stone that was heated and internally placed inside the pregnant woman by midwives to relax muscles during difficult births.”

Graveline says this particular stone would have been extra special and used by a Native American midwife to help a mother “deliver a person who became a venerated spiritual or governmental leader of either sex.” He also believes that it was a grave offering and if the construction workers had dug a little deeper they would have encountered bones.”

>> This is a possibility I never expected. But I have a small problem with it = the decoration on all sides are made to be seen regardless of where you stand. Carving the decoration on this stone must have been difficult and I don’t think it was decorated this way just to help a “special” child be born during a difficult labor. But I do agree with the proposition that the construction workers should have dug a bit deeper and around it = a bigger periphery, because the chances are high they might have bumped into a burial = remains.

“The Perfectly Drilled Holes

One particularly interesting detail about the Mystery Stone’s construction worth noting are the two holes bored in both ends of the stone with different size bits. Each bore is straight, not tapered. Scratches in the lower bore suggest it was placed on a metal shaft and removed several times, according to one analysis done by New Hampshire state officials in 1994. Richard Boisvert, a state archaeologist, believes these holes are highly regular:

“I've seen a number of holes bored in stone with technology that you would associate with prehistoric North America. There’s a certain amount of unevenness and this hole was extremely regular throughout. What we did not see was variations that would be consistent with something that was several hundred years old.”

Boisvert, who deeply laments the lack of details on the context in which the stone was found, went on to suggest that the holes were drilled using power tools rather than traditional techniques used by Native Americans. He added that there was every chance the holes were made during the 19th century, which would mean tampering of the object. This has led some to believe the Winnipesaukee’s stone mystery is simply some kind of elaborate hoax.

“The only thing that seems certain, or of which there is consensus, is that it was created using some type of machine . However, the fact remains that no one knows who made the object, when or why.

At one time the Mystery Stone attracted the wonder of the scientific world, with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. offering to send a map to Seneca A. Ladd to make a casting of the egg.

Today, the Lake Winnipesaukee Mystery Stone is on display in a case at the Museum of New Hampshire History, surrounded by mirrors to show off its unique and enigmatic features.”

• Page 2 399 –

>>16656012

(Please read from the start)

This stone is a great mystery. Let’s talk about the things we are certain/sure about when it comes to this stone:

1 – The type of stone it is made of isn’t found in that State, nor does the design is known to be that of a Native American tribe living in that region.

2 – The holes seem to be drilled by power tools and are of modern date.

3 – The designs on the stone are placed in a way that you will see the decoration from all sides of the stone, regardless which angle it is = as in this object was to be seen from 360 degrees.

Some additional comments are needed:

How the stone was found and how poor everything was documented doesn’t help at all into identifying the stone or its authenticity. Also the way the holes are drilled in was most probably to suspend this stone using a rope or a thread (or anything else) that can be used to hang it with. I’m mostly suspicious of the crescent moon with the 2 dots decoration we see on the stone. It doesn’t make sense at all to have 2 dots with the horns of a Sebetti clan represented like that = it should be one dot which is actually an electricity or energy spark in the middle of the horns. So this design doesn’t make sense at all to me and I find it absurd. Check out the designs from all over the world, and you will notice it’s one dot with the horns and not 2.

There are many theories out there as to the authenticity of this stone, the meaning of the design and what it was used for. Some of these theories are totally unexpected, even to me. When I look at all that I’ve got in front of me, I’m inclined to think this stone is not an authentic artifact but a “modern” day work = this is with the information I’ve got so far about it. I’m not convinced this is a real authentic ancient artifact. This is mostly due to the 2 dots of the moon design and the drilled holes are way too clean; which is making me believe these are done by power tools. So with what I’ve got, I’m incline to think this is a forgery or a hoax = not a real artifact.

There is a third option, but it’s on shaky grounds as it is with what I’ve got so far about this artifact = there is a slight possibility this stone was an authentic artifact which was found when it was found and SOME of the designs as well as the holes were added and drilled into it later on. As in the stone itself might be old, but SOME of the designs and the holes were added by those whom found it. This is also a possibility we should take into consideration but it still doesn’t answer where this stone came from and what was it used for.

This is it for this item.

• Page 2 400 –

>>16656029

(Please read from the start)

From the same Wikipedia page about the Out-of-Place artifacts let’s check the next item:

“[…]

Alternative interpretations

[…]

• Meister Print: A supposed human footprint from the Cambrian period, long before humans existed, which has been debunked as the result of a natural geologic process known as spall formation.

[…]”

Let’s take a closer look at the Meister Print: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Print

“The Meister Print (also known as the Meister Footprint) refers to two trilobites in slate that appeared to be crushed in a human shoe print. The print was cited by creationists and other pseudoscience advocates as an out-of-place artifact, but was debunked by palaeontologists as the result of a natural geologic process known as spall formation.”

>> LoL! According to the Main Stream History, this footprint has already been debunked. Really?!

“In 1968, William Meister was searching for trilobite fossils in 500-million-year-old strata known as the Cambrian Wheeler Formation near Antelope Springs, Utah. He discovered what looked like a human shoe print with a trilobite under its heel after breaking open a slab. The supposed footprint was used by Melvin A. Cook as evidence against evolution in an article he wrote in 1970. Cook was not a paleontologist and his conclusion was criticized by experts. Upon investigation the print showed none of the criteria by which genuine prints can be recognized, and the shape could best be explained by natural geological processes.

According to Brian Regal "several studies showed the print was, in reality, an example of a common geologic occurrence known as spalling, in which slabs of rock break away from each other in distinctive patterns. This particular case of spalling had created a simulacrum vaguely suggestive of a shoe print.”

>> Whom are the experts whom “studied” / examined this print? Whom paid them? Whom did these “several studies” and whom paid for them? I have no doubt that ALL the “paid” studies were going to come out and say this is not a genuine, authentic print but it’s a geological formation which is shaped oddly. This footprint shatters the carefully woven veil of lies (((they))) have cast over our eyes in order to hide the true History of mankind.

The existence of the ARKS worldwide shatter the Evolution theory of Darwin whom was nothing than a person paid to play the part that he played. The MANY ARKS also shatter the other web of lies of Noah and his family being the only survivors and the only Ark out there. Both lies are presented by the same group of people in order to change History and twist it to make it convenient for that specific group. The Arks are there to prove the evolution theory is nothing but garbage and a HUGE hoax to distort History.

• Page 2 401 –

>>16656054

(Please read from the start)

Which in turn scrambles all the chronological line and destroys the idea of dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. We have already seen in this thread many artifacts from different parts of the world which are suggesting that humans have co-existed alongside with dinosaurs. This footprint is to be added to the artifacts from Andean region, from Mesopotamia and from the Dogon, which are all indicating that humans co-existed at the early stages after the Cataclysm with the dinosaurs. For me, there is no question about the authenticity of this footprint with all that it implies because we have the Arks and we have other artifacts supporting the same idea projected from this footprint = this is not one isolated case.

It’s important to highlight the FACT that the person whom left the footprint was wearing shoes = so much for humans being barbaric naked apes. The presence of shoes indicates the presence of a civilized society; which with the Cambrian trilobite under the heel is indicating that there was a civilization long ago. I’m going to stop here about this footprint because it’s supported by other artifacts and the Arks and I believe this is authentic and true. This footprint is NO hoax.

The next Out-of-Place artifact is from the same category as the Meister footprint and also projects the same idea = human and dinosaurs co-existed at some point in time, just after the Cataclysm ended and the survivors came out of the Arks. From the same Wikipedia page:

“Natural objects mistaken for artifacts

[…]

• Paluxy River tracks: Identified by Biblical literalists as giant humanoid footprints found alongside dinosaur tracks. Actually tracks of theropod dinosaurs, and 1930s forgeries.

[…]”

Let’s take a quick look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River#Paluxy_trackways

“The Paluxy River, also known as Paluxy Creek, is a river in the U.S. state of Texas. It is a tributary of the Brazos River. It is formed by the convergence of the North Paluxy River and the South Paluxy River near Bluff Dale, Texas in Erath County and flows a distance of 29 miles (47 km) before joining the Brazos just to the east of Glen Rose, Texas in south central Somervell County.

It is best known for numerous dinosaur footprints found in its bed near Glen Rose at the Dinosaur Valley State Park. The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1930s when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer in the Glen Rose Formation, which were widely publicized as evidence against the geological time scale and in favor of young-Earth creationism. However, these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be elongated dinosaur tracks, river scour marks, and hoaxes.”

>> They quickly pushed this as being a hoax. There are not one, but many dinosaur’s tracks and next to them human foot print was found. As I’ve said before, this find is in harmony with the previous item from the Out-of-Place artifacts we’ve just saw and it’s in harmony with the Arks and the other artifacts from all over the places we’ve visited so far which are clearly indicating that mankind existed alongside dinosaurs. This is no hoax, it’s just a truth (((they))) don’t want to public to be aware of because it shatters (((their))) carefully crafted lie about the History of mankind.

• Page 2 402 -

>>16656076

(Please read from the start)

“Paluxy trackways

Many dinosaur trackways and footprints have been discovered in the riverbed. The tracks were first observed by a local schoolboy at the beginning of the 20th Century; the boy's teacher recognised the tracks as dinosaur tracks. Large-scale scientific excavation and documentation was first carried out by paleontologist Roland T. Bird from 1935. The tracks were found in Lower Cretaceous limestone of the Glen Rose Formation.

One of the most well-known discoveries discovered by Bird was the "chase sequence", which contains the tracks of a herd of sauropods and at least one theropod that appears to follow the herd. These well-preserved tracks were excavated and removed from the riverbed by birds team slab by slab; portions of the trackways were then reassembled at the Texas Memorial Museum in Austin as well as at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.The tracks have been attributed to dinosaurs similar to Sauroposeidon and Acrocanthosaurus, respectively. Other well-known and studied sites containing similar trackways are the Taylor Site, the Blue Hole Ballroom, and the Blue Hole Parlor.”

>> At least (((they))) admitted there are authentic dinosaur tracks in the riverbed.

“Man track controversy

Peculiar indistinct and elongate tracks had long been known to the locals as "man tracks" or "moccasin tracks". Since 1939, young-Earth creationists began to popularise the tracks, claiming that some tracks were made by mythological giant humans who lived at the same time as the dinosaurs who created the other tracks on the same surfaces.This idea became widely known especially due to the 1970 film "Footprints in Stone" by Stanley Taylor; one of the most human-like trackways has been dubbed the "Taylor trail". John Whitcomb, Henry Morris, John Morris, and Carl Baugh all are current or former proponents of the human footprint hypothesis. Though there are some that still cite the trackways as evidence against the geological time scale, the general consensus is that all of the human tracks were either fake or interpreted incorrectly.”

>> I laughed so much after reading this paragraph that my eyes are filled with tears. The problem with these human tracks are not just that they are side by side with dinosaurs but they are also big in size which in turn makes the humans big in size = giants. It’s funny how (((they))) referred to the giants as “mythological giant humans; (((they))) are making fun of the idea, ridiculing it so that the public won’t go looking into this.

Here we have 2 possibilities for the “giant” tracks:

1 – These tracks were left behind by a Sebetti warrior from any Clan.

2 – Humans were bigger in size.

Both suggestions are very possible since we already know that the Sebetti warriors are almost double the size of the current day man. But we have also seen MANY artifacts that not only suggest that mankind co-existed with dinosaurs, but that they were also proportioned to one another; as in either the dinos were smaller in size or humans were bigger in size. If we take this foot track on its own, then yes, it can be “debunked”. But the problem is that we have other artifacts from other places in the world projecting the same ideas as we have here.

• Page 2 403 –

>>16656096

(Please read from the start)

I took a quick look online, please check out the pictures yourselves anons, they are pretty interesting. Also, it seems we have a cocktail of human foot prints, as in some were barefoot, some were “giant” foot tracks, while others seem to suggest that the human was wearing shoes. And here we go again shattering the nicely woven lie of the Evolution theory of Darwin. The tracks do not project the idea of humans were barbaric apes in the past; that we came AFTER the dinos were extinct; that there were Sebetti warriors = giants walking on this earth; that maybe, because humans wore shoes back then, this might be an indicator that there was a lost human civilization co-existing with dinosaurs; that maybe, just maybe, we humans were big in size too. These tracks are automatically branded as hoax, fakes, controversial or whatever you want to call them because they expose so many lies. If one of these truths was uncovered, it would have shattered the entire Matrix.

Also, there is a point that is not talked about here: how those tracks were formed, either the dinos or human tracks? I’m interested into finding out how the geological and weather conditions were back then when these tracks were formed into the ground. Was it during the Ice Age which followed the Flood? Or was it during a volcanic eruption? Discovering how these tracks were made would give us an idea on what the situation was like back then.

“Some of these tracks were fake, carved by locals to sell during the Great Depression. Other man tracks are scour marks eroded by the river.Other tracks and trackways, however, were genuine tracks but showed features inconsistent with human footprints. Supporters of the human footprint hypothesis claimed that the tracks showed authentic mud “push-ups” and that the time period for the human and dinosaur trackways had to be the same as the trails intersected. In 1986, Glen Kuban found that most tracks are "V"-shaped, with indentations at the front that indicated the presence of three robust digit impressions, often with sharp claw marks. Kuban determined that the tracks were made by bipedal dinosaurs with three toes. Evidence based in human anatomy also refutes the claim that the footprints are of human origin. The foot length measurements were used to calculate approximate heights of the humans; the pace and stride lengths do not match these calculated heights, making it highly unlikely that the tracks are human in origin. The measurements do fit the known values for bipedal dinosaurs.”

>> Whom is the “paid genius” whom made these “calculations” according to the “measurements”? I would like for this type of study/research to be redone by a non-biased, professional, honest side please.

“While the dinosaurian origin of the tracks is well-established, their peculiar elongate shape proved to be more difficult to explain. The tracks typically show three digit impressions that extended from the front end of an elongated through. Kuban, in 1989, argued that this through-like depression must have been left by the metatarsus of the foot, a part of the foot that is typically elevated above the ground in dinosaurs. Kuban observed that this metatarsus impression is usually on the same level with the digit impressions – suggesting that these dinosaurs must have walked with a plantigrade (or "flat-footed") foot posture. Both plantigrade and regular tracks that only consists of digit impressions were found at the sites, indicating that the dinosaurs could switch between both modes of locomotion, depending on behavior.”

• Page 2 404 –

>>16656123

(Please read from the start)

“In 2021, Lallensack and colleagues confirmed that the elongated shape of the tracks resulted from the metatarsus of the foot contacting the ground. However, these researchers argued that the dinosaurs were not walking with a plantigrade foot posture, but instead walked normally, with the metatarsus angled against the digits (and the ground). The metatarsal mark would have been created by deep sinking of the feet into soft mud, leading to partial or full immersion of the digits and metatarsus. The mud would have collapsed above the sinking foot, leaving a shallow track at the surface sealing the path of the foot, which would have sunk much more deeply. This way, the metatarsal mark can be horizontal to the digit impressions even though the metatarsus itself was angled against the digits at all times. The narrow digit impressions would have collapsed more easily, resulting in their frequent absence in the tracks. The metatarsal mark, however, would have been re-opened by the foot when it was finally extracted from the substrate. The hypothesis of a plantigrade locomotion, in contrast, was considered unlikely by these researchers. A plantigrade foot posture would have resulted in an ungainly gait, with short steps and a broad trackway. Trackways consisting of elongate tracks, in contrast, show long steps indicating speeds of locomotion comparable to those of regular trackways at the same sites, and these trackways are typically narrow, with one foot placed directly in front of another. Furthermore, a plantigrade locomotion would have resulted in a highly crouched limb posture while walking, which is unfeasible at large body sizes given the increased stresses on muscles, bones, and tendons.”

