# Stonehenge baby Dental record Forensics:



## Garry Denke (Sep 29, 2003)

*Stonehenge baby Dental record Forensics context:*

TORONTO, Canada (Reuters) -- Stonehenge is a massive female fertility symbol, according to Canadian researchers who think they have finally solved the mystery of the ancient monument in southern England. In the arrangement of the stones, the researchers say they have spotted the original design: female genitalia. The theory is laid out in a paper entitled "Stonehenge: a view from medicine" in an issue of Britain's Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. "To the builders of the henge, the most critical events in life were birth and death," Anthony Perks, a retired professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of British Columbia, wrote in the paper, published earlier this year. He noted there was no evidence of tombs built by the original builders. "Of birth, we could expect little evidence. However, evidence may be there but so large as to be overlooked."

*Stonehenge baby Dental record Forensics:*

http://images.google.com/images?q=baby+teeth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

*Compare proportional Girths:*






1st pair Upright sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar
2nd pair Upright sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Incisor
3rd pair Upright sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Left and Right Central Incisor
4th pair Upright sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Incisor
5th pair Upright sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar

*Compare proportional Girths:*





Stone 51 - 52 sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar
Stone 53 - 54 sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Incisor
Stone 55 - 56 sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Left and Right Central Incisor
Stone 57 - 58 sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby Canine Cuspid and Lateral Incisor
Stone 59 - 60 sarsen Girths ~ Stonehenge baby First Molar and Second Molar

*Compare proportional Girths:*





Note the Stonehenge baby Altar Stone tongue in the center, and the outer sarsen circle, Stones 1 - 30, the baby's mouth emerging through the Stonehenge birth canal mouth, both representing the same. The German dentist, Dr. Garry W. Denke (1622-1699), first proposed the theory in 1656. Many believe it proves Dr. Anthony M. Perks and Dr. Darlene M. Bailey's theory correct, because Stonehenge sarsen Stones 51-60 are also as smooth as ten (10) baby upper, or lower, teeth. 

As a final note I might add that neither horses nor horsehoes were present in Neolithic times, therefore British (and world) archaeologists who describe the above as a horseshoe are wrong.  

Kind regards,

*Garry W. Denke*
*Geologist/Geophysicist*


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 29, 2003)

Hi *Gary Denke*, and welcome to the chronicles-network!

As for the actual theory presented - I don't find the teeth issue convincing in the slightest. It seems like a way of trying to associate two completely unrelated issues through simple similarities. 

A way of illustrating this would be to argue that all sports using balls are therefore a direct form of sun worship, because the balls are roundish and the sun is roundish: therefore all sports balls are balls of fire by proxy. And as the sun is the driving force for all life, therefore all sports balls are primarily a fertility symbol. Doesn't work, does it?

The idea of a birth canal is also pushing it. Really, the entire theory completely lacks any attempt to understand the mentality of the people it is trying to describe - not least, what circles actually meant.

The idea that Stonehenge was _originally_ a form of calendar is a practical application that can be supported through the position of the stones and the comparative cultural studies of ancient societies general practice of observing and tracking the movement of stars.

But, it the idea that it was little more than biological art - a direct representation of human anatomical features - strikes as an entirely anachronistic way of thinking.


----------



## Gnome (Sep 29, 2003)

The origin, purpose, and meaning of Stonhenge will always be in the realm of theory, be it far fetched or practical.  
Unless some key element is dicovered that irrefutively points us in the right direction, it may as well be a representation of a horse's head....I'm sure someone could "prove" that also.  Just because someone thought that it resembles infant teeth, what would be the purpose of showing that to the sky,
where it would be most noticable?  
Being able to photograph these things from above has led to theroies that bare little on actual purpose at the time of construction.


----------



## Garry Denke (Oct 15, 2003)

But only one theory embraces all 3 Stonehenge Phase I, II, and III models,
inclusive of the first stone hedge of Stonehenge, its elder white limestone:

_Doctor Garry Denke, Dentist (1622-1699)_
_-Stonehenge Great White Teeth Theory-_

*1) Stonehenge Great White Phase I Fish Teeth (outer limestone conodonts)*






*(See Carboniferous Limestone Palaeontology Below)*






*2) Stonehenge Great White Phase II Shark Teeth (double row bluestones)*






*Compare Double Row Proportional Sized Girths:*






*Compare Double Row Proportional Sized Girths:*






*3) Stonehenge Great White Phase III Baby Teeth (central younger sarsens)*

Conodonts (Paleozoic fish teeth) are prolific in the first stones hauled to Stonehenge in its Phase I construction, the foreign Carboniferous (Paleozoic) Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation quarried rock. However, conodonts were extinct by Mesozoic time, therefore they are not present in the local _in situ_ Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation, the geologic outcrop rock of Stonehenge. Presence of conodonts (Paleozoic fish teeth) in these first stones brought to Stonehenge set the motif for its Phase II construction, the great white shark teeth model (in bluestones from across the Wales blue sea), and for its Phase III construction, the ten (10) baby teeth of the mother giving birth to them. Ten (10) was a significant number to the ancients whose young had ten (10) upper baby teeth, ten (10 lower baby teeth, ten (10) upper baby fingers, and ten (10) lower baby toes. The proportional girth sizes of Stonehenge Sarsens 51-60 to ten (10) baby teeth unified the Garry Whilhelm Denke 1656 dental theory with the Anthony M. Perks and Darlene Marie Bailey 2002 birth canal theory as one in the same through _Man's Evolution of Teeth_, e.g., Phase I conodonts fish teeth, Phase II great white shark teeth, and Phase III male/female baby teeth. _Note the baby tongue 'Altar Stone' below._

