Possible Anunnaki burial ground ???

could this be a possible Anunnaki burial ground ???

............Each day as Lisa and the other Park's Department employees went onto the site, they were searched for cameras. Similarly they were searched as they left the site each day to make sure they weren't removing artifacts. They were also obliged to sign "secrecy documents" ensuring that they would never divulge details of their participation in this undertaking. The reason for this degree of secrecy stems from the fact that the skeletons were of people who were about 8 feet tall. They had six fingers on each hand and six toes per foot. They also had a strange, double row arrangement of teeth.

Link here


could it be ?? and why does the Government destroy such sites ???

bizarre !!








(Mod edit: Use [ex] and [/ex] tags for even greater visibility of external sources.)

See: New External Source Tags

[edit on 3/24/2006 by Majic]

i'd say it's pluasable. uncle sam has gon to greater measures to hide less but i cant think ofmany reason why they would be trashing open land like that unless they were either hiding scandal or trying to piss ghosts off.

btw, hows your getting abducted thing goin? i lost the link to the thread

still waiting.......and waiting...and waiting.......

I don't know about this.
Lisa Kerr reports that they were not allowed to bring cameras nor take any evidence of these skeletons so it is just her word. Not a very good source to stand on.
She may indeed have seen skeletons but I would be more inclined to beleive 7 foot tall instead of eight. Remember by her own admission, she would not have had a tape measure or anything else to measure the highth of the skeletons. There were American Indians who did grow to 7 foot tall. One such tribe (which actually included about 128 tribes) Karankawa who origionated around the Gulf coast of Texas. There are survivors of these tribes today and they were thought to have only been legends until a few of their skeletons were found.
As to the double set of teeth, although it is not common there is medical evidence that people can indeed have two sets of teeth. This normaly occurs only in babies though.
As for having 6 fingers and 6 toes on each hand, there is again medical conditions that allow that but I would like to point out that only in very rare cases, are skeletons found that are so well intact that she could determine that such and such finger belonged to susch and such skeleton.
I did a search to see what if anything I could find on Ms. Kerr to see if she might have some kind of archeological degree or any other scientific background but I could not find anything on her other than there is a woman named Lisa Kerr in New Zealand who is also an author of how to knick knack things.
Do you have any thing that may give some credence to her claims?

cases where it is only the word of one against the government are often good cases to get behind, because the one against the many is a tacit that the government uses regularly to make all their little schemes seem less possible. plus, if someone bring something up and cant prove it, the people who saw that person flounder are going to have a bias against the theorists next time it's brought up

doubly so when the gov't stops any evidence from being taken. keep the masses dumb and happy

Omnipocket,
That would not be a good thing to do actually.
Any kook out there could say that they saw something but cannot prove it because the goverment told them to shut up about it or took away their evidence etc.
You also have the idiots like David Karesh out there who people beleived in, look at what happened.
And then again you have others like Van Danken (however you spell his name) or the guy who put together the Pitdown man hoax.
To beleive and stand by someone who has no evidence to support their statements, who have no background to give credence to their claims will lead alot of people down the Yellow Brick Road following the Pied Piper.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
IThere were American Indians who did grow to 7 foot tall.
As to the double set of teeth, although it is not common there is medical evidence that people can indeed have two sets of teeth. This normaly occurs only in babies though.
As for having 6 fingers and 6 toes on each hand, there is again medical conditions that allow that but I would like to point out that only in very rare cases, are skeletons found that are so well intact that she could determine that such and such finger belonged to susch and such skeleton.
I did a search to see what if anything I could find on Ms. Kerr to see if she might have some kind of archeological degree or any other scientific background but I could not find anything on her other than there is a woman named Lisa Kerr in New Zealand who is also an author of how to knick knack things.
Do you have any thing that may give some credence to her claims?

I see where you're coming from but the possibilites of a person having 6 fingers is what? a million to 1 say? having 6 toes? probably a million to one again? having two sets of teeth? again a million to 1? so whats the chances of these things being found with all this on them?

I think there's more to this than meets the eye, i'd understand a person being 7ft tall, or a person with six fingers, but a person who's 7 ft, got 6 fingers, 6 toes, 2 sets of teeth etc etc... seems a bit strange to me.

Thanks

imnot saying to trust the twichy guy with the tattered cloathing who screams on the corner. im just stating that there are alot of things that could happen when there was "no camaras allowed"

Id say jsut a thought,, any one consider neanderthal skeletons?