>> (((They))) surely are going out of (((their))) way to prove these are not human tracks - of course according to (((them))). These tracks must have given (((them))) such a headache to cover it up.

“Digital recreation

In 2014, a digital model was made of the chase sequence trackways from photographs taken in 1940 by Bird. The photographs were used to create the digital reconstruction of the tracks as they were in 1940, before excavations. Though the reconstruction shows high variations in quality in different parts of the model, it provides a good demonstration of historical photogrammetry used to model deteriorated sites and specimens.”

>> Well, I’ve stated before why (((they))) don’t want to admit these human tracks alongside those of dinosaurs are real. A lot of the truth will be unveiled and (((their))) lies will be exposed big time. A lot of inconvenient questions would arise as well, mostly about the giants, the Sebetti clans and mostly about a lost civilization from long ago. The tracks shouldn’t be taken alone but should be regrouped with the other evidence from the same category. This should do it for this Out-of-Place artifact.

• Page 2 405 –

>>16656127

(Please read from the start)

From the same Wikipedia page, let’s take a look at the next Out-of-Place artifact mentioned there.

“Modern-day creations, forgeries and hoaxes

[…]

• Calaveras Skull: A human skull found by miners in Calaveras County, California, which was purported to prove that humans, mastodons, and elephants had coexisted in prehistoric California. It was later revealed to be a hoax.

[…]”

A closer look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calaveras_Skull

“The Calaveras Skull was a human skull found by miners in Calaveras County, California, which was purported to prove that humans, mastodons, and mammoths had coexisted in California. It was later revealed to be a hoax. Coincidentally, "calaveras" is the Spanish word for "skulls".”

>> So this item was quickly dismissed as a hoax.

“History

On February 25, 1866, miners claimed to have found a human skull in a mine, beneath a layer of lava, 130 feet (40 m) below the surface of the earth, which made it into the hands of Josiah Whitney, then the State Geologist of California as well as a Professor of Geology at Harvard University. A year before the skull came to his attention, Whitney published the belief that humans, mastodons, and mammoths coexisted; the skull served as proof of his convictions. After careful study, he officially announced its discovery at a meeting of the California Academy of Sciences on July 16, 1866, declaring it evidence of the existence of Pliocene age man in North America, which would make it the oldest known record of humans on the continent.

Its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 the San Francisco Evening Bulletin reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke. Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879 (the first ever usage of such on human bone), with the results indicating it was of recent origin. It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.”

>> Seeing how hard (((they))) came down on this one, it must be real. See how (((they))) destroy someone’s life and work? Compare what (((they))) did about this skull and what (((they))) did to Whitney to how (((they))) behaved towards similar sensitive subject = it’s the same M.O. I’m sure (((they))) activated all of (((their))) assets in academics, media, “paid experts”, etc.

• Page 2 406 –

>>16656149

(Please read from the start)

“Whitney did not waver in his belief that it was genuine. His successor at Harvard, F. W. Putnam, also believed it to be real. By 1901 Putnam was determined to discover the truth and he headed to California. While there, he heard a story that in 1865 one of a number of Indian skulls had been dug up from a nearby burial site and planted in the mine specifically for miners to find. Putnam still declined to declare the skull a fake, instead conceding, "It may be impossible ever to determine to the satisfaction of the archaeologist the place where the skull was actually found." Others, such as adherents of Theosophy, also were unwavering in their belief in the authenticity of the skull.”

>> See how the people whom challenge the “official” narrative are treated?

“To further complicate the issue, careful comparison of the skull with descriptions of it at the time of its discovery revealed that the skull Whitney had in his possession was not the one originally found.”

>> The mystery is getting thicker and deeper. What are the odds this was “done on purpose”? It’s not the first time we know (((they))) temper with something just to discredit it.

“Anthropologist William Henry Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution investigated around the turn of the century. He determined that the plant and animal fossils that had been discovered near the skull were indeed genuine, but the skull was too modern, and concluded that "to suppose that man could have remained unchanged… for a million years, roughly speaking… is to suppose a miracle." Likewise, J. M. Boutwell, investigating in 1911, was told by one of the participants in the discovery that the whole thing was indeed a hoax. The miners of the Sierra Nevada apparently did not greatly like Whitney ("being an Easterner of very reserved demeanor") and were "delighted" to have played such a joke on him. Furthermore, John C. Scribner, a local shopkeeper, claimed to have planted it, and the story was revealed by his sister after his death. Radiocarbon dating in 1992 established the age of the skull at probably less than a thousand years old, placing it in the late current geological epoch age.”

>> Holmes said something very interesting: the human skull remained unchanged for millions of years = this is the idea behind his thoughts. See, these people, these experts, they all believe in the theory of evolution and they said all of their words on the basis that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and didn’t co-exist with humans. This is how big names, intentionally or unintentionally, called this skull a hoax. And it’s obvious there is a manipulative hand behind the scenes because the sister of a local shopkeeper claimed it was planted by her brother = someone paid her to say this, it’s so obvious.

“Despite evidence to the contrary, the Calaveras Skull continues to be cited by some creationists as proof that paleontologists ignore evidence that does not fit their theories, although others have acknowledged that the Calaveras Skull is a hoax.”

>> I haven’t examined the skull and it seems like it’s not “available” for it to be re-examined. The chances are there this skull is authentic and it’s another piece of evidence pointing in the direction that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. We already know that the theory of evolution is nothing but B.S. big time. We also know a Cataclysm occurred which wiped out most of anything living on this earth. We know many Arks exist all over the word, which were boarded by survivors of that Cataclysm. We also know (((their))) M.O. when there is something out there which puts the Matrix in jeopardy and expose the lies we are trapped in. So for me, once again, everything is pointing that this skull seems authentic. Just by watching/observing how (((they))) reacted, it’s obvious (((they))) don’t want to public to believe this skull is real. Alone, this skull can be labeled as a fake or a hoax, so we gotta combine it with the rest of the evidence of the same category which we are currently taking a look at.

• Page 2 407 –

>>16656162

(Please read from the start)

Next item from the Out-of-Place artifact page in Wikipedia also projects the same idea = humans and dinosaurs co-existed:

“[…]

Erroneously dated objects

[…]

• Malachite Man: Thought to be from the early Cretaceous; actually a post-Columbian burial.

[…]”

A closer look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab_Man

“The Moab Man (also called "Malachite man") is a find of several human skeletons found after bulldozing in a mine whose rock dated to the Early Cretaceous period, about 140 million years ago. The original discovery of two individuals was made in 1971 by Lin Ottinger in the Keystone Azurite Mine near Moab, Utah and has been used by creationists as an argument for humans coexisting with dinosaurs. John Marwitt, an archaeologist and the field director for the Utah Archaeological Survey, examined the fossils and concluded that the fossils were probably only hundreds of years old, the result of burials of Native Americans.

Debated fossil status and age

In the 1980s, Paluxy Creationist Carl Baugh purchased a "Moab Man" skeleton from Ottinger; the skeleton was displayed in the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, as evidence of humans living at the same time as dinosaurs. The Creation Evidence Museum also housed a collection of supposedly human fossil footprints, vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, and fossils attributed to various dinosaur genera, including a mislabeled pubis and ischium assigned to Acrocanthosaurus and a solitary "Y-shaped" fossil assigned the name "Unicerosaurus" (Armstrong, 1987, identified this fossil as belonging to a fish Xiphactinus). Studies over the years had concluded that the fossil "human" footprints were actually "forms of elongate dinosaur tracks, while others were selectively highlighted erosional markings, and still others (on loose blocks) probable carvings."

Later examination of the "Moab Man" skeletons indicate that they are unfossilized remains that were subject to an intrusive burial, and have been carbon dated to between 210 and 1450 years old (Berger and Protsch, 1989; Coulam and Schroedl, 1995).”

>> Well, there isn’t much to say about this Out-of-Place artifact, apart that it should be placed in the same category as the previous ones we’ve already seen, as in, it’s evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. And of course it’s debunked, according to (((their))) narrative, thanks to the “paid experts”.

• Page 2 408 –

>>16656173

(Please read from the start)

Let’s check the next artifact from the same Wikipedia page:

“[…]

Erroneously dated objects

• Coso artifact: Claimed to be prehistoric; actually a 1920s spark plug.

[…]”

Let’s take a closer look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coso_artifact

“The Coso artifact is an object claimed by its discoverers to be a spark plug encased in a geode. Discovered on February 13, 1961, by Wallace Lane, Virginia Maxey and Mike Mikesell while they were prospecting for geodes near the town of Olancha, California, it has long been claimed as an example of an out-of-place artifact.[1] The artifact has been identified as a 1920s-era Champion spark plug.

A spark plug encased in a 500,000-year-old "geode" would represent a substantial scientific and historical anomaly, as spark plugs were invented in the 19th century. Critics say that the stone matrix containing the artifact is not a geode, but a concretion that can be explained by natural processes that can take place over decades or years.”

>> This item is kinda linked to the other ones we’ve seen in the previous pages; mostly with what I’ve said about the shoe prints = an ape like man doesn’t wear shoes. Shoes are a projection of civilization, not just the shoe prints but also other artifacts of the kind. The idea of an ancient civilization long lost to us is also projected by some of the other Out-of-Place artifacts we’ve already seen in this thread, like the Dendera Lightbulb or Quimbaya planes, etc. I’m just trying to say that this artifact is not unique and can be regrouped with others from the same type/category. I would also like to add to this category the details on the Kamouh of Hermel, where what looks like an electromagnet is depicted (page 1 747). It projects the same idea = the existence of a long lost technologically advanced civilization.

“Discovery

Following its collection, Mikesell destroyed a diamond-edged blade by cutting through the matrix and discovered the item. In a letter written to Desert Magazine of Outdoor Southwest a reader stated that a trained geologist had dated the nodule as at least 500,000 years old. The identity of the geologist and the means of dating were never clarified, nor were the findings ever published in any known periodical. Furthermore, at the time of the artifact's reported discovery there was no method for dating the concretion.There are examples of accretions surrounding iron or steel artifacts, some of them discussed by J. M. Cronyn.”

• Page 2 409 –

>>16656186

(Please read from the start)

“Criticism and analysis

There are several pseudoscientific theories for the artifact's origin, among them:

• An ancient advanced civilization (such as Atlantis);

• Prehistoric ancient astronauts;

• Human time travelers from the future leaving or losing the artifact during a visit to the past.”

>> What if it was options 1 & 2 combined?

“An investigation by Pierre Stromberg and Paul Heinrich, with the help of members of the Spark Plug Collectors of America, identified the artifact as a 1920s-era Champion spark plug, widely used in the Ford Model T and Model A engines. SPCA President Chad Windham and other collectors concurred with his assessment.

Stromberg and Heinrich's report indicates that the spark plug became encased in a concretion composed of iron derived from the rusting spark plug. Iron and steel artifacts rapidly form iron-oxide concretions as they rust in the ground.

On April 12, 2018, Pierre Stromberg was contacted by the family of one of the co-discoverers of the artifact. Offered an opportunity to physically inspect the artifact, Stromberg accepted and also arranged for the artifact to be inspected by a geologist from the University of Washington Earth and Space Science department. The inspections confirmed the previous conclusion that the artifact was a 1920s-era Champion spark plug.

It had been claimed to have fossil shells on the surfaces "that dated back 500,000 years" but the University of Washington geologist could find no evidence of this claim. This raises the question of "the qualifications and competency of the original alleged geologist … in 1961". The reason the artifact gained the fame that it did was because of the shell claim. As of 2019, the artifact resides at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, where it is shown in an exhibition called "What Is Reality?"

>> For me, it doesn’t really matter if this artifact is authentic or not. What matters for me is the idea it’s projecting which is bothering (((them))) = the possible existence of a lost, forgotten, technologically advanced civilization. Since there are a lot of “paid experts” out there, it would be “nice” if such artifacts are re-examined by the White Hats and the debate about the authenticity is settled once and for all. But like I just said; it’s the idea this artifact is projecting which is bothering (((them))).

• Page 2 410 –

>>16656191

(Please read from the start)

Next from the same Wikipedia page is the Newark holy stones:

“Alternative interpretations

[…]

• Newark Holy Stones: Used as extremely unlikely evidence that Hebrew peoples lived in the Americas, but more probably a hoax.

[…]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_Holy_Stones

“The Newark Holy Stones refer to a set of artifacts allegedly discovered by David Wyrick in 1860 within a cluster of ancient Indian burial mounds near Newark, Ohio, now generally believed to be a hoax. The set consists of the Keystone, a stone bowl, and the Decalogue with its sandstone box. They can be viewed at the Johnson-Humrickhouse Museum in Coshocton, Ohio. The site where the objects were found is known as The Newark Earthworks, one of the biggest collections from an ancient American Indian culture known as the Hopewell that existed from approximately 100 BC to AD 500.”

>> I’m troubled about these stones. They are way too “clean”, way too “neat”. Just by examining them, I’m troubled by it because they are way too “perfect”, as if they just came out from the workshop which made them. There is no wear, no mold, no friction, no discoloring, no scratches, no etc.; not a type of damage of any kind on them or any signs of being used. The preservation of these items in such perfect condition is “magical”, “miraculous”.

“Discovery

The first of these artifacts, popularly known as the Keystone due to its shape, was excavated in June 1860. Unlike other ancient artifacts found previously in this region, the Keystone was inscribed with Hebrew. It contains one phrase on each side:

• Holy of Holies

• King of the Earth

• The Law of God

• The Word of God”

>> Do you know whom is the King of the Earth? = it’s the Evil One. He was a Sebetti ruler of the Light once, which makes him holy, but after he became evil, he remained only holy to his own clan’s people.

• Page 2 411 –

>>16656209

(Please read from the start)

After looking at this keystone for a long time = just checking the item as an object and not working on the inscription; I agree with what is written in the first picture I’m attaching with this page. This keystone is either a fraud or a modern day object = 19th century object. This is not an antique artifact, dating many centuries back. And I do agree with the idea this is most probably a masonic object used in masonic rituals and all the symbolism of a “keystone” is for the Illuminati.

“The second find came later in November 1860 when Wyrick and his excavation team came across a sandstone box that contained a small, black rock within it. The black rock was identified as limestone by geologists Dave Hawkins and Ken Bork of Denison University. On this stone was carved Hebrew text that was translated as a condensed version of the Ten Commandments. The name Decalogue Stone comes from the translation of the Hebrew letters that outline the religious and moral codes described in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, which refer to the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. The inscription begins on the front at the top of an arch above the figure of a bearded man who is wearing a turban and robe, and appears to be holding a tablet. It runs down the left side, continues around all sides, and makes its way back to the front up the right side to where it began. This pattern indicates that the inscription was meant to be read repetitively. Right above the figure of the man is a separate inscription which translates to "Moses". This rock was carved with a unique form of Hebrew, which gave the appearance of ancient post-Exilic square Hebrew letters that later was shown to be derived from the modern Hebrew alphabet. Additional photos of the front and back can be found in an article published in the Epigraphic Society of Occasional Papers.”