*Compare Ten (10) Proportional Sized Girths:*





*Compare Ten (10) Proportional Sized Girths:*





*Compare Ten (10) Proportional Sized Girths:*





*Chronology of Stonehenge Construction Materials Used:*
_The first (1st) discovered by Dr. Garry Whilhelm Denke (1656)_

The oldest limestone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Early Carboniferous Period, Arundian Age, calcium carbonates. The Early Carboniferous Period limestone sedimentary rocks comprise *the first (1st) foreign* construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 340 million years old. These rocks are locally called the Birnbeck Limestone Formation (*Stonehenge Whitestones*).






The outcrop sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Late Cretaceous Period, Santonian Age, calcium carbonates. The Late Cretaceous Period outcrop sedimentary rocks comprise *the first (1st) local* _in situ_ construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 85 million years old. These rocks are locally called the Seaford Chalk Formation (*Stonehenge White Chalk*).

The volcanic rocks (oldest geologically) at Stonehenge are the Ordovician Period intrusive igneous diabases (dolerites), and extrusive igneous felsites (rhyolites) and tuffs (basic). The Ordovician Period igneous rocks comprise *the second (2nd) foreign* construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 470 million years old. These rocks are locally called the Ordovician Volcanics (*Stonehenge Bluestones*).

The oldest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Silurian-Devonian Period micaceous sandstones. The Silurian-Devonian Period sedimentary sandstone rocks comprise *the third (3rd) foreign* construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 417 million years old. These rocks are locally called the Old Red Sandstone Formation (*Stonehenge Coshestons*).

The youngest sandstone sedimentary rocks at Stonehenge are the Oligocene-Miocene (Tertiary) Period silicates. The Oligocene-Miocene Period sandstone sedimentary rocks comprise *the fourth (4th) foreign* construction material used by the Stonehenge builders. This material is approximately 24 million years old. These rocks are locally called the Reading Formation (*Stonehenge Sarsens*).

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/education/britstrat/timecharts/phaner.html

*1/4 Stonehenge Counterscarp, 3/4 Stonehenge Mound, and Bottom 1/2 Heelstone Ditch contain Conodonts:*





*Current Locations of the First Stones brought to Stonehenge:*
_~800,000 pounds ~400 tons ~8,510 cubic-feet of foreign limestone_

*a)* 1/4 Counterscarp still in place is foreign Carboniferous Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation rock, not local Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation rock.

*b)* 3/4 Counterscarp remnants are foreign Carboniferous Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation rock, not local Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation rock. *Note:* 3/4 Counterscarp rebuilt with local earth soil after 3/4 Counterscarp limestone was removed and piled at Stonehenge mound located 100 meters East-Southeast of Heel Stone.

*c)* E-SE Stonehenge Artifact Burial mound is foreign Carboniferous Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation rock, not local Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation rock. *Source:* 3/4 of the original complete circle of Counterscarp limestone first (1st) stone hedge of Stonehenge.

*d)* 56 Aubrey Hole remnants are foreign Carboniferous Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation rock, not local Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation rock.

*e)* Heel Stone ditch bottom-half is foreign Carboniferous Waulsortian facies High Tor Limestone (Birnbeck Limestone) Formation rock, not local Cretaceous Seaford Chalk Formation rock, and not silted in fill. *Source:* Counterscarp causeway or Stonehenge mound.

*Palaeontology, geochemistry, and mineralogy of Carboniferous age limestone is different than that of Cretaceous age chalk, and has been verified by evolution and extinction of species. Many of the elder white stone fossils died out long before the Cretaceous, and likewise, many of the younger white chalk fossils did not evolve until the Jurassic, or at the earliest, Triassic. Differentiating fossiliferous white limestone from fossiliferous white chalk was a simple task for the ancient fossil collectors. Some of the key fossils are quite huge before they were fragmented and moved.*

01) _Aclisina_ 
02) _Aviculopecten_ 
03) _Bellerophon_ 
04) _Caninia cornucopiae_ 
05) _Chondrites_ 
06) _Cleiothyridina roissyi_ 
07) _Composita_ 
08) _Conocardium_ 
09) _Delepinea (Daviesiella) destinezi_ 
10) _Euphemites_ 
11) _Girvanella_ 
12) _Hapsiphyllum (Zaphrentis) konincki_ 
13) _Linoproductus_ 
14) _Megachonetes papilionaceous_ 
15) _Michelina grandis_ 
16) _Mourlonia_ 
17) _Murchisonia_ 
18) _Palaeosmilia_ 
19) _Plicochonetes_ 
20) _Rhipidomella michelini_ 
21) _Schellwienella cf. S. crenistria_ 
22) _Straparollus_ 
23) _Syringopora_ 
24) _Zoophycos_

Kind regards,

*Garry William Denke*
*Geologist/Geophysicist*


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 15, 2003)

*Garry Denke*, if you wish to present a certain argument of a certain interpretation then please actually sit down and construct an argument. At the moment all you are doing is spamming this thread with images and unrelated pasted information. At no point in the above thread have you actually tried to assert any clear and logical argument.

