Amelia Island Skulls with two rows of teeth
Amelia Island is practically in my back yard, about 40 miles from my location, so this story strikes a higher interest level for me. On Amelia island multiple burial mounds were found containing skeletons, and artifacts. Out of the hundreds of skeletons only perfect teeth were found.
A skull was found on the island that i hope to replicate with some information. An extremely large skull with perfect teeth, and perfectly preserved was found on the island a massive skull with two rows of teeth, and one with three rows. The third set being the start of a nucleus of a tooth. The skull was dry, not filled with soil in the cavities, perfect and complete.
Within a short time span of a couple of hours the skull crumbled to dust upon exposure to air.
That is the sound of inevitability
Here’s what I think: you have not accurately represented what is in the 1874 account: http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/how-about-three-rows-of-teeth-a-closer-look-at-the-description-of-skeletons-from-amelia-island-florida
I think we need to consider options for what “double teeth” are. Not limit or cherry-pick from one use of the word, in fact there are many. Many of these options describe what giantologists refer to. As far as my position in greater ancestry, which is a model of maturity, many of the different types represent this decline. I am not looking for “Nephilim-traits” I am showing that “extra teeth” large skulls, and 7 foot plus skeletons are from individuals of higher maturity. I do have archaeological references to nephilim traits, but all these are outside the model of Greater Ancestry. So I think these are examples of extra teeth. “Double teeth” shown in this link: See figure 1 for a visual of a bud, growing from the root of the tooth. http://www.rdhmag.com/articles/print/volume-30/issue-1/columns/8216double-teeth39-leads-to-differential-diagnosis.html
The term “rows”,
are used frequently by giantologists to communicate the simplicity of a common term as it needs to be understood by everyone. I could use the term “set” and still communicate the same outcome. One single tooth from root would rarely if at all, called a third set. It is not a set.
In two instances you describe set as being multiple teeth. In the third you insinuate that it is a single tooth only, if this is a single tooth the word “set” would not be used.
Jason Colavito,
“His reference to a “third set” is very specific, and involves observation of a single “nucleus of a tooth””
Here is the statement before Jason’s interpretation:
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
I continue to read “third set” up to the comma. If it was a single tooth It would not have called it a set.
Here is an example of how I read into it, as I understand it.
example one: I went to the mall over the weekend, I stopped into the Men’s Warehouse. . .
The exclusion in no way signifies that the only place I stopped in the mall was the Men’s Warehouse, nor does it limit the mall to having only one store.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
It is describing the location of the bud in comparison to a tooth, in a set and indicates that we are talking about a set of these relationships between a tooth and its host tooth.
Again the logic follows this path.
Example two:
(I went to the dentist to get a cleaning, one particular tooth was difficult. )
Conclusion: Therefore I had only one tooth cleaned.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
The article I believe clearly demonstrates an explanation of a bud, which could be an eye tooth or “double teeth” as in the link provided.
Again here is the wording which talks about the 3rd set you deny.
“while one jaw had evident signs of a third set, a nucleus of a tooth being seen beneath the neck of a tooth of a very old jaw,”
From the article: “evident signs of a third set,”
a massive skull with two rows of teeth, . . . (NEXT SUBJECT) and one with three rows.
The point is: two subjects!
Jason’s Spoiler alert: “there is no “massive skull” with “three rows of teeth” described among the Amelia Island skeletons.
Revelation: There is a “massive skull”, and one with “three sets (rows) of teeth”. I actually downplay it, in using the term “large”.
Changes:
The article uses the term “massive skull” and the “extremely large skull” which I do see the page needs to be updated to include. I will also be using the word “set” with “rows” in parenthesis. The term set would imply that the baby teeth are present, and have not fallen out, with the buds of a “third set”.
I would like to see one tooth being referred to as a set, not just an isolated case but in general. I would also like to see where I described the skull with 3 sets (rows) as being massive. Mistakenly I may have, but it wasn’t in the material above, or in the links above.