>> Once again: this item is way too perfect. The conditions which it is in are outstanding to a point that it’s ridiculous to consider this an ancient artifact. I’ve seen a lot of artifacts from all types of material being dug up/excavated in my career but darn it, I’ve never seen an artifact in such a perfect condition before. The state these items are in is making me doubt they are true antique artifacts, but as I said before, these are either frauds; or, more likely these are masonic items used in (((their))) stupid rituals. As for Moses and the 10 commandments, please go back and re-read what I’ve said about the fairy tale of Moses in thread 7 – starting page 2 100.

“Radiocarbon date of wooden platform

In 2014, Bradley Lepper of the Ohio History Connection discovered that a fragment of the wooden burial platform underneath which the Decalogue Stone was found had been preserved at Yale's Peabody Museum of Natural History. This sample yielded a calibrated radiocarbon date range of CAL AD 85 to CAL AD 135 (95% probability). Since the platform had been made from an approximately 2-foot (0.61 m) diameter oak tree, the burial itself could have been several decades later than this tree growth. These dates are consistent with the Hopewell culture that would have constructed the mound.”

>> First of all we need to recheck the results of this test. Secondly, if the “chest” which these stones were found in is old, it doesn’t mean the artifacts in it are old. What I’m talking about here is that there is a possibility the chest is truly as old as it is said in this text; but it was re-used in modern days and these items were put in that old chest to be buried together. This is not the first time in archaeology we see this sort of things taking place = an old “container” of some sort, is being re-used to put modern objects in it and then burry everything.

• Page 2 412 –

>>16656228

(Please read from the start)

Remember what the arguments were against the Shroud of Turin? Compare how the “experts” behaved towards the Shroud and what are the arguments they presented as it being a hoax and a forgery, to how the Decalogue is being treated. See what I mean?

“Historical context

The Newark Holy Stones are an archaeological fraud used to support the "Lost Tribes" theory, which posits an ancient Israelite presence in Ohio. The idea that there is a connection between the ancient Hopewell mound builders and Jewish settlers that were in the Americas before Columbus is a form of pseudoarchaeology.”

>> These Newark items are most probably masonic ritual objects made and used in modern times, most probably somewhere in the 19th century. Why and by whom they were buried needs to be investigated by those whom are interested in this.

“The first stone to be found was written in modern Hebrew. In July 1860 Abraham Geiger wrote in the New York Times that "the bungling work of an unskilled stone mason and the strangeness of some letters as well as the many mistakes and transpositions was his fault. The letters are not antique. This is not a relic of hoary antiquity".

Just over three months later, the second stone was found. This was not only considerably more elaborate, it was written in archaic Hebrew. Ken Feder compares this with someone today announcing that they had discovered a hitherto unknown play by Shakespeare which was then exposed as a modern forgery, then shortly thereafter announcing the discovery of a more plausible new play.

It is possible that the stones were forged to support a political viewpoint. Brad Lepper, of the Ohio Historical Society who has extensively studied the Hopewell culture, suggests that the artifacts might have been scientifically forged to help advance the theory on monogenism. In 1860, slavery was a subject of heated debate that was reaching a critical point in American society. Anthropology and other forms of science were often used in defense or opposition. Discussions promoting monogenism, for example, were often used to oppose slavery and segregation.

Hoax theories

David Wyrick

Among some of the hoax theories is that Wyrick faked the artifacts and planted them at the excavation sites. Prior to his discovery, Wyrick supported the belief that the Lost Tribes of Israel were the ancestors of ancient mound builders in Ohio. Wyrick spent a great deal of time searching a number of excavation sites at various mounds attempting to find supporting evidence of this belief.”

>> I don’t know about the reader, but I’ve seen this happen many times before in my line of work. I have seen plenty of artifacts being “re-buried” just to claim this and that about the Jews and (((their))) history. I’ve talked about this before = either the artifacts are dug up someplace else and re-buried, or they are fake/forgery artifacts. The history of the Jews is nothing but patchwork, fabrication, theft and copycats. (((They))) are the biggest imposters in the history of mankind. So I’m not surprised at ALL to read that such items (with masonic affinity) were suspected to have been reburied in order to push a certain agenda, a certain narrative in order to manipulate public opinion.

• Page 2 413 –

>>16656239

(Please read from the start)

“In 1861, Wyrick published a pamphlet that described his account of the artifact discoveries. The publishing included woodcuts of the inscriptions found on the stones. When comparing Wyrick's woodcuts of the Decalogue to the actual inscription found on the stone, Wyrick made at least 38 errors involving 256 Hebrew letters. Mistakes include illegible and omitted letters. Wyrick's depiction of Moses on the woodcuts had inconsistencies as well. Wyrick shows Moses wearing a beret instead of a turban. He also shows Moses in a 19th-century dress instead of the flowering robe shown on the stone.

Some believe that the person or group responsible for the inscription had to have an extensive knowledge of the Hebrew language. Given that Wyrick made a large number of mistakes on the woodcuts seem to indicate that he may not have been the stone's author. Beverley H. Moseley, Jr., former art director of the Ohio Historical Society, compared the carving of Moses on the stone to Wyrick's woodcut copy. He concluded that both images couldn't have been made by the same person. After Wyrick's death, Colonel Charles Whittlesey published a paper in 1872 in which he recalls discovering a Hebrew Bible among Wyrick's personal items. Whittlesey concludes at the time that the stones were a hoax, and assumed that the Bible was Wyrick's source of inspiration for the inscription. This theory was later discredited after it was determined that the letters used on the Decalogue did not represent a style that would have been consistent with the theory.

The Hebrew version used in the inscriptions is another point of contention. The version used was post-Exilic, which would not be from a "Lost" Tribe. Some believe this is another example that shows the artifacts were either a hoax or did not date back to the time of the mound builders. Wyrick also made a claim in a letter he wrote to Joseph Henry in 1863—one year before his death—that he might have been a victim of a hoax.

Rev. John W. McCarty and stonecutter Elijah Sutton

Rev. John W. McCarty and Elijah Sutton were both residents of Newark when the Decalogue Stone and the Keystone were found. Elijah Sutton was a stonecutter with no other direct link to the event other than his part in carving Wyrick's headstone when he died. However, it is asserted that because the Decalogue Stone is made from similar materials and is of the same width (thickness) as his headstones, he must have cut the stone. As for Rev. John W. McCarty, he played a more direct role in the artifact's discovery.

It was with the help of McCarty that the stone was translated. Upon receiving the stone McCarty was able to translate it within hours. However, "A few days later, McCarty published a second article, correcting some errors he had made his initial interpretation. In his first attempt, for example, he read the letters over the head of the carved figure as Mem-Shin-Heth, or Meshiach (Messiah), and concluded, as a good Episcopalian minister, that the figure was intended to represent Jesus Christ. In his second version, he read these letters correctly as Mem-Shin-He, or Moshe, and conceded that the figure in fact represented Moses. If he had composed the text himself, he would surely have gotten the translation right on his first try, particularly on such an important (and, in retrospect, obvious) point."

• Page 2 414 –

>>16656242

(Please read from the start)

“Source for the design

Archaeologist Brad Lepper believes that the inspiration for the Decalogue stone was Austen Henry Layar's book Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. Layard's work had become a sensation at the time and McCarty had access to it and given his profession would have taken an interest in it. Lepper writes that a stone carving on a temple entrance "looked very familiar. In fact, it duplicated, in great detail, the form of the Decalogue Stone. Compare the images for yourself. Both have a tombstone-shaped frame with a bearded man shown in left profile and the left arm of both men is bent. Both men are wearing long gowns and have some sort of domed head-covering. Finally, there is an inscription arcing over the heads of both men.”

Scholarly debate on the authenticity of the stones has continued for decades. Epigrapher Rochelle I. Altman, notes:

It was disturbing to learn later that the artifact with the shape of "The" Law had been correctly identified as medieval and European in 1861 by Dr. Arnold Fischel. It was disgraceful to learn that the Report, issued in 1863 by the committee appointed by the Ethnological Society which stated that they accepted Dr. Fischel's assessment and could not label the items as "fakes," was ignored. Investigation into why the correct identification had been literally swept under the rug only made matters worse. Why was the identification ignored? Because neither the committee's report nor Fischel's identification fit the two models erected with regard to these artifacts. On one side, we had a group who maintained that the artifacts were evidence of the presence of the ten lost tribes of Israel in "Ancient America." On the other side, we had a school who declared the artifacts were "modern forgeries." David Wyrick, who found two of the artifacts in 1860, including the one in the shape of the "Law" (now called "the decalog"), was "convicted" by rumor-consensus of forgery.”

>> If what I’m suspecting is true = these are masonic ritual items, then no matter how much there are investigations, we will never get close to the truth. It’s always blurry when it comes to masonic things and investigations always fail and lead to nowhere. Every investigation which has the potential of exposing the masons or the Jews is swept under the rug or derailed. Ever wonder why?

“Relate discoveries

There were other stones found at the Newark site, like the Keystone. Two other stones were also found at Newark shortly after Wyrick's death (they have since been lost). These stones were quickly dismissed as fakes when the local dentist, John H. Nicol, claimed that he had carved and introduced the stones to the site.

A fifth stone was allegedly found at the same site as the Decalogue stone two years later by David M. Johnson, a banker, and Nathaniel Roe Bradner, a physician. Named the Johnson-Bradner Stone, it has since been lost. A lithograph of the stone, published in France, still survives. The letters on the lid and base of the Johnson-Bradner stone are in the same peculiar alphabet as the Decalogue inscription, and appear to wrap around in the same manner as on the Decalogue's back platform.

Additionally, a teacup sized bowl made from the same stone material was found nearby by one of the persons accompanying Wyrick.”

>> Conveniently some of these items were “magically lost”. As I’ve said before, these items are not authentic archaeological artifacts but I believe they are modern day masonic items used in rituals. This should do for the Newark un-holy stones.

• Page 2 415 –

>>16656248

(Please read from the start)

The next item on the Out-of-Place artifact list from the same Wikipedia page can be put in the same category as the one we just checked. This one is called the Los Luna Decalogue stone:

“[…]

Modern-day creations, forgeries and hoaxes

[…]

• Los Lunas Decalogue Stone: Supposedly made by pre-Columbian Israelite visitors to the Americas. Generally believed to be a modern-day hoax.

[…]”

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone

“The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is a large boulder on the side of Hidden Mountain, near Los Lunas, New Mexico, about 35 miles (56 km) south of Albuquerque, that bears a very spectacular inscription carved into a flat panel. The stone is also known as the Los Lunas Mystery Stone or Commandment Rock. The stone is controversial in that some claim the inscription is Pre-Columbian, and therefore proof of early Semitic contact with the Americas.

History

The first recorded mention of the stone is in 1933, when professor Frank Hibben (1910-2002), an archaeologist from the University of New Mexico, saw it. According to a 1996 interview, Hibben was "convinced the inscription is ancient and thus authentic. He report[ed] that he first saw the text in 1933. At the time it was covered with lichen and patination and was hardly visible. He claimed he was taken to the site by a guide who claimed he had seen it as a boy, back in the 1880s." However, Hibben's testimony is tainted by charges that in at least two separate incidents, he fabricated some or all of his archaeological data to support his pre-Clovis migration theory.

The reported 1880s date of discovery is important to those who believe that the stone is pre-Columbian. However, the Paleo-Hebrew script, which is closely related to the Phoenician script, was known to scholars by at least 1870 - thus not precluding the possibility of a modern hoax.”

>> Looking at the pictures of this stone in Los lunas, this is no Hebrew writing nor is it what they stupidly call Paleo Hebrew script = this is Phoenician alphabet used to write the inscription on the stone.

Also the patina on the stone is notable.

• Page 2 416 –

>>16656261

(Please read from the start)

“Because of the stone's weight of over 80 tons, it was never moved to a museum or laboratory for study and safekeeping. Many visitors have cleaned the stone inscriptions over the years, likely destroying any possibility for scientific analysis of the inscriptions' patina. Nevertheless, comparing it to a modern inscription nearby, geologist George E. Morehouse, a colleague of Barry Fell, estimated that the inscription could be between 500 and 2000 years old and explaining its freshness and lack of patina as being due to frequent scrubbing to make it more visible.”

>> I’m crying from laughter. See how the stone is treated and “abandoned” on purpose so it would be destroyed? Amazing isn’t it? Each time there is a potential link or connection to the Phoenicians, the items is neglected, damaged, smeared, vanishes, vandalized, destroyed, etc, just before it gets analyzed or studied properly.

“In April 2006, the first line of the unprotected inscription was obliterated by vandals.

Visitors to the site are required to purchase a $35 Recreational Access Permit from the New Mexico State Land Office.”

>> So you gotta pay to see it and yet, not a single effort or penny was provided to protect the stone from being vandalized and damaged. What are the odds that first line was important so it was destroyed?

“Controversy

Archaeolinguist Cyrus Gordon has proposed that the Los Lunas Decalogue is a Samaritan mezuzah. The familiar Jewish mezuzah is a tiny scroll placed in a small container mounted by the entrance to a house. The ancient Samaritan mezuzah, on the other hand, was commonly a large stone slab placed by the gateway to a property or synagogue, and bearing an abridged version of the Decalogue. On historical and epigraphic grounds, Gordon regards the Byzantine period as the most likely for the inscription. The Samaritan alphabet is a direct descendant of the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet.

One argument against the stone's antiquity is its apparent use of modern Hebrew (or otherwise atypical) punctuation, though amateur epigrapher Barry Fell argued that the punctuation is consistent with antiquity. Other researchers dismiss the inscription based on the numerous stylistic and grammatical errors that appear in the inscription.

According to archaeologist Kenneth Feder, "the stone is almost certainly a fake." He points out that "the flat face of the stone shows a very sharp, crisp inscription…" His main concern however is the lack of any archaeological context. He argues that to get to the location of the stone would have required whoever inscribed it to have "stopped along the way, encamped, eaten food, broken things, disposed of trash, performed rituals, and so on. And those actions should have left a trail of physical archaeological evidence across the greater American Southwest, discovery of which would undeniably prove the existence of foreigners in New Mexico in antiquity with a demonstrably ancient Hebrew material culture…" and states that "There are no pre-Columbian ancient Hebrew settlements, no sites containing the everyday detritus of a band of ancient Hebrews, nothing that even a cursory knowledge of how the archaeological record forms would demand there would be. From an archaeological standpoint, that's plainly impossible."

• Page 2 417 –

>>16656267

(Please read from the start)

>> I see 3 possible explanations for this stone so far:

1 – It’s a hoax, a fake.

2 – It’s linked to the tower of Babel.

3 – It’s connected to masonic rituals secretly performed in that place in some recent century, not long ago.

I agree with the evaluation talked about in the last paragraph as in humans always leave trails behind them. If we haven’t found the trail yet, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. The area is way too big and there is loads of neglect concerning this stone, so I won’t be surprised to see nothing was done to verify this theory or try to find out anything tangible about it = mostly if this is a masonic ritual stone; because (((they))) do like to keep (((their))) stupid ritual secretive after all.