Also note that your use of images above, pasted from other sites, could constitute what is known as "bandwidth theft". If you need to post images then do so using the attachments feature.

You are welcome to actually attempt to create a logical argument using your own words and pasted imformation, and include illustrative images, as required. However, if you cannot make the effort to do so then this thread will simply be closed.


----------



## Garry Denke (Oct 15, 2003)

I said:
			
		

> As for the actual theory presented - I don't find the teeth issue convincing in the slightest. It seems like a way of trying to associate two completely unrelated issues through simple similarities.
> 
> A way of illustrating this would be to argue that all sports using balls are therefore a direct form of sun worship, because the balls are roundish and the sun is roundish: therefore all sports balls are balls of fire by proxy. And as the sun is the driving force for all life, therefore all sports balls are primarily a fertility symbol. Doesn't work, does it?
> 
> ...


Hi Brian,

Thanks, nice site. Stonehenge _originally_, before its main ditch and inner bank construction, was a complete stone circle hedge of Early Carboniferous (Arundian Age) white limestone piled on top of Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) white chalk, Stonehenge's natural outcrop. There were no other stones at Stonehenge _originally_ other than these two, i.e, the foreign elder white stone and the local younger white chalk. 

How does the approximately 800,000 pounds (400 tons) 8,510 cubic-feet of elder white stone hauled to Stonehenge by the ancients make it _originally_ a form of calendar for observing and tracking the movement of stars?

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist


----------



## dwndrgn (Oct 15, 2003)

Well, Mr. Denke - I'm not sure of any of the Stonehenge theories so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with yours, but your question to Brian asked about the original representation also applies to your theory.  How would a complete circle represent teeth?  I can't think of any living thing (other than some very obscure deep-sea creatures with a circular opening completely ringed by teeth) for which we see a complete circle when we see their teeth.  Even if people went around all day with their mouths wide open, we still wouldn't think of a circle when thinking of their teeth.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 15, 2003)

Garry...I'm sorry, but I can't see that you are really presenting an arguement here. Mostly what I see in your posts is an excercise in throwing facts and illustrations. In order to make a valid argument, these facts need to be tied together and analyzed in some sort of meaningful way. Additionally, most of the facts that you are presenting don't seem to me to have anything to do with the construction of Stonehenge, but more to do with geology.

As moderator of this thread, I would also repeat Brian's request that you post links to the illustrations, rather than posting them here. Besides the reasons Brian posted for doing this, there are practical reasons for only posting links and not the illustrations themselves - such as the fact that it takes forever for the thread to load when all those illustrations are within the thread.


----------



## Garry Denke (Oct 15, 2003)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Garry...I'm sorry, but I can't see that you are really presenting an argument here. Mostly what I see in your posts is an excercise in throwing facts and illustrations. In order to make a valid argument, these facts need to be tied together and analyzed in some sort of meaningful way. Additionally, most of the facts that you are presenting don't seem to me to have anything to do with the construction of Stonehenge, but more to do with geology.
> 
> As moderator of this thread, I would also repeat Brian's request that you post links to the illustrations, rather than posting them here. Besides the reasons Brian posted for doing this, there are practical reasons for only posting links and not the illustrations themselves - such as the fact that it takes forever for the thread to load when all those illustrations are within the thread.


Okay *littlemissattitude*. Thanks!

http://www.jennifersgourds.homestead.com/files/fish_mouth.JPG

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist


----------



## Garry Denke (Oct 15, 2003)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Well, Mr. Denke - I'm not sure of any of the Stonehenge theories so I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with yours, but your question to Brian asked about the original representation also applies to your theory. How would a complete circle represent teeth?


Paleontology is not a theory, it is a branch of biology. The evidence
claims elder conodonts (Paleozoic fish teeth) in a complete circle on
top of the younger coccoliths (Mesozoic calcareous nannoplankton).

Kind regards,

Garry W. Denke
Geologist/Geophysicist


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 15, 2003)

Garry Denke said:
			
		

> How does the approximately 800,000 pounds (400 tons) 8,510 cubic-feet of elder white stone hauled to Stonehenge by the ancients make it _originally_ a form of calendar for observing and tracking the movement of stars?


This is certainly something that has been covered at length by various other theories, not least how the various alignment of stones may or may not relate to various stellar motions and the various cycles of the moon and sun.

For the moment this thread has ceased to play any further constructive function, so I'm closing it.


----------

