• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Conspiracy To Hide Existence Of Ancient Giant Humans?!

charliechar1234

charliechar1234

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
8
Hello – does anyone know any good books that cover the topic of giants? I'm reading John A Keel's Haunted Planet and he discusses the topic, but I'm after something more in depth…

:D
 
ramonmercado said:
I remember that now. Must track it down.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, that mispelling of Bob Rickard's name wasn't just an artistic flourish. It was one of many little corrections recently made on my behalf by my new smart phone. Technology! Ya gotta love it! :mad:

Since I'm here, I don't give much credence to the idea of ancient giants myself. However, I kept that review because it was a positive one, suggesting at least a good read, and I like the idea that this near universal bit of mythology can persist in some forms in the modern world. So, perhaps I'll get it and read it some time.
 
PeteByrdie said:
Incidentally, that mispelling of Bob Rickard's name wasn't just an artistic flourish. It was one of many little corrections recently made on my behalf by my new smart phone. Technology! Ya gotta love it! :mad:

Since I'm here, I don't give much credence to the idea of ancient giants myself. However, I kept that review because it was a positive one, suggesting at least a good read, and I like the idea that this near universal bit of mythology can persist in some forms in the modern world. So, perhaps I'll get it and read it some time.
Click to expand...

I have a backlog myself, but it does sound interesting.
 
I noticed that there is a new series about giants coming soon to the History Channel. I think it's goig to be a disappointment but you never know. I think I've found it already on Youtube.
 
Can't remember the title but Loren Coleman has a book sort of on the subject. Mainly on Gigantopithecus, but if memory serves me he concludes that Gigantopithecus maybe a subspecies of human beings.
 
I found it interesting that they talked about femurs, rather than other bones. Femurs from bears are meant to look very similar to those of humans, only larger.
 
Yes, but bear leg bones, as a proportion of the overall skeleton size, are much smaller than humans. Hence, what appears to be a very large human femur would be an impossibly huge bear femur.
 
David Attenborough's famous Natural History Museum Alive (in 3D if you have it) is being repeated on June 7th on Sky. It had the courage to depict Gigantopithecus as being a giant human (a club-wielding hunter if I recall) rather than an ape. Anyone interested in ancient giants shouldn't miss it!
 
There seems to be a tendency to overestimate height just looking at a laid out human skeleton. People leave gaps for several cm thickness of connective tissue at all the joints, and the knees in particular seem to get a double dose. If you do this with all the vertebrae too..... well, you start to understand why there are a fair number of antiquarian reports about giant skeletons being found. Not that there couldn't be lots of other reasons, including mischief and genuine giants :D

The Lundy Giants is one of the best known I think but if you go through early journals, diaries, almanacs, church books etc you find them often enough to start to take notice! Well, I did anyway. Wasn't looking for them but selective perception made them stand out after a while.
 
Isn't this a problem with the Shroud of Turin? It shows a giant man. Either that or Christ was a huge, prehistoric, ape creature.
 
GNC said:
Anyway, as that link says the shroud has been stretched over the years, so who knows how tall he really was?
Click to expand...

well, at a guess, shorter than whatever the current measurement? :D
 
I'd be wary of this subject. I recently found several articles online, such as this one http://www.sott.net/article/256712-...-found-in-Wisconsin-Sons-of-god-Men-of-renown, on the subject that included among their evidence "In 2002, National Geographic reported a dozen Cyclops skeletons found in Greece that stood 12-15 1/2 Ft tall. That is 3 humans tall. One eye socket" in the middle of the text. What's extraordinary about it is that the sentence is hyperlinked to the National Geographic article in question.....which is about prehistoric ELEPHANT remains, and the conjecture they may have lead to the cylops myth!

This is extraordinary in several ways. The fact its linked means the authors of these "ancient giant" claims must have read the article they're quoting and yet are so completely blind to what it actually says they don't mind their own readers reading it and seeing it says nothing of the kind!

If they're inventing facts whose source they're actually letting you see, how much less reliable are the claims you're unlikely to read the original source for?
 