“British archaeologist Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews has concluded that "Viewed dispassionately, the Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe." While at the same time acknowledging that evidence for the origin of the Los Lunas Inscription is "poor," Fitzpatrick-Matthews posits without support that the Los Lunas Inscription is probably a forgery by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enlisted in the United States Army in the latter part of the 19th century. His claim is based on two suppositions: the fact that this religious band, sometimes called "The Mormon Battalion," was in the region during the time; and the inscriptions are similar to those on the Bat Creek Stone, found in Tennessee in 1889. However, there is no evidence of such forgery by the Mormon Battalion and the authenticity of the Bat Creek Stone is still debated, with some evidence even supporting the claims of the Smithsonian agent who discovered it.”

>> What is strange about this stone is that the inscription is written using the Phoenician alphabet. If this was a masonic ritual stone, then it should have been written in Hebrew. But it’s not. There is nothing logical about this rock which could only make me believe of the possibility this is a forgery, a hoax. Do you think (((they))) knew this is a hoax, so this is why it was neglected this way? In the same time, (((they))) are making us chase our own tails regarding the riddle of this stone?

“Similar landmarks

The Los Lunas Decalogue Stone is often grouped with the Heavener Runestone, Kensington Runestone, Dighton Rock, and the Newport Tower as examples of American landmarks with disputed provenances. Other disputed American Hebrew inscriptions include the Smithsonian Institution's Bat Creek Inscription and the Newark Ohio Decalogue Stone, Keystone, and Johnson-Bradner Stone.”

>> Well, if the Los Lunas stone is a masonic ritual stone, then it “might” be regrouped with others of its kind. If it’s a hoax stone, it should be regrouped with the same kind.

This is it for this item.

• Page 2 418 –

>>16656276

(Please read from the start)

The next Out-of-Place artifact from the same Wikipedia page comes under the name of the Michigan relics:

“ […]

Modern-day creations, forgeries and hoaxes

[…]

• Michigan relics: Supposedly ancient artifacts which have been alleged as proof that people of an ancient Near Eastern culture had lived in the U.S. state of Michigan; they are archaeological forgeries.

[…]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_relics

“The Michigan Relics (also known as the Scotford Frauds or Soper Frauds) are a series of alleged ancient artifacts that were "discovered" during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. They were presented by some to be evidence that people of an ancient Near Eastern culture had lived in North America and the U.S. state of Michigan, which, is known as pre-Columbian contact. Many scholars have determined that the artifacts are archaeological forgeries. The Michigan Relics are considered to be one of the most elaborate and extensive pseudoarchaeological hoaxes ever perpetrated in American history.”

>> Just a quick look at the pictures of these items and even a blind man can tell these are forgeries. These are not authentic archaeological artifacts. The “drawing” style is that of a modern age and not ancient.

“Discovery” of the Relics

In October 1890, James O. Scotford of Edmore, Michigan, claimed that he had found a number of artifacts, including a clay cup with strange symbols and carved tablets, with symbols that looked vaguely hieroglyphic. The find attracted interest and eager looters arrived to look for more artifacts. Many more elaborate discoveries were made in the area around Wyman in Montcalm County, Michigan following Scotford's original discovery. Scotford was a well-known digger and sign painter in the area of Wyman. He and his company "would dig until they located an artifact, and then the dignitaries who sponsored the work were invited to remove that artifact".Within the first year of Scotford's initial discovery a syndicate was formed in Montcalm County of interested parties. The syndicate purchased many of the artifacts and attempted to exploit the finds financially for the region.

By 1907, Scotford joined forces with Daniel E. Soper, former Michigan Secretary of State, and together they presented thousands of objects made of various materials, supposedly found in 16 counties across Michigan. Soper had resigned as Secretary of State for the State of Michigan after being accused of embezzlement. The objects included coins, pipes, boxes, figurines and cuneiform tablets that depicted various biblical scenes, including Moses handing out the tablets of the Ten Commandments. On November 14, 1907, the Detroit News reported that Soper and Scotford were selling copper crowns they had supposedly found on heads of prehistoric kings, and copies of Noah's diary. Scotford often arranged for a local person to witness him "unearthing" the objects.”

• Page 2 419 –

>>16656284

(Please read from the start)

“Scotford and Soper had many trusting customers who strongly believed in the relics. In 1911, one John A. Russell published a pamphlet, "Prehistoric discoveries in Wayne County, Michigan," in which he argued for their authenticity. James Savage, former pastor of the Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Detroit, bought 40 of the objects. Savage believed them to be "remains relevant to the descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel," and continued to believe in the relics until his death.”

>> That’s one heck of a lucrative scam.

LoL! This is a well-staged B.S. Please go check the pictures of the designs on these items and compare them with what came out as authentic archaeological artifacts from Mesopotamia and mostly from Ancient Egypt. Have a visual comparison, you will notice the drawing style is incredibly different. Remember what I told you about strict rules for the scribes, mostly in Ancient Egypt? It was the same in arts in Ancient Egypt. The style of the Michigan items is projecting that of a modern day work, not from Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.

I’m just putting samples for anons. You can view the rest online.

“Debunking

In 1891, Professor Albert Emerson came out to the sites to get a better look at the "artifacts" that he called "bad enough in the photograph… an examination proved them to be humbugs of the first water." In 1892, Professor Francis W. Kelsey, professor of Latin and Literature at the University of Michigan, along with Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., librarian and professor of Semitic languages at the University of Pennsylvania, assessed the languages found on the objects. Kelsey and Jastrow deemed the Michigan Relics frauds containing a "horrible mixture" of jumbled ancient scripts. The consensus among most all early scholars who assessed the relics was that they were archaeological forgeries, based on the following evidence:

• The hieroglyphs were stamped cuneiform characters in random order.

• The figures on some of the discoveries included lions with no tails, an omission which would not have occurred by "primitive" artists.

• The clay items were dried on a machine-sawed board.

• The objects disintegrated in water, indicating that they could not have been buried in the ground for very long.”

>> A good sign of forgery is the mixture of many ancient languages on one artifact.

“Archaeologists and historians continually concluded that the objects were forgeries. On July 28, 1911, professor Frederick Starr of the University of Chicago declared in the Detroit News that the so-called relics were fakes. Mary Robson, who lived in a room next door to Scotford's sons Percy and Charles, stated that the boys manufactured more "relics" all the time. In 1911, Scotford's stepdaughter signed an affidavit in which she stated that she had seen him making the objects and when she denied their validity he threatened her life. While most scholars and academics have determined that Scotford was the craftsman and Soper was the salesman, and the men joined forces for personal financial gain, neither man ever confessed and remained active in the business until their respective deaths in the 1920s.”

• Page 2 420 –

>>16656297

(Please read from the start)

“The Relics and the LDS

The finds attracted the interest of some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). In 1909, Mormon scientist James E. Talmage participated in a "dig" and then thoroughly tested the artifacts in his lab back in Utah. His investigations led him to label the artifacts as frauds. In August 1911, he published a work on his findings titled "The 'Michigan Relics': A Story of Forgery and Deception." Rudolph Etzenhouser, who was a traveling elder of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), saw the relics as proof of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Etzenhouser even published a book on his collection of the Michigan Relics.”

>> This is not the first time we have such religious forgeries and this is not the first time the faith of the believers is exploited to scam money out of them. And it’s not going to be the last time.

“After James Savage died in 1927 he bequeathed his collection of the relics to the University of Notre Dame. While at Notre Dame, the relics sat dormant until the 1960s when Milton R. Hunter, president of the New World Archaeological Foundation, the research institute of the LDS Church, uncovered the relics. Hunter spent the rest of his life attempting to use the relics to prove the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Hunter connected the relics to the "Michigan Mound Builders," which he deemed to be the Nephites from the Book of Mormon. Hunter's rhetoric and work with the Michigan Relics perpetuated pseudoarchaeology in religion, with efforts to prove pre-Columbian contact and the myth of the mound builders. Notre Dame gave Hunter the collection in the 1960s and before his death in 1975 he deeded the collection to the LDS Church. Following Hunter's death, the Church kept the collection in their museum in Salt Lake City, Utah for decades. In 2001, the Church had the relics examined by Professor of Anthropology Richard B. Stamps, of Oakland University and found that the artifacts were made with contemporary tools.

The LDS Church kept 797 of the objects in their Salt Lake City Museum. In 2003, they gave them to the Michigan History Museum in Lansing where they currently reside. The Museum developed an exhibition surrounding the objects called "Digging Up Controversy: The Michigan Relics" which was on display in the fall and winter of 2003.”

>> Face palm for the old man.

I’m going to stop it here with these items. They are fakes anons. Just look at them and compare with the artistic style of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Even a blind man can see it’s a forgery.

• Page 2 421 –

>>16656347

(Please read from the start)

And the last item on the Out-of-Place artifacts from the same Wikipedia page is the Tucson artifacts:

“ […]

Modern-day creations, forgeries and hoaxes

[…]

• Tucson artifacts: Thirty-one lead objects that Charles E. Manier and his family found in 1924 near Picture Rocks, Arizona, which were initially thought by some to be created by early Mediterranean civilizations that had crossed the Atlantic in the first century, but were later determined to be a hoax.

[…]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts

“The Tucson artifacts, sometimes called the Tucson Lead Crosses, Tucson Crosses, Silverbell Road artifacts, or Silverbell artifacts, were thirty-one lead objects that Charles E. Manier and his family found in 1924 near Picture Rocks, Arizona which were initially thought by some to be created by early Mediterranean civilizations that had crossed the Atlantic in the first century, but were later determined to be a hoax.

The find consisted of thirty-one lead objects, including crosses, swords, and religious/ceremonial paraphernalia, most of which bore Hebrew or Latin engraved inscriptions, pictures of temples, leaders' portraits, angels, and a dinosaur (inscribed on the lead blade of a sword). One contained the phrase "Calalus, the unknown land", which was used by believers as the name of the settlement. The objects also have Roman numerals ranging from 790 to 900 inscribed on them, which were sometimes interpreted to represent the date of their creation. The site contains no other artifacts, no pottery sherds, no broken glass, no human or animal remains, and no sign of hearths or housing.”

>> These are not ancient archaeological artifacts because I’ve never seen a dinosaur artifact dating from the Roman time in my life. These are modern day items.

“History

On September 13, 1924 Charles Manier and his father stopped to examine some old lime kilns while driving northwest of Tucson on Silverbell Road. Manier saw an object protruding about 2 inches (5.1 cm) from the soil. He dug it out, revealing that it was a lead cross measuring 20 inches (51 cm) and weighing 64 pounds (29 kg). Between 1924 and 1930 additional objects were extracted from the caliche, a layer of soil in which the soil particles have been cemented together by lime. Caliche often takes a long period of time to form, but it can be made and placed around an article in a short period of time, according to a report written by James Quinlan, a retired Tucson geologist who had worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. Quinlan also concluded that it would be easy to bury articles in the soft, silt material, and associated caliche in the lime kiln where the objects were found at the margin of prior trenches. The objects were believed, by their discoverer and main supporters, to be of a Roman Judeo-Christian colony existing in what is now known as Arizona between 790–900 AD. No other find has been formally established as placing any Roman colony in the area, nor anywhere else in North America.”

>> Metal made artifacts are the easiest to falsify (forgery) in archaeology.

• Page 2 422 –

>>16656353

(Please read from the start)

“In November 1924, Manier brought his friend Thomas Bent to the site and Bent was quickly convinced of the authenticity of the discovery. Upon finding the land was not owned, he immediately set up residence there, in order to homestead the property. Bent felt there was money to be made in further excavating the site.”

>> A good scam, a good money cow.

“Latin inscriptions

The first object removed from the caliche by Manier was a crudely cast metal cross that weighed 62 pounds (28 kg); after cleaning it was revealed to be two separate crosses riveted together. After his find, Manier took the cross to Professor Frank H. Fowler, Head of the Department of Classical Languages of the University of Arizona, at Tucson, who determined the language on the artifacts was Latin. He also translated one line as reading "Calalus, the unknown land", giving a name for the supposed Latin colony.

The Latin inscriptions on the alleged artifacts supposedly record the conflicts of the leaders of Calalus against a barbarian enemy known as the "Toltezus", which some have interpreted as a supposed reference to the Mesoamerican Toltec civilization. However, the Latin on the artifacts appears to either be badly inflected original Latin, or inscriptions brazenly plagiarized from Classical authors such as Virgil, Cicero, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, and Horace, among several others. This has led many experts to condemn the artifacts as frauds. What is perhaps most suspicious, however, is that most of the inscriptions are identical to what appeared in widely available Latin grammar books, like Harkness's Latin Grammar and Allen and Greenough's Latin Grammar, as well as dictionaries like The Standard Dictionary of Facts.”

>> Well, there you go, the text is a copy = taken from famous Latin books from the time. In other words, someone took a widely spread Latin book, opened it and copied on the items whatever was written on it. Was the text/inscription randomly picked from the book? Or was it selected? This can point whether or not the ones behind this frauds knew/studied Latin or not.

“Views on authenticity

Manier took the first item to the Arizona State Museum to be studied by archaeologist Karl Ruppert. Ruppert was impressed with the item, and went with Manier to the site the next day where he found a caliche plaque weighing 7 pounds (3.2 kg), with inscriptions that included a date of 800 A.D. A total of thirty-one objects were found. Other contemporary scholars including George C. Valliant, a Harvard University archaeologist who visited the University of Arizona in 1928, and Bashford Dean, curator of arms and armor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, thought the articles were fakes. Neil Merton Judd, curator of the National Museum at the Smithsonian Institution, happened to be in Tucson at the time of the discovery of the objects and, after examining them, also thought they were fakes, proposing that they may have been created by "some mentally incompetent individual with a flair for old Latin and the wars of antiquity."

• Page 2 423 –

>>16656360

(Please read from the start)

“Supporters

In the 1960s, Bent wrote a 350-page manuscript entitled "The Tucson Artifacts," about the objects, which is unpublished but kept by the Arizona State Museum. Both Manier and Bent were supporters of the objects as a genuine archaeological find.”

>> Such high honors for non-authentic archaeological artifacts. While the real ones and the real sites are being destroyed, mostly the sites which used to be settlements of the ThunderBird Clan.

“Lara Coleman Ostrander, a Tucson immigrant and high school history teacher studied the historical background of the research, and translated the alleged history of Calalus from the writings on the items. Geologist Clifton J. Sarle worked with Ostrander to present the Tucson Artifacts to the press and the academic profession.

Tucson University administrator and director of the Arizona State Museum Dean Byron Cummings led archaeologists at the university to the location where the items were found. He brought ten of the objects to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and showing them at museums and universities on the east coast. Astronomer Andrew E. Douglass, known for his work in dendrochronology also considered the items to be authentic.

In 1975, Wake Forest University professor Cyclone Covey re-examined the controversy in his book titled Calalus: A Roman Jewish Colony in America from the Time of Charlemagne Through Alfred the Great. Covey was in direct contact with Thomas Bent by 1970, and planned to carry out excavations at the site in 1972, but was not allowed, due to legal complications preventing Wake Forest University from leading a dig at the site. Covey's book proposes that the objects are from a Jewish settlement, founded by people who came from Rome and settled outside of present-day Tucson around 800 AD.”

>> LoL! I wonder what these complications preventing the dig at the site were!