This is a typical foaftale ('Friend of a friend tale') of the sort that's liable in time to become widely accepted as truth, even though there are absolutely no verifying facts.

Until we can establish whether a New Zealand girl called Lisa Kerr really did work on an archaeological dig (presumably within the past 10-15 years?) and where this dig was, then we cannot place any credence to the story whatsoever.

And, as an aside, if this really happened and was shrouded in secrecy, do you really think a foreign student would be allowed to partake in the operation?

As is often the case, these stories pander to those who 'want to believe' but fall apart once you start to example the internal logic....

(Not saying it's not true, just saying there's absolutely no reason to suppose it is true )

I was hoping that some folk would have read more of the exchanges on those links, the extra teeth and digits on very tall people, aren't anywhere near as interesting to me as the too many 'cover ups' in this field of 'science'.

Isn't it at least time to stop teaching, as 'facts', who came from where, when, untill the too many annomolies are dragged out of hiding and put on the debate table?

There is a conspiracy here, and it's a big one, so big, people will just keep walking over it while they maddly look for 'Shrubs and Dates' to be furious with.

This has been discussed before, and the whole tale is a hoax. As Essen pointed out, there would be hundreds of people involved on the dig.

As to the "government silencing scientists", cast your mind back to the news events of last year and remember just how little silencing the administration managed, even when they cut funding and made other threats against scientists:
www.bushgreenwatch.org...
www.oneworld.net...
www.ombwatch.org...
www.dailykos.com...
www.halliburtonwatch.org...
www.tvnewslies.org...

...etc, etc, etc.

Look at some of those reports and see how ineffective the government has been when it tries to cover up scientific research and tries to shush scientists by taking away their funding.

If the administration can't even keep scientists from running to the press when they rewrite the scientists' data and threaten them with cutting their funding to keep them silent, how could they effectively a hundred or more student workers and shovelbums on a dig plus 2-5 lead archaeologists plus dozens of park employees plus people in the surrounding towns? Not to mention family members who might have heard the story or have seen artifacts -- plus colleagues at other universities who would have been consulted on translations and physiology.

The answer is that they couldn't. And they didn't -- because the story is a complete hoax.

there were also many tall (8-10 ft.) red haired mummies found in areas of the United States. with the double row of teeth. They are found in underground holes and caves...

Originally posted by mosca
there were also many tall (8-10 ft.) red haired mummies found in areas of the United States. with the double row of teeth. They are found in underground holes and caves...

That one, too, is a hoax. There's some faked pictures of them, BTW, but a close examination shows that they're just badly photoshopped pranks.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by mosca
there were also many tall (8-10 ft.) red haired mummies found in areas of the United States. with the double row of teeth.

That one, too, is a hoax. There's some faked pictures of them, BTW, but a close examination shows that they're just badly photoshopped pranks.

Should I take this to mean the seven skeletons found in a mound near Clearwater, Minnesota in 1888? (Double rows of teeth, buried sitting, facing the lake, having low brows and prominent brow ridges.)

Those were the good times of frontier newspaper wars, competing in publishing stories to entertain the reading public and discombobulate the rival papers. Anyway, why not throw in some more "native giants" -

* anatomically correct men of some 6' 11" height, their skulls having 2" horns, found in a mound at Sayre in Bradford County, Pennsylvania in the 1880s (some of the bones were sent to the American Investigating Museum in Philadelphia "from where they seem to have disappeared")

* a skeleton of 9' 6" height found in a mound at Brownsville, Indiana in 1879 (the bones being kept in a basket in the mill of the land owner until swept away in a flooding in 1937)

* a copper-armoured male skeleton found "in the middle of the great mounds of Ohio" in 1891, described both as a "heavyset man" and as a "giant" (without any actual measurements given) - no further info on that guy

Originally posted by ochre
That one, too, is a hoax. There's some faked pictures of them, BTW, but a close examination shows that they're just badly photoshopped pranks.

No, however that is also a dodgy fake. A lot of these massively important discoveries are laughable. They never have evidence, if the photos are opened up and checked they're fakes and the rest of the time it's word of mouth. It's a shame because the day [if] something is found nobody will believe us.

These liars are the bane of the alternative theory communities.

You sure you got this right? Did you mean to quote me (you didn't) or reply to me (which you did, and agreed with me, too)?