Ringo said:
I noticed that there is a new series about giants coming soon to the History Channel. I think it's goig to be a disappointment but you never know. I think I've found it already on Youtube.
Click to expand...
Has anyone else continued to follow this programme? I hadn't bothered after watching the first episode on this thread, because I couldn't find the other episodes at the time and then I just forgot. I'm far from convinced by the 'prehistoric giants' theory but I love the idea, and it would be great for real evidence to be found.

Anyway, after reading a post by someone on another forum (I so hope he writes his book and gets it published) I was reminded of this series. I thought I'd look to see if other episodes were available and, lo and behold, they were, but so was this critical review of the final episode, and the series as a whole;

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-search-for-the-lost-giants-s01e06-the-moment-of-truth

I'm sort of not sure I could watch it now and not keep thinking that it's probably mostly untrustworthy. I mean, I would think that anyway, but I'd still be tantalised by the possibilities. :(
 
From that description it doesn't just sound unscientific but also rather boring. Did they spend 6 episodes just looking at a tunnel in a mound?
 
Xanatic* said:
From that description it doesn't just sound unscientific but also rather boring. Did they spend 6 episodes just looking at a tunnel in a mound?
Click to expand...
I enjoyed the first episode, and it was heavy with the possibility of conclusions in future episodes. I think I'll be leaving the rest now I've read that review, though.
 
William R. Corliss's catalog Biological Anomalies: Humans III (Glen Arm, Md.: The Sourcebook Project, 1994) includes four pages on Giant Hominid Skeletons (topic BHE8 in the Corliss system).

Corliss's bibliography for the topic is mostly articles, but it includes two books that may be of interest:

  • Ciochon, Russell, et al. Other Origins: The Search for the Giant Ape in Prehistory (1990).
  • Cremo, Michael A., and Richard L. Thompson. Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (1993).

In fairness, I must note that Corliss's very next topic, BHE9, is Very Small Hominid Skeletons, to which he devotes more than five pages -- and that was before the discovery of Homo floresiensis, a.k.a. the Hobbit of Flores.

Corliss also cites, only to dismiss it as unreliable, a Reader's Digest volume with the winningly redundant title Mysteries of the Unexplained (1982). I happen to have a copy of it, and I see that its Anomalies chapter (meaning archaeological anomalies) includes a section on Mysterious Tracks from the Past, some of them "giant" (pp. 34-39), and another section on Strange and Improbable Skeletons, some of them "giant" as well (pp. 39-43).

Karl P.N. Shuker devotes a page to the topic (p. 151) in The Unexplained (New York: Metro, 2009), and he cites two more books, obviously generalist in theme like Shuker's:

  • Brandon, Jim. Weird America: A Guide to Places of Mystery in the United States (Plume, 1978).
  • Lyman, Robert. Forbidden Land (1971).

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Xanatic* said:
From that description it doesn't just sound unscientific but also rather boring. Did they spend 6 episodes just looking at a tunnel in a mound?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I saw Eps 1, 3, 5 & 6, and to be honest they were largely indistinguishable: I stuck with the last two in the hope that it would have something revelatory to finish off, but no - but then, as with all such documentaries, if they turned up something truly astonishing we'd have heard about it by now. Overall this could easily have been a two-parter, and would have lost little but padding.
 
There are several books on ancient giants at Atlantis Rising (Book section) and also through Amazon. The one I read was extremely informative and detailed the Smithsonian attempts to squelch the subject.
 
Is there a cover-up ongoing concerning the Giants in the US and even worldwide? They are in the myths of giants in nearly every ancient culture ranging typically from 7’ to 12’. The Smithsonian is reported to have participated in a massive cover-up of giant remains, found all over the USA from a mound builder culture. Typically they have red or blond hair and used bronze or even iron tools-weapons. Some claims are made for these remains to go as far back as 7,000 to 10,000 BC?

Giants have been reported on the Italian Island of Sardinia, again with the remains confiscated. An interesting cash of oversized skulls was found in the former Inca region of Peru. They were elongated and much heavier than an average human skull by 60% and with a brain of 25% larger size. They were also often red haired. When DNA tested these so called Paracus skulls proved indeed to be unique (see below link 47 minutes).

This may provide some evidence of a non Indian race of large individuals existing in the America’s.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/these-ancient-elongated-skulls-are-not-human
 
Last edited:
A 46 minute video about the supposed Smithsonian cover up.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top