“Skeptics

Professor Frank Fowler originally translated the Latin inscriptions on the first items and found that the inscriptions were from well known classical authors such as Cicero, Virgil and Horace. He researched local Latin texts available in Tucson at the time and found the inscriptions on the lead items to be identical to the texts available.

Dean Cumming's student and excavator, Emil Haury, closely examined scratches on the surface of the objects as they were removed from the ground and concluded that they were planted, based partly on a cavity in the ground which was longer than a lead bar removed from it. After Cummings became president of the university, his views changed in an unclear manner, possibly due to Haury's skepticism, or the increasing sentiment that the items were nothing more than a hoax and as university president had to take a different stand on the matter. George M. B. Hawley staunchly opposed Bent's views about the objects. Hawley even accused Ostrander and Sarle as perpetrators of the hoax.”

• Page 2 424 –

>>16656365

(Please read from the start)

“Possible creator

A local news article identified Timotéo Odohui as the possible creator of the items. Odohui was a young Mexican sculptor who lived near the site in the 1880s. The article mentions his possible connection to the site and his ability to craft lead objects. Bent wrote that a craftsman in the area had recalled the boy, his love for sculpture of soft metals and his collection of books on foreign languages, and told the excavators this.”

>> This is possible. These items might have been made by a local youth.

“In popular culture

H. P. Lovecraft alludes to the Tucson artifacts in "The Mound," a short story ghost-written for Zealia Bishop. Archaeologist and Lovecraft scholar Marc A. Beherec argues that the items influenced some of Lovecraft's other writings.

The Tucson artifacts were featured on The History Channel show America Unearthed in the episode titled "The Desert Cross," on February 22, 2013. This episode was criticised for its methodology, its ignorance (or deliberate omission) of the complete text on the crosses, and its conclusions.”

Well, these items are not authentic archaeological artifacts. Some say they are forgeries, some say it’s one big hoax, one big joke. Some say it’s a fraud to swindle money out of people. Some say they are made by a local youth. Another theory about their possible origin or use is that these items were used in masonic rituals. Please look at the third item from your left hand in the picture I’ve attached with the first page (page 2 422). Do you recognize it? We’ve seen it before in this thread, starting page 2 106 - it’s the Nehushtan. Well, this theory is possible as well and the story of the youth crafting these items is simply a cover up = this is how it always is with (((them))). I’m just saying there might be a deeper layer to this and that story about a local youth crafting them could be a cover story. I think we reviewed the possibilities concerning this item and I’m going to end it here with this item and with the Out-of-Place artifacts list, found in Northern America, from that Wikipedia page.

• Page 2 425 –

>>16656372

(Please read from the start)

Next I want to add some subjects which are interesting, peculiar, notable and not mentioned by the Main Stream History; or considered by them as a hoax or with no importance. To make it short, it’s what (((they))) don’t want us to know about and/or look into.

The first one was a bit tricky for me, since it’s a new subject. Despite my many years, I guess I was stuck in a specific tunnel. It’s about skeletons of giants in Northern America. Strangely enough, it never occurred to me there were skeleton of giants and I never had the opportunity to see one up close myself. Despite knowing the “Angels” and “Demons” are almost double our size, it never occurred to me that the Sebetti warriors from all the clans left their “bodies” = skeletons behind on earth. We never made the connection between the two until the Awakening started. For us, they always were immortals, almost. I know what I’m saying might sound strange to the reader but somewhere inside of us, we never thought they could die and leave remains like a skeleton behind.

I simply didn’t put two and two together. We are still working on a lot of things as I’ve mentioned before, so we are lacking in some places, while still making slow/fast progress in other places. There are still some areas we are totally in the dark about or are totally hard on us to realize/accept. When looking online for articles about skeletons of giants in Northern America, we noticed 2 things:

1 – There is a rather big number of them buried in Northern American.

2 – Not all articles and pictures presented online were genuine, some were trickery, manipulated = photoshoped.

It’s hard for an old dog like me to identify which image is real and which is manipulated and altered online. So I was unable to rely on the images to check and verify the skeletons mentioned in most of the articles I’ve read. What I’m going to do next is to post in full some articles about the skeleton of giants found in Northern America; comment as usual. These seem to genuine finds. At least I hope so, since I’m hesitating about it.

• Page 2 426 -

>>16656388

(Please read from the start)

The articles I’m putting of giants found in Northern America are a sample, there are of course others online which the reader should check. But sorry, I’m unable to verify the authenticity of the excavations, finds, and mostly the pictures. The first article I’ve picked among others from the net is about giant skeletons found in Wisconsin because the chances are high these are somehow linked to the Mississippian culture and all of that we saw and talked about it back in those pages. So let’s check this article: https://www.cultofweird.com/death/giant-skeletons-in-wisconsin/

“Giant Skeletons of Mound Builders in Wisconsin

November 16, 2014/in From the Grave/by Charlie Hintz

In recent years, research by Jim Vieira and others into historical claims of giant human skeletons has reinvigorated the interest (and controversy) in a topic that is widely discounted as pseudoscience.

My interest in the subject began where it has for many – with the mention of giants in the ancient texts commonly referred to as the book of Genesis. It is easy to disregard these antediluvian tales of an extraordinary race of giants produced through the coupling of celestial beings with human females. When these stories were first told, humanity was still huddling in dark caves and making offerings to the various gods and spirits who governed their fates.”

>> I don’t support what is written in this paragraph. The Book of Genesis is a book written according to how (((they))) view history. There is no mention of the Cataclysm which was unleashed on the world and destroyed almost every living form because of the greed and twisted mind of an evil ruling couple. So you shouldn’t EVER forget that the Book of Genesis is manipulated, twisted and well styled version = not just any version of history; it’s about (((their))) version of history = how (((they))) see things.

“However, stories of giants are not exclusive to archaic origin stories fabricated by ancient cultures to make sense of a world without scientific understanding.”

>> The ancient cultures didn’t fabricate anything. They were closer to the truth than we are right now.

“It seems that around the turn of the century, human skeletons measuring unnatural heights were being unearthed all over America, often from the burial mounds of an unknown people we call Effigy Mound Builders.

If the media of the time is to be believed, Wisconsin has yielded several unique and significant clues to the giant skeleton mystery. This may be due to the numerous animal effigy mounds all across the state, as well as a large population of Middle Mississippian mound builders who flourished in the area for four hundred years before they vanished.”

>> The link between the giant skeletons and the Mississippian culture (along with the sites) is very obvious.

• Page 2 427 –

>>16656495

(Please read from the start)

“The remnants of a city built around a large central mound was discovered near Madison in 1835. The city, known as Aztalan, is believed to have flourished from 900-1300, possibly serving as a northern outpost for the much larger city of Cahokia in present-day Illinois.

Most of the Aztalan mounds were destroyed in the late 1800s, whatever relics to be found taken by treasure hunters. One disturbed mound was found to contain the remains of a young female now called the Princess of Aztalan. She was found to have a slight deformation in her spinal column, which may have caused her to be more highly regarded. She was wrapped in belts of seashells, some coming from as far away as the Gulf of Mexico.”

>> This is how far the trade with the Mississippian culture went.

“Though she was of average height, the princess is one of only a few burials discovered in the area, which include a headless male and five cremated remains. There are rumors of a giant skeleton unearthed in the area, but I haven’t found any reports to corroborate it.

Maple Creek Giant

A New York Times article published December 20, 1897 reported the discovery of a giant human skeleton in the largest of three recently discovered mounds in Maple Creek, WI. The article states the skeleton measure over nine feet from head to foot and the skull was “as large as a half bushel measure.” Tempered copper rods and other relics were found with the bones.

The two remaining mounds were going to be “excavated soon.” What was found in them, and where is the giant now?”

>> Good questions.

“18 Skeletons Found Near Lake Delavan

The May 4th, 1912 edition of the New York Times reported what might be one of the strangest giant skeleton discoveries of all. An excavation of one large mound on Lake Fawn Farm near Lake Delavan revealed the skeletal remains of eighteen individuals measuring between 7.6 and 10 feet. The “heretofore unknown race of men” were found to have six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, as well as double rows of teeth in their large, elongated skulls.”

>> These are rather interesting details: So the height varied from 7.6 to 10 feet high. They had 6 fingers and 6 toes. They had elongated skulls. And each had a double row of teeth. Take note of these details, we are going to need them for later on.I wish there were at least some pictures around of what is said here about the skeletons, so we can have a visual.

• Page 2 428 –

>>16656513

(Please read from the start)

“From directly over the eye sockets,” the article states, “the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars.”

It goes on to say that other remains, presumably of women, were found with smaller heads but similar characteristics. The remains were found embedded in charcoal and covered with layers of baked clay to shed water from the sepulchre.”

>> First thing to note is the “care” given to burry these remains properly and no damage from “nature” occurs to them. Secondly, if the skeletons found next to the biggest one are smaller in size and have smaller heads, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are those of women; unless a study was made on the pelvic bones and also some DNA tests were made….then if the results came out they are women, I will accept it. But assuming these skeletons are of women solely because of their “smaller” size compared to the big one, is not the correct way to proceed. It sounds like that big skeleton is totally different from the others.

“Lizard Mound Skeleton in West Bend

While researching his book Washington County Paranormal, author J. Nathan Couch uncovered an account of a giant skeleton discoverd right here in our backyard.

I was fascinated by Lizard Mound County Park, just outside of West Bend, WI, ever since my first visit when I was very young. At the time, an installation constructed by the Milwaukee Public Museum provided a window into one mound, showing the bones and artifacts as they were originally buried.

Though those bones were of normal size, larger bones were accidentally unearthed by farmers in another nearby mound. Read the account of that find: Giant Skeleton Unearthed by Wisconsin Farmers in 1912

Giant Indian Bones Found Near Fond Du Lac

This snippet of a newspaper so far is the only thing I have found on the topic of a giant skeleton being found near Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.”

>> Well, this article isn’t that great, but it does gives us a good idea of the location of many sites were several skeletons of giants were found buried in mounds there; as well as few interesting details about the skeletons.

• Page 2 429 –

>>16656528

(Please read from the start)

Finds made “accidently” are always the best in archaeology, and we have one in Wisconsin, mentioned in the previous articles about some farmers finding the skeleton of a giant in 1912. So let’s take a closer look to this: https://www.cultofweird.com/death/giant-skeleton-wisconsin-effigy-mound/

“Giant Skeleton Unearthed By Wisconsin Farmers in 1912

November 16, 2014/in From the Grave/by J Nathan Couch

The following is an excerpt from J. Nathan Couch’s book Washington County Paranormal, which details the local history and legends of West Bend, WI and surrounding areas. While researching Lizard Mound County Park, he uncovered a report of a giant human skeleton found in one of the burial mounds.

Lizard Mound County Park is a cluster of mounds, many of them burial mounds, located in Hagner’s Woods. They range in shape from simple linear and conical mounds to effigies of birds, panthers—now thought to be depictions of water spirits—and one particularly unique “lizard,” though experts now largely agree it’s actually a turtle.”

>> I’m not sure, but it’s possible the mounds were shaped after the Sebetti clan’s heraldic animals. Birds, felines and lizards are all Sebetti clans heraldic symbols.

“The people who built these mounds are as mysterious as the mounds themselves. Commonly referred to as the “Effigy Mound Builders,” they lived in Wisconsin and neighboring states between 700 CE and 1200 CE.”

>> I don’t think we should trust those dates. All the dates worldwide, provided by the Main Stream History, should be re-examined and re-evaluated.

“Today, the debate over the identity of these mound builders focuses on determining which of the modern-day Native American tribes’ ancestors constructed these beautiful earthen works. However, there was a time when some doubted that the mounds were built by Native Americans at all. Since the natives who lived in the area of the mounds were no longer building them when Europeans first arrived in Wisconsin, it was assumed that some lost culture, or “race,” had to have been responsible. Naturally, this “lost race” must have been eradicated by the current native population. I can’t help but notice this theory of an established culture being displaced by a newer, more aggressive culture mirrored exactly what was happening as Europeans conquered North America.”

>> Yes, an ancient culture did build these mounds, but it was NOT ERADICATED, but more likely the descendants forgot their ancestors and at some point in time, they might have been ruled over by the Evil Clan long, long after the initial survivors and their direct descendants passed away = thousands of years later. With each new generation, the ancient history, genealogy and knowledge was lost, forgotten or misunderstood. This is why I use the word mutation and not evolution when I talk about this matter. It didn’t evolve, it twisted and morphed from the original and took the form of whatever the younger generation thought it was, regardless if it was correct or wrong.

• Page 2 430 –

>>16656551

(Please read from the start)

“Posited identities of the “lost race” ranged from the slightly plausible Aztecs to the nearly impossible lost tribe of Israel or the Atlanteans. Early twentieth-century West Bend writer and Washington County historian Carl Quickert subscribed to the “lost race” theory.”

>> It turned out it’s the Atlantean survivors. Well, this is what we call nowadays the survivors of the ancient, lost civilization before the Cataclysm; but what do they call themselves? It would be really interesting to find out what they called themselves; what their real name is. When and if we find out what it is, then this is how we should call them = by their real name and not a name we invented and given to them.

“In the first volume of Washington County, Wisconsin Past and Present (1912), Quickert writes about the extraordinary discovery of enormous human bones near what is now Lizard Mound County Park. While collecting gravel for road construction, farmers uncovered a cache of bones that, when assembled, formed a skeleton eight feet in height. The skull’s lack of “protruding cheekbones” suggested that it belonged to “a different race of men” than the Native Americans.”

>> What does it mean that these skeletons belonged to a different race of man? Is it something like the Neanderthal?

“As is usually the way when the bones of a giant are discovered, when exposed to air, they quickly disintegrated. Only the skull, which Quickert reports had teeth measuring a full one-inch in length, remained intact. Quickert doesn’t reveal the fate of the giant’s skull, so keep your eyes open next rummage sale season.”

>> Oh my! Anyone reading wants to have a guess where the skull ended up? Whom bought this skull? It’s so obvious, isn’t it? Do you think (((they))) would miss the opportunity to get (((their))) nasty little hands on such a skull? (((They))) also have deep pockets and (((their))) are the kings of the black market.

“Since the skeleton was assembled by farmers instead of archeologists, it seems wrong to take their estimation of size as accurate. It also seems unlikely that the bones could survive being assembled by laymen but soon after be destroyed by contact with the air. It’s much more likely that this was a tall tale Quickert erroneously took as fact.”

>> First of all, the bones simply don’t disintegrate like magic as described. They are fragile, but can be handled with care if wanted. Secondly we can “estimate” and reconstruct the entire skeleton’s body based on the skull sometimes; of course depending on the case, but it’s very doable. My guess is at least a good section of this skeleton made it into (((their))) hands.

“Quickert supposes the skeleton may have belonged to a people who inhabited “New Iceland” according to the Icelandic sagas. Quickert puts forth the idea that a war erupted between these legendary “Germanic people” and a “Mongolian people”—the Native Americans—which ended in the total destruction of these ancient European giants.

Is this hard to believe? Yes, a bit.”

>> Well, that’s a wrong theory. These skeletons were most probably the remains of the survivors of the Cataclysm; which makes them what we call Atlanteans.

• Page 2 431 –

>>16656571

(Please read from the start)

So I decided to look around a bit more about giant skeletons, but in a different state. I found this article about giant skeletons in West Virginia: https://www.legendsofamerica.com/giants-west-virginia/

“In many of the ancient burial mounds of West Virginia, several “giants” were found in years past. Other large skeletons were found in the early days of coal mining, and more were found as people were excavating the ground for other purposes.

One of the first reports of a giant occurred in 1774 when Jack Parsons was walking along the recently flooded Cheat River. When he noticed some bones protruding from the ground, he pulled a femur from the soil, and when he compared it to his own, it was seven inches longer. He then removed the rest of the bones and laid them out, estimating that it would have stood about eight feet tall. Other settlers also found gigantic skeletons in the area, which was soon dubbed “Giant Town.”

In 1838, when amateurs excavated the Grave Creek Mound in present-day Moundsville, West Virginia., they were said to have found giant human skeletons inside that were as long as eight feet.

In the 1850s, a root cellar was being dug in Palatine (East Fairmont), West Virginia. Here, workers uncovered two very large human skeletons, said to have been more than seven feet tall. Several people saw the skeletons, but that night, the bones were stolen, assumed to be sold on in the lucrative market of “Indian relics,” which existed at the time.

In 1857, the Western Literary Messenger reported that the skeleton of a giant had been found, stating:

“A day or two since, some workman engaged in subsoiling the grounds of Sheriff Wickham, at his vineyard in East Wheeling, came across a human skeleton. Although much decayed, there was little difficulty in identifying it by placing the bones, which could not have had belonged to other than a human body, in their original position. The impression made from the skeleton itself was measured by the Sheriff and a brother in the craft locale, both of whom were prepared to swear that it was 10 feet, 9 inches in length. Its jaws and teeth were almost as large as those of a horse. The bones are to be seen at the Sheriff’s office.”

In 1875, when workers were constructing a bridge near Paw Paw Creek’s mouth at Rivesville, they uncovered three giant skeletons with strands of reddish hair clinging to their skulls. A local doctor was called to examine the remains, who determined that they were human and estimated that the skeletons were approximately eight feet tall. Afterward, with exposure to the air, the bones deteriorated rapidly.”

>> A HUGE notable is the strand of reddish hair.

“In 1882, amateur archaeologists F.M. Fetty and his wife were exploring an unusual rock formation along White Day Creek in Marion County when they found what appeared to be a shelter. On closer examination, they discovered that a false wall had been erected, and after removing several large stones, they found a huge ancient mummy sitting in a chair. The giant was surrounded by stone and flint artifacts.

In the summer of 1883, James A. Faulkner unearthed a gigantic human skeleton in the same area. Dr. Samuel Kramer of Smithtown was called in and measured this skeleton, which was found to be 7 feet 4 inches long, and deduced that it belonged to a person who was almost eight feet tall.

That same year, the Smithsonian Institution dispatched a team of archaeologists to the Criel Mound in South Charleston. Led by Colonel Lewis Morris, the team conducted extensive digs of some 50 mounds in the area and issued a detailed report.”

• Page 2 432 –

>>16656581

>>16656581

(Please read from the start)

“In their investigation, the team uncovered numerous giants, one of which was 7’6″ tall and decorated with six heavy copper bracelets on each wrist, and on his shoulder were three large plates of mica. In another mound, they found a circle of ten skeletons surrounding a giant skeleton, as well as underground vaults, various copper and mica ornaments, jewelry, religious items, pipes, and spearheads. Another giant skeleton was also found that had a “flat-head” type skull.

As more digs progressed in the coming years, archaeologists in Wheeling, West Virginia, found another grouping of giants ranging in height from 6’7″ to 7’6″, displaying unusual skull formations with low foreheads and prominent backs of the skull.

As similar discoveries were unearthed, the Charleston Daily Mail published an article in October 1922 that stated:

“One of the most interesting of the five state parks is Mound Park, at Moundsville from which that city derived its name. Probably no other relic of pre-historic origin has attracted a wide study among archaeologists as the Grave Creek Mound, which has given up skeletons of the ancients who constructed it… Some years ago, archaeologists investigating the mound dug out a skeleton said to be that of a female because of the formation of the bones. The skeleton was seven feet four inches tall, and the jawbone would easily fit over the face of a man weighing 160 pounds.”

In June 1930, the Clarksburg Sunday Exponent reported:

“Interesting and valuable evidence of a race of gigantic people who inhabited this section of West Virginia more than one thousand years ago have been exhumed from two newly explored mounds located near Morgansville, which is on the Northwestern turnpike about 12 miles west of Salem.

The particular tribe or race which inhabited this section of the state is believed to have been composed of individuals ranging from seven to nine feet in height, and it is thought they were Siouan Indians. The best-preserved skeleton found at Morgansville was in a clay encasement, and all of the vertebrae and other bones, excepting the skull, were saved without much crumbling. Careful measurement of the skeletons proved that the Indians were about seven feet, six inches tall.

This was in response to Professor Ernest Sutton, the head of the Geography Department at Salem College, having excavated two mounds in Doddridge County, in which he uncovered four skeletons.

The most recent discovery of these giants was made in 1959 when Dr. Donald Dragoo, the curator for the Section of Man at the Carnegie Museum, excavated the Cresap Mound in Marshall County. There, he unearthed a 7 feet 2-inch skeleton.”

>> The Smithsonian and now the Carnegie Museum = the Bloodlines are surely interested in those giants!

“Tales of colossal giants permeate American History, not only in West Virginia but across the continent. These many finds in America and the rest of the world support the idea that giants once walked on earth centuries ago and are more than just mythological beings.”

• Page 2 433 –

>>16656590

(Please read from the start)

>> I know there are a lot of researchers out there interested in this specific digging tunnel = the giants. When it comes to this specific article, it would have been good if we could get our hands on the initial raw data from the digging excavations along with the pictures, maps, notes etc. that goes with it. Things like the orientation of the burial, etc. would have provided us with clues as to the astrological knowledge of these buried giants and in the same time, it might have provided us some hints to their beliefs.

There is a remarkable number of them in Both Wisconsin and West Virginia. What I like about such articles is that they help/provide a good short list for greenhorns researching about giants in the Northern America. This could be a good starting point for new researchers and they can expand from there.

I would advise researcher to do here, about this digging subject, what I suggested to do about the megalithic Phoenician sites. Grab a map of the county first, start to put pins on it where mounds were excavated and skeletons of giants were found. When you do that, check out if there is some type of correlation with constellations or other astral matters. When you finish that, zoom out and put pins on the level of the state map; like in our case with this article, it’s in West Virginia. Again, once finished, try to see if there is some type of connections with astronomy.

Then you gotta zoom out once more and pin the sites of several states and see if there is something which links them together. In this specific case we can see on the map that I’ve attached with this page that the Ohio River is a branch of the Mississippi River; this is what connects all the Giant skeletons sites together = it’s the Mississippian culture and just look how it’s expanded along with the same locations as the Mississippi River. I’m saying it again = the Mississippi River (along with its branches) is what connects all the giant skeletons we’ve seen so far. If I follow the “river logic” then, it means that in every single state which this river flows in (including the branches) there is a big possibility to uncover new skeletons of giants.

It’s clear even to a blind man that the mounds, the copper work, the mysterious “lost” culture and the giant skeletons are all connected to the Mississippi River and they ALL belong to the same group. Usually, when this sort of work is done/finished on a local level, then you should regroup the data from all the States. This type of research shouldn’t stop on the borders/limits of each state we found skeletons of giants in. It should cross these borders because of the River. The true territory of study should be at the river territory level and not be stuck on each state territory level. When this stage is done, then we should pin on a map the sites on a national level, always checking for any astral correlation with each step we are progressing and finally check things out with Canada and Mexico. There are many stages to this mapping as anons can see. Some levels may bare fruits, while others won’t. It’s a long type of work and you gotta be meticulous and accurate to get good result. This type of mapping requires a lot of patience and is time consuming because you gotta verify every single data before pinning it on a map, to make sure it’s authentic.

I’m going to stop it here for this article.

• Page 2 434 –

>>16656605

(Please read from the start)

Let’s read more articles about the skeleton of giants in Northern America:

https://www.gaia.com/article/giant-skeletons-have-been-found-buried-in-mounds-across-america

“Giant Human Skeletons Found Buried in Mounds Across North America

December 7, 2020

Around the turn of the 19th century, there were hundreds of reports from reputable sources of giant skeletons unearthed from ancient burial mounds across America. Human giants are not entirely a product of legend in our history.

André the Giant is a known example of a man with superhuman proportions and strength, reaching 7 feet 4 inches tall. But André’s size was the result of gigantism and acromegaly, disorders caused by an overactive pituitary gland, which releases too much growth hormone. And with the average human height at 5 feet 6 inches for men and 5 feet 2 inches for women, it’s rare to find someone of André’s height, let alone his stature.”

>> Say anons! Just a thought here: Do you really think it was due to the growth hormone that André became a “giant”? Or was it that he had recessive genes from an ancient giant? = as in he is a descendant from the giants.

“With the extreme rarity of gigantism, affecting roughly three in a million, it’s surprising how often giants are spoken of in the Bible and North American folklore. David and Goliath, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Paul Bunyon are familiar examples of tales involving giants. But while these are thought to be myths or legends, is there any possibility that a race of giants once existed or were there humanoid ancestors significantly larger than us?”

>>The big notable here is that the number of people born with “giant genes” is extremely rare; as in around 3 in a million person. What does that tell you?

“The Mound Builders: Unusual Burial Sites

Across the United States, there are burial mounds, or at least their remnants, some as extensive in size as the Great Pyramid of Giza. The Cahokia and Monk’s mounds in Illinois and Missouri are two thought to have been built before the arrival of Columbus. The Cahokia mound is 100 feet tall with a 14-acre base, almost an entire acre larger than the pyramid at Giza. Monk’s Mound is just as tall with a 1,000-foot-wide base. But what makes these and other mounds of their kind even more intriguing is what has been found buried inside of them.”

>> This is the type of information researchers should look for. It’s very helpful when studying giants. I would like to remind anons of a comment I made when taking a look at the Andean region, when I mentioned the depth of the steps is an indicator of the existence of giants and not just the size of the doors. When you are a giant, you have big feet; having big feet, you need large steps to fit your feet. It’s this type of “invisible” and “silent” information that a researcher should look for and add to the study of giants because they will be helpful.

• Page 2 435 –

>>16656655

(Please read from the start)

“Jim Vieira has made it his mission to explore the mystery behind these mounds and others where there is documentation of unearthed skeletons, often of gigantic proportions. Vieira, a stonemason by trade, found himself intrigued after finding a plethora of mysterious stone.”

>> Regardless of whom it is, always check and verify the backgrounds of the people researching, mostly those “experts”.

“He found that the construction, and particularly the stonework, of these mounds, was impressive, considering the level of technology at the time. He also noticed that the orientation of the mounds was such that the entrances faced a direction that was in alignment with the sun during the Equinoxes. The mounds were built with massive stones and were present long before colonists from Europe crossed over.”

>> Good work from Vieira. It’s what needs to be checked: orientation and alignment. I would like to add that the size of the blocks, the masonry and the building technique should be compared with the megalithic blocks from the Andean Region and from the many sites we’ve seen in Phoenicia. I won’t be surprised to see similarities and even identical construction methods.

“Vieira uncovered old reports in New England of giant skeletons unearthed from these mounds, often with two rows of teeth and jaws that could fit over the head of a normal-sized human. The skeletons ranged in length from 7 to 10 feet tall. While this may sound ridiculous at first glance, it was not an isolated incident and is supported by reports from reputable news sources of the time.”

>>Vieira proceeded correctly by checking the old reports and comparing finds.

“Ancient Giants

Discoveries of the giant skeletons were found all over the Northeast, from Martha’s Vineyard and Deerfield Valley Massachusetts, to Vermont and upstate New York. Other reports of the discovery of buried giants were also found in the South, Midwest, and West coast.”

>> The Spine is the Mississippi River. Anons should check if it reaches in some way the regions mentioned. I think it would for most cases.

• Page 2 436 –

>>16656673

(Please read from the start)

“In the Ohio River Valley, a report from a local paper, that was backed up by Scientific American, found bodies of several giants buried under a ten-foot-tall mound. One female skeleton was found holding a three-and-a-half-foot long child. Another of the giant skeletons was buried in a clay coffin and an engraved stone tablet was also recovered. This particular mound was 64 feet long by 35 feet wide.”

>> This is very interesting.

“The Chichasawba mound in Arkansas is another instance of the uncovering of a giant skeleton under similar circumstances. The 12-square-mile mound had its name taken from the chief of the Shawnee tribe who was essentially known to be a giant with incredible strength. Chief Chicasawba lived in that area of Arkansas and when the mound was uncovered, the skeleton of a massive human being was found. Subsequently, other skeletons up to ten feet tall were unearthed in the same area, all with similar burial artifacts found with them. Some reports claimed the length of the skeleton’s legs to be five feet alone. Other reports show large craniums of skeletons with double rows of teeth.”

>> Each time I hear Arkansas, I’m reminded of rapist Bill and Killary. Do you think they picked that state on purpose?

“A Controlled Narrative

While stories of this nature sound fantastical, there are numerous reports of skeletons of the same size appearing in newspaper articles from The New York Times and other reputable sources. The majority of these reports occur during the mid to late 19th century, which Vieira sees as being the turning point in a censored narrative that has now dominated our history textbooks. He says he thinks that awareness of both the mounds and giants was common knowledge during this primarily agrarian time. There is even supposed reference to it from Abraham Lincoln. In a written account of a speech that he was preparing to give at Niagara Falls, he wrote,

“The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now.”

>> Whom controls the narrative? Anyone surprised to see the DATE? = Gilded Age. What did Qteam say about History books? We already know (((they))) tried to re-write History many times; which allows (((them))) to shift the human consciousness to where (((they))) want it to be. Also, I don’t know about you dear reader, but I had a huge smile, from ear to ear, on my face, when I read what Lincoln said about Niagara Falls and the giants. Do you remember what we found out about Niagara Falls? Whom used to live in the caves behind the falls? The pieces of the puzzle are nicely coming together, aren’t they?

• Page 2 437 –

>>16656680

(Please read from the start)

“Vieira believes that a prejudiced narrative was created to discredit Native Americans or portray them as savages because if they were seen as having built the mounds it would show them as mathematically and technically advanced. Vieira says he thinks that the removal of any evidence of the giants might have occurred because they wouldn’t fit into the controlled narrative of manifest destiny. Subsequently, many of the mounds were allowed to be destroyed by settlers and farmers as America was colonized, with no regard to the reverence that the natives held for them.”

>> I totally agree with Vieira. He’s spot on.

“And whether the tall skeletons belonged to a race of giant natives themselves or another race that predated them is unknown, but it is thought that the American Indians venerated them.

Another conspiracy surrounding the hidden history of these giants points to the Smithsonian. Within the ethnology reports of the museum, there are 17 cases of the Smithsonian uncovering giant skeletons over seven feet tall. The probability of a human growing seven feet tall is .000007 percent, meaning they would have had to excavate roughly 2.5 million bodies to have found that many skeletons of that size.”

>> This is not the only “mysterious” case the Smithsonian is involved in. Only God knows what really took place there and what is in their little secret vaults. But we do know whom the Smithsonian works for, don’t we?

“There are also supposed reports of the Smithsonian Institution purchasing giant skeletons excavated by citizens, which then disappeared, never to be heard from again.

The Smithsonian even had a division for exploring mounds, of which there is a written record of them uncovering giant skeletons whose bones crumbled to dust when exposed to air. Was this a coverup by the famed museum, or did they simply dispose of a debunked myth?”

>> It’s mostly a cover up story. Such bones are extremely precious since they contain DNA.

This is it for this article.

• Page 2 438 –

>>16656686

(Please read from the start)

One last article; this one is like an overall view: https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/giants-north-america-005196

“UPDATED 12 FEBRUARY, 2022 - HUGH NEWMAN

Top Ten Giant Discoveries in North America

The Iroquois, the Osage, the Tuscaroras, the Hurons, the Omahas, and many other North American Indians all speak of giant men who once lived and roamed in the territories of their forefathers. All over what is now the U.S. are traditions of these ancient giants.

Over 1000 accounts of seven-foot and taller skeletons have reportedly been unearthed from ancient burial sites over a two-hundred-year period in North America. Newspaper accounts, town and county histories, letters, scientific journals, diaries, photos, and Smithsonian ethnology reports have carefully documented this. These skeletons have been reported from coast to coast with strange anatomic anomalies such as double rows of teeth, jawbones so large as to fit over the face of the finder, and elongated skulls, documented in virtually every state.”

>> Why are there anatomic anomalies?

“Smithsonian scientists identified at least 17 skeletons that stood at over seven feet in their annual reports, including one example that was 8 feet tall, and a skull with a 36-inch circumference reported from Anna, Illinois in the Smithsonian Annual Report of 1873, (an average human skull is about 20 inches in circumference). The Smithsonian Institution is mentioned dozens more times as the recipient of enormous skeletons from across the entire United States.

The skeletons mentioned no longer seem to exist regardless of their actual size, and the remaining ones that were on display were removed and repatriated by NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act). While the authors certainly support this law, it does present a moral and ethical conundrum in terms of trying to ascertain the proof everyone wants to see - physical evidence of giants.

In this unique Top Ten, we look at some examples of giant skeletons that were reported from across ancient North America (although we warn you now that Number 1 is so large, we admit it may not be authentic).

Our countdown begins at one of the most important mound sites in America, and quite possibly the world.

TOP TEN GIANTS

1. Serpent Mound, Ohio, 1890s – 7 ft tall skeleton

The Great Serpent Mound is a 1,370 ft. long prehistoric effigy mound located near Peebles that has been thoroughly researched by Ross Hamilton, who has written extensively about its mysteries and the giants discovered in the area. Recent radiocarbon analysis dates it to around 321 BC. This puts it in the realm of the Andean civilization who were present in the area at this time.”

• Page 2 439 –

>>16656692

(Please read from the start)

>> Wow! Stop here for a sec. Did the reader notice the last sentence written here? = “This puts it in the realm of the Andean civilization who were present in the area at this time”. Do you remember what I said: that it seems like Viracocha traveled all the way from the Andean Region to Mexico and seems to even have reached the States? I don’t know what this article is relying on = which artifacts this article is relying on to make this statement but it’s clearly supporting what I said about Viracocha reaching the States in his travels. As for the date, well anons, all the dates worldwide should be re-examined and re-evaluated, this one is no exception.

“In the 1890s, Professor Frederic Ward Putnam excavated some of the mounds next to Serpent Mound and found only 6ft tall skeletons, but a postcard showing one 7 feet in height was recently rediscovered by researcher Jeffrey Wilson. It may have been one of those excavated by Putnam, as he was the only person to dig at the site.

Ross first published this in his book A Tradition of Giants , and it clearly states it was from Serpent Mound on the postcard, but there is still debate as to where this photo of a 7ft skeleton was actually taken. Notice that the legs are cut off at the knees, so is “7ft” what we actually see, or is it an estimation if he had his lower legs and feet attached? Could it have been more like 8 feet tall if the shins and feet were intact?

1. Cresap Mound, West Virginia, 1959 – 7ft 2in skeleton

In 1959, Dr. Donald Dragoo, the curator for the Section of Man at the Carnegie Museum, unearthed a 7 feet 2 inch skeleton during the complete excavation of the Cresap Mound in Northern West Virginia:

Dragoo published a photo of the actual skeleton in his book so there is no doubt it was authentic. Dragoo joins many other university-trained anthropologists and archaeologists who reported discovering skeletons over seven feet in length in burial mounds, often with anatomical anomalies.”

>> Why these anatomic anomalies exist? Anyone reading thought of the reason?

“A few of the professionals reporting these skeletal finds were Dr. Walter B. Jones, Moundsville Alabama (7ft 6 and many 7-footers); Dr. Forrest Clements Head of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma (six 7ft skeletons); Dr. Donald A. Cadzow Cambridge University (7ft 5in skeleton found in Pittsburgh with many other large skeletons with anatomic anomalies reported); Dr. Byron Cummings, head of the archaeology department at the University of Arizona, considered the “ Dean of Southwestern Archaeology" (several over 8-footers); Thomas Wilson, Curator of Prehistoric Anthropology at the Smithsonian (verified an 8-foot skeleton with massive jawbone); W. J. Holland, curator of the Carnegie Museum (unearthed an over 8 ft skeleton in Pennsylvania as reported in many scientific journals including Scientific American ).”

>> We got ourselves a nice list here. Don’t forget to verify each and every single one of these people if you are digging in this tunnel.

• Page 2 440 –

>>16656721

(Please read from the start)

“8. Mounds in Iowa, 1897 – 7ft 6in skeleton

This account from The Worthington Advance (November 18, 1897) describes the ethnological work of the Smithsonian Institution’s Division of Eastern Mounds and quoted the Director of the Bureau of Ethnology at the time, John Wesley Powell. The image below accompanied the news report.”

>> The image mentioned here is the first one attached with this page.

“It is a matter of official record that in digging through a mound in Iowa the scientists found the skeleton of a giant, who, judging from actual measurement, must have stood seven feet six inches tall when alive. The bones crumbled to dust when exposed to the air.”

>> The bones are fragile sometimes, but they do not crumble magically into dust like that. I believe this is an excuse in order to take the bones secretly to study them = as in, this is the official narrative for the gullible public. When dug up, and depending on the case, some bones are truly very fragile to a point that they break into small pieces, but we can always recuperate these small parts and send them to DNA analysis lab.

The bones break when we touch them physically while removing them, not when they get in contact with air.The excuse given about the bones crumbling make look like it’s a scene from the Avengers movie – Infiniti war, where you see some of the super heroes disintegrate into dust. This doesn’t happen in reality, we always have tiny fragments despite how bad the condition of the bones is.I really think this is a made up excuse, like a cover up narrative to fool the public.

“7. Steelville, Missouri, 1933 – 8ft skeleton

As part of the Search for the Lost Giants show, Jim and fellow researcher James Clary investigated the following account that had this heading:

“An Ancient Ozark Giant Dug Up Near Steelville: Strange discovery made by a boy looking for arrowheads, gives this Missouri Town an absorbing mystery to ponder.”

From The Steelville Ledger (June 11, 1933):

“…he turned up the complete skeleton of an 8 foot giant. The grisly find was brought to Dr. R. C. Parker here and stretched out to its enormous length in a hallway of his office where it has since remained the most startling exhibit Steelville has ever had on public view.”

While reading through the microfilm at the Steelville library three reports of the find where uncovered including the photo that shows Les Eaton, a 6-foot man, laid out next to the 8-foot skeleton in Dr. Parkers office.

The Steelville Ledger reported that the skeleton was packed up and shipped to the Smithsonian, never to be heard of again.”

>> Of course no one is going to ever hear about this skeleton or any other again if it’s shipped to the Smithsonian.

• Page 2 441 –

>>16656742

(Please read from the start)

“6. Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio – 8ft 1.5 inch skeleton

Miamisburg Mound is believed to have been built by the Adena Culture anywhere between 1000 to 200 BC. It is the largest conical burial mound in Ohio, once nearly 70 feet tall (the height of a seven-story building) and 877 feet in circumference. Hugh investigated this site in September 2012 and after talking to some researchers at the local historical society, he found there were other skeletal remains reported in the nearby area.

Numerous skeletal remains were uncovered from the mound, including a giant jawbone and “ bones of unusual size ,” but it was the discovery half-a-mile away that became a national sensation and was reported in The Middletown Signal, January 17, 1899 with the headline: “ Bones of Prehistoric Giant Found Near Miamisburg ”:

“The skeleton of a giant found near Miamisburg is the cause of much discussion not only among the curious and illiterate but among the learned scientists of the world. The body of a man more gigantic than any ever recorded in human history, has been found in the Miami Valley, in Ohio. The skeleton it is calculated must have belonged to a man 8 feet 1.5 inches in height. ”

Professor Thomas Wilson, curator of prehistoric anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, said the following after examining the find: "The authenticity of the skull is beyond any doubt. Its antiquity unquestionably great, to my own personal knowledge several such crania were discovered in the Hopewell group of mounds in Ohio. The jaws were prognathus (projecting beyond the face) and the facial index remarkably low.”

1. The San Diego Giant, 1895 – 8ft 4 inch mummy

This fascinating discovery reports on a giant mummy found in San Diego (that is currently believed to be a hoax). However, let’s take a closer look, as there is some intrigue and inconsistency with this popular story. This first report appeared in 1895 with the sub-headings “ Nine Feet High and Probably a California Indian. Measurement Well Authenticated. Other Big Men and Women of Fact and Fable Who Are Famous Types if Gigantism. ” When accurately measured it turned out to be 8ft 4 inches and was “ carefully inspected and measured by Prof. Thomas Wilson, Curator of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology in the Smithsonian Institution, and by other scientists.”

Thirteen years later—in 1908—when the mummy was being exhibited, the Smithsonian ran some tests and suddenly dismissed it as a hoax, saying it was made from “gelatin.” The fact that it took that long, and after spending $500 to acquire it, plus the fact that it was “ carefully inspected ” by experts thirteen years earlier does suggest there may be more to this story than meets the eye.”

>> The narrative this giant is a hoax after some tests were done is the cover up.

• Page 2 442 –

>>16656762

(Please read from the start)

“Interestingly, Aleš Hrdlička, joined the Smithsonian in 1903, right in between the discovery and the final debunking. He was not interested in giants and made a concerted effort to eradicate them from the historical record. It is also interesting to note that the Director of Prehistoric Anthropology, Thomas Wilson, and the ethnologist in charge, W. J. McGee, were both involved in this story, and were obviously keen to make sure the Smithsonian got it back to their headquarters at an immense cost ($500 in 1895 equates to $14,285 today). But why would they bother doing that if it was simply a sideshow hoax?”

>> Good question. The answer is obvious.

“The strange twists, and Smithsonian involvement, and the immense amount of money spent on this makes this worthy of inclusion in this Top Ten.

A similar mummified giant also turned up at Spiro Mounds, Oklahoma. It measured 8ft 5 inches and was on display for a few months, where it was seen by several people before it disappeared.

1. Catalina Island, California – 9 ft 2 inch skeleton (and other 7ft – 8ft examples)

The Channel Islands off the coast of California have turned up numerous oversized skeletons. The story is intriguing and controversial, and it stars amateur archaeologist Ralph Glidden and his bizarre museum, but before the main act, a German naturalist got the story going in 1913. Dr. A. W. Furstenan reported unearthing an 8 ft tall skeleton with artifacts such as mortar, pestles, and arrowheads on Catalina. He was told of a legend while in Mexico of a giant and noble race that lived on the Island, who existed long before the white man and had since vanished.

Amateur archaeologist Ralph Glidden unearthed and collected a total of 3,781 skeletons on the Channel Islands between 1919 and 1930. Working for the Heye Foundation of New York he unearthed a 9ft 2 in skeleton and several measuring over 7 feet:

“A skeleton of a young girl, evidently of high rank, within a large funeral urn, was surrounded by those of sixty-four children, and in various parts of the island more than three thousand other skeletons were found, practically all the males averaging around seven feet in height, one being seven feet eight inches from the top of his head to the ankle, and another being 9 feet 2 inches tall.”

>> This is a very interesting find. Anyone wonder why so many children died and then were buried around the skeleton of a “high ranking” young girl? Are these her children? Maybe, maybe not, since she is a young girl, then they might be her children. If they are not her children, were they her siblings? It’s possible and it should be verified via DNA tests. If these are not her siblings, then why were they buried all around her this way and why is there such a high number of dead children? Is it the McLeod Syndrome striking again? It’s possible, but we gotta verify if it is or not via DNA tests so we could shed some light into this mystery; maybe answer some questions while others will remain unanswered.

“As part of Search for the Lost Giants , Jim and Bill Vieira visited Catalina to investigate the contents of the box, and indeed there were photos of hundreds of skeletons and skulls, excavations, artifacts, and burials. They also uncovered an account of a 28-inch femur unearthed by Glidden on San Nicolas Island reported by the judge of Avalon, Earnest Windle. This would make the skeleton over 8 feet tall.”

>> The area facing Los Angeles all the way till San Diego is very interesting.

• Page 2 443 –

>>16656766

(Please read from the start)

“3. Beaver Lake, Ozark Caves, Arkansas, 1913 – Nearly 10 ft skeleton and huge skulls

This account from an Ozark cave in Arkansas is found in The New Age Magazine (Volume 18, 1913) given by the highly regarded reporter Victor Schoffelmeyer.

During the filming of Search for the Lost Giants , the site of the cave was investigated. It had been flooded with the damming and creation of Beaver Lake between 1960-1966. Bill Vieira and professional scuba diver Mike Young dived into the lake and found a huge shelter cave believed to be the site of the skeletal finds. While a 70ft stone wall was found at the entrance of the cave, showing likely human habitation, no more clues were forthcoming. Text from the original article reads as follows:

“While the historical features of the Ozarks held our attention, by far the most fascinating discovery was one made by an aged recluse and naturalist who for ten years had lived in a shelter cave near where we camped. “Dad” Riggins spent much of his time digging in the ashes which form the floor of many of these caves. At a depth of more than three feet he found the remains of several giant human skeletons, including an almost perfect skull which differed in many particulars from a modern specimen. When partly joined the largest skeleton was almost ten feet tall. “Dad” Riggins showed us hieroglyphics covering the Palisades thought to be thousands of years old.”

>> How convenient it was to “create” that Lake and submerge the cave where the skeletons of the giants were found. It’s always the interesting sites that are “destroyed” in some way or form, aren’t they? And what of these glyphs seen in that cave? What language is it? Could it be Atlantean language? It would be great if we had a picture, at least, of these glyphs. But if these are Atlantean glyphs; I repeat: IF these are Atlantean glyphs, then this would be considered among the highest classification secret out there. And we the public would be the last to know about it ^_^

“2. Lompock Rancho, California, 1819 – 12 ft skeleton

Hugh investigated this famous report back in November 2008, by visiting the area of the ranch it was discovered on.

“In 1819 an old lady saw a gigantic skeleton dug up by soldiers at Purisima on the Lompock Rancho. The natives deemed it a god, and it was reburied by direction of the padre.”

This short report re-emerged with a broader range of details in 1833 and now various authors and websites repeat the same story. It goes something like this: Soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompock Rancho, California hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and found a 12ft sarcophagus. The skeleton of a giant man about twelve feet tall was found inside. The grave was surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, two spears and thin sheets of porphyry (purple mineral with quartz) covering the skeleton. These were covered with unintelligible symbols. He had a double row of teeth, both upper and lower. The soldiers consulted a local tribe of Indians, who after going into trance, exclaimed they were geographically displaced Allegewi Indians from the Ohio Valley area. When the natives began to attach some religious significance to the find, authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied.”

>> This is very interesting. There is no mention where these skeletons were reburied, nor what those glyphs were. What are the odds (((they))) got (((their))) nasty little hands on these finds and took them to a secret place to study them in the shadows while the public was kept on the dark about it all?

• Page 2 444 –

>>16656779

(Please read from the start)

“No further information is available so it is impossible to verify this information, but numerous other skeletons of this height have been reported in such newspapers at The New York Times . Two further 12ft examples were reported in Jeffersonville, Kentucky ( The New York Times , May 22, 1871) and Barnard, Missouri ( The Providence Evening Press , September 13, 1883). Furthermore, a 13ft example was said to have been unearthed in Janesville, Wisconsin ( The Public Ledger , August 25, 1870) and even bones that were estimated to be from a skeleton 14ft tall at Etowah Mounds ( The New York Times , April 5, 1886). These are all well out of the normal range for humans but are worth noting here as these immense sizes pop up again and again in well-respected newspapers.”

>> Interesting list we’ve got here. So let me get this straight, if I go to take a look at the archives of old newspapers, will I find loads of reports about the finding of giant skeletons? If so, then why current day public is not aware of this? And why is this being pushed forward a hoax each time a new skeleton of a giant is found? The answers are easy to guess.

“1. West Hickory, Pennsylvania, 1870 - 18ft skeleton

The headline of this chart-topper reads: “ The Cardiff Giant Outdone: Alleged Discovery of a Giant in The Oil Regions .” This report originally came from the Oil City Times in 1870 and underneath the immense armor, it revealed some startling anatomic oddities, and a skeleton that reached a staggering height (the tallest example we have come across):

“They exhumed an enormous helmet of iron, which was corroded with rust. Further digging brought to light a sword which measured nine feet in length.”

>> Obviously this is a warrior.

“The report continued that they had discovered:

“…a well-preserved skeleton of an enormous giant…The bones of the skeleton are remarkably white. The teeth are all in their places, and all of them are double, and of extraordinary size.”

It was estimated to be 18 feet tall, and the bones were being prepared to be sent to New York. Clearly, however, this could be an exaggeration, as 18ft is unheard of in the historical record, but the matter-of-fact description is intriguing. Interestingly the discovery was reported to be buried 12 feet below a mound, so it could suggest a deep antiquity, however tall he was.

We hope this tiny selection of accounts leaves one realizing there may be some truth to these reports (although numbers 9 and 10 cannot be verified, and they are well beyond the established scope of human height). We do not believe they are all authentic, but what you have read here constitutes only 1% of what we have in our archive. We include 250 of these accounts in our book Giants On Record: America's Hidden History, Secrets in the Mounds and the Smithsonian Files.”

>> What is said here makes sense. We gotta verify each and every single one of these skeletons to know if they are authentic or not. The problem is that we don’t have access to them. But I’m sure (((they))) already conducted in secret all the verification and all the studies on these skeletons, since (((they))) had so much time on (((their))) hands. If the original skeletons were destroyed, then we’ve got the paperwork left behind. I’m sure there are records, mostly about what the Smithsonian found out about them all.

• Page 2 445 –

>>16656793

(Please read from the start)

If anons read what is written in that clipping, they said that the helmet of the 18-feet giant was similar to those from Nineveh from Mesopotamia. Despite pinpointing the city, it’s still a vague statement since there is more than one style of military helmets in Nineveh; and we don’t know to which era from Nineveh it belongs to. Also, there is another point that troubles me: how did they guess this helmet is similar to those in Nineveh, unless they had already seen how the helmets of Nineveh look like. So this statement needs clarification and verification before it could be taken as accurate.

“The genesis of the North American giants is shrouded in mystery, but we believe that they were involved in the sophisticated Mound Building cultures of the Mid-West, as royal tombs with reported enormous skeletons were often found within them. There are many Native legends that place them in the era of the Megafauna (mammoths, mastodons, sabre-tooth tigers etc.) at around 13,000 years ago.”

>> There are 2 notables here:

1 – Is about the skeletons in the royal tombs which were skeletons of giants. This supports what I’ve told you about the Sebetti warriors back in Phoenicia. Back then, I said that each Phoenician City-State had as a ruler a Sebetti warrior and the descendants of these warriors were the kings and queens of each Phoenician City-State. Here, it’s showing that the Sebetti warriors were also the rulers in the many Native American tribes/Nations.

2 – Look at the date given = 13 000 years ago; which should take us around 10 to 11 thousand BC perfect timing for the water to recede. Remember what I said about the water receding slowly, about Mount Nemrut and the dating of Aleppo, the Phoenician City-State of Gebal etc. Now, we also saw a close date of the sort in the Andean Region, I think it was when we were talking about Norte Chico (I hope my memory is not betraying me).

In the Andean Region, I also said that they explained things wrong there: that the people started to spread from the “inland” and from the higher ground (high land), and went to the coast and the low lands. The Main Stream History explained things backwards to you, I told you back then, it should be taken in reverse. The people started to scatter from the mountains towards the coast and not the other way around. Now you understand why? It’s because the Arks landed on a high ground = near mountain tops and as the water decreased, the people migrating spread and followed warmer climate; in many cases, anyways.

“There are dozens of oral histories that revere them as gods, and sometimes as fearsome cannibalistic warriors. Great wars were said to have taken place between these titans, and prehistoric battlefields with oversized bones and weapons were frequently reported by early colonial farmers. Eyewitness accounts of live giants were reported by English and Spanish explorers and even some of the early presidents. Mystics such as Edgar Cayce, Rudolph Steiner, Madame Blavatsky, as well as the Rosicrucians and Freemasons all regarded giants as a reality.”

>> These giant warriors are not all of the Light, some were of the Darkness as well, this is why they were fearsome cannibalistic sometimes. They were revered as gods because they were superhuman, as I’ve already explained to anons about the Sebetti and their warriors. We’ve already encountered many legends from the Native Americans and from all over the world about MANY battles taking place between the warriors of the Light and those or Darkness; specifically the battles between the ThunderBirds and the Horned Serpents. The ThunderBirds were the clan which lost the least of warriors because of their jet suits, which enabled them to fly away from the Cataclysm. This theory also includes the Horned Serpents because they were also equipped with the stolen technology of the jet suits. Some of the other clans suffered a lot of losses amongst their ranks, but from the looks of it so far, the Lamassu and the Feline Clans also had a great number of survivors amongst them.

• Page 2 446 –

>>16656798

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

(Please read from the start)

“The origins of the North American giants are hotly debated by independent researchers, academics, and skeptics, but there is now enough data to begin serious research into the subject. We cover all the theories of their origins in our new book, ranging from the Denisovans of Siberia to the Nephilim of the Bible Lands. There is also compelling evidence that the giants may have originated within the Americas.”

>> Euhm! Nope,the giants didn’t originated within the Americas. They came from what we call Atlantis. Anons, I know a lot of you are totally “drugged”/ “hypnotized” by the Nephilim, but that is NOT a good book. It’s evil. It’s written by evil. I know loads won’t let go of it and think it’s proof and it’s awesome. Be careful with it.

“Hundreds of Native American creation myths and oral histories attest to this, with the giants being mentioned in the stories from remote times. One example can be found in the writings of Tuscarora Indian David Cusick in his book Six Nations (1825). He states that when the Great Spirit made the people, some of them became giants.

However, most people don’t believe in giants, but rather scoff at the idea, saying it’s all just folklore that got mixed up and sensationalized by newspaper journalists. We disagree, as there is ample evidence within Native American mythology, genetic data, ethnological studies, scientific reports, early excavation records, first-hand accounts, and discoveries featured in newspapers and town history books to suggest otherwise. Now is the time for academia to take a look at this data, and to investigate what really happened at the Smithsonian, as an important chapter in human history is on the verge of being lost forever.”

>> People scoff at the idea because of the brainwashing.

The following is put at the end of the article. I’m going to put it as it for anons whom are researching this, maybe it will be helpful.

“By: Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira

Jim Vieira and Hugh Newman have been working together investigating Native American stone and earthen constructions, Native oral history and the giant skeletons of North America for nearly ten years. They starred together on the History Channel TV show Search for the Lost Giants (2014) and have recently co-authored Giants On Record: America’s Hidden History, Secrets in the Mounds and the Smithsonian Files (2015). Jim and his brother Bill also starred on the recently aired History Channel special Roanoke: Search for the Lost Colony (2015). Jim is a stonemason and lives in Ashfield, Massachusetts. Hugh is an explorer, antiquarian and author of Earth Grids: The Secret Patterns of Gaia’s Sacred Sites (Wooden Books 2008). He has several articles published on Ancient Origins website and has been a regular guest on History Channel’s Ancient Aliens. He lives in Glastonbury, England. His websites are www.megalithomania.co.uk and www.hughnewman.co.uk

Giants on Record is published by Avalon Rising Publications (UK) and has a foreword by Ross Hamilton, and is available in hardback, paperback and Kindle. http://amzn.to/1MrVH5L - US Amazon - http://amzn.to/1OxghHM - UK Amazon”

• Page 2 447 –

>>16656807

(Please read from the start)

I’m sure there are many more articles of skeletons of giants; both fake skeletons and real ones. I won’t be surprised to find a few fake ones (((they))) inserted in the mix; you know, like planting evidence, so that (((their))) experts can push these fake evidences forward as proof this is all a hoax, a fantasy. Yup! (((They))) did it before, and it’s done to muddy the water and push away from the truth. Of course we need to check things out properly.

When it comes to giants skeletons in the States (mostly), in Northern American in general; they are all over the place and there is a large and impressive number of them there. As anons have noticed, they come from different sizes too. So how can this be explained?

A lot of readers of this thread, whom are now familiar with the Sebetti rulers and warriors, might think these giants are them; and you are partially right. Partially, but not totally because that is just one section of this issue. The other section is connected to the elongated skulls and strangely shaped skeletons – which a lot of people think are those of humans with alien genes – which we’ve taken a quick look at from the Andean region. Right in the middle of all of this is Mesoamerica and how the nobility there, used to artificially pressure the skulls of infants to give them the elongated shape.

The truth is, all of these are linked together since the starting point of the journey of Viracocha was in the Andean Region, I managed to find his journey path all the way to Mesoamerica and there are also hints he made it all the way to Northern American where the Native American tribes/nations mention him in their myths and legends. The reader must ask themselves why didn’t we find a big number of giant skeletons in the Andean region and in Mesoamerica. Maybe (((they))) found the skeletons and it was all kept hidden from the public, this possibility exists. But the other possibility is the journey itself. The “giants” as in the Sebetti warriors with Viracocha, didn’t stay in one place, but traveled along with him; at least most of them did. But how are the “strange” skeletons with elongated skulls and some are called human alien skeletons linked to the giants? And why do we have so many different shapes, sizes? What happened?

I’m going to my best to answer the questions. Yes, there is a link between the strange human skulls and the skeletons of giants. We read in one of the articles, some giant skeletons did have elongated skull, but it’s not all there is. As I’ve said before, the readers of this thread are partially right to think the giants are the Sebetti rulers and their warriors.

The answer lies in the hierarchy of Atlantis = social hierarchy that is. I don’t know why, but each time I picture the Atlantean society in my head I see it like an ant colony or a bee hive type of hierarchy. When you look at ants or bees, the Queen is the ultimate ruler and she is the biggest in size; that’s the equivalent of the Sebetti rulers. Then you have the warrior ant or bee; that’s the equivalent of the Sebetti warriors. And in the end, you have the worker ant or bee, that’s us = human = the population. Those are the 3 major horizontal lines which divided the Atlantean society regardless of which clan it belonged to.

• Page 2 448 –

>>16656840

(Please read from the start)

But within each strata of the Atlantean society there are also several layers; it’s not a uniform thing. Like within the upper class, the Sebetti rulers were on the top, and among the Sebetti rulers, it was the King of kings which was the top of the top; which makes it very logical why His title was King of kings, doesn’t it? He was the King whom ruled the other kings along with everything and everyone else. But the Sebetti rulers weren’t the only ones in the upper class of the Atlantean society; they had vassals and aids/helpers to help them manage and administer properly each of their respective kingdoms.

These helpers are the nobility or aristocracy. We believe they are part Sebetti. See the Sebetti rulers contain the most of Light = Spiritual power. The nobility of each clan contain a medium amount of Light. I say medium because the Light within them is lesser in power than the Light of the Sebetti rulers; but in the same time, it’s higher than the Light we humans have. It’s like they are middle level between us humans and the Sebetti rulers. It’s among the ranks of this nobility that we will find the Sebetti warriors. Each clan and vassal clan had their warriors picked from the ranks of the nobility.

We noticed that the more Light there is in a person, the more their “body” is big. So if we follow this logic, then the biggest in size should be the King of kings since he had tremendous amount of Light in Him (see mount Nemrut statues). The other Sebetti rulers should come in second place, since they have big amounts of Light, but lesser than what the King of kings has; and in the same time, it’s more than what the nobility and the warriors have. Of course in terms of size, then came the nobility and the Sebetti warriors because they had a lesser amount of Light in them than the Sebetti rulers, but in the same time, it was more than what humans had. On the smallest of size are the humans.

It doesn’t stop there = after the Cataclysm, we know that the King of kings and the Evil One died. Viracocha was wandering on the American continent; so is that 18-feet skeleton found in Pennsylvania his remains? Is this the skeleton of Viracocha? It’s possible, but not certain. And if the Bloodlines got (((their))) nasty little dirty hands on his remains, then it means (((they))) got their hands on the DNA of a Sebetti ruler. It’s possible (((they))) took the remains of Viracocha to a secret facility somewhere in the States like the Smithsonian, Area 51 or some other secret place to study and examine his genes. I bet (((they))) did this to ALL the skeletons of Giants which were found on the soil of the States. (((They))) were interested in these giant skeletons regardless if they were warriors from the Light or Horned Serpent warriors.

I bet (((they))) tried to extract DNA from all of these skeletons and use it in experiments of all sorts; including trying to recreate them or mixing their DNA with human and animal DNA. You might think this is farfetched from the old man, but it’s not. The idea of the “super race” and the “super soldier” from the Nazis during WWII came from there. It’s also projected in Hollywood movies like in the movie called Universal soldier and even in comics, like what Captain America is. While lurking here and there, I came upon many times chit chat among anons about giants being imprisoned in Antarctica under the ice in secret Nazi facilities and all of that. Well, what are the odds those are the remains of the Sebetti warriors found in the States? Since they traveled from the Andean Region with Viracocha all the way to Northern America where many fierce battles took place with the Horned Serpent Clan; and we know the Bloodlines got (((their))) hands on these remains via the Smithsonian, so what happened to these remains and where are they kept by the Bloodlines? As I just said, Area 51 might be a possibility, but so does Antarctica. Crazy, right?

• Page 2 449 –