• 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?!

You'd think the Smithsonian would put those skeletons on display. It'd draw the biggest crowds ever.
 
Mythopoeika said:
You'd think the Smithsonian would put those skeletons on display. It'd draw the biggest crowds ever.
Click to expand...

There was a book review in the FT mag a few years ago about suppressed/ignored evidence of Giants in the Americas. Anyone remember it?
 
Indeed, I'm not sure what reason the Smithsonian would have to cover this up.
 
However the Large skulls found in Peru were dated at 3000 years old, not quite prehistoric? Give this link a read if possible, it's short and eye opening.

BTW another good read also is: "The Lost Race Of The Giants" by Patrick Chouinard, 2013 ISBN 978-1-59143-148-0
 
Jim said:
However the Large skulls found in Peru were dated at 3000 years old, not quite prehistoric? Give this link a read if possible, it's short and eye opening.

BTW another good read also is: "The Lost Race Of The Giants" by Patrick Chouinard, 2013 ISBN 978-1-59143-148-0
Click to expand...

Ancient would be a better term.

Will amend title.
 
As far as the stories relating to a Smithsonian cover-up ...

Please note the citations, excerpts, and even the full text can be traced back to a December 2014 article posted on World News Daily Report - one of the primary sources of fake news and hoax articles identified by Snopes.

December 2014 article:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smi...ands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/

Snopes citation of WNDR as a fake news / hoax propagator:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/
 
EnolaGaia said:
As far as the stories relating to a Smithsonian cover-up ...

Please note the citations, excerpts, and even the full text can be traced back to a December 2014 article posted on World News Daily Report - one of the primary sources of fake news and hoax articles identified by Snopes.

December 2014 article:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smi...ands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/

Snopes citation of WNDR as a fake news / hoax propagator:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/
Click to expand...

But:

The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America: The Missing Skeletons and the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up Paperback – 13 Feb 2014
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Ancient-Giants-Ruled-America/dp/1591431719

Reviewed in Fortean Times issue 315 (June 2014) by Bob Rickard

Thats before December 2014.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Yes - the Dewhurst book had been available for a while before the most common (and most blatant) stories appeared (the ones that go beyond insinuating a Smithsonian cover-up to claiming it had been proven to the point a Supreme Court ruling had addressed it).

It's always been my theory the Dewhurst book was the inspiration for the later stuff. Dewhurst's book was one of the few to have been based on an author's own research (as opposed to simply quoting as fact any and all stories one could find). Still, the book struck me as more speculation than specifics.

One also needs to bear in mind that many bones forwarded to the Smithsonian (and other museums) and hailed in newspaper (etc.) articles as those of human giants - especially back in the 19th century - didn't disappear at all. Once at the museum(s) they were subsequently identified as belonging to non-human megafauna.

See, for example, the discussion in this 1891 collection of essays:

https://books.google.com/books?id=b...CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Henrion giants&f=false
 
I am not sure where this fits into all this, or even if it does at all, but....

Professor Bryan Sykes, the human genetics expert at Oxford university is looking into the famous case of Zana, the wild woman of Abkhazia, who was captured in the nineteenth century.

He has looked at the skull of one of her male descendants (Kwhit) which was unearthed by Igor Burtsev - a prominent Russian snowman hunter - in the early 1970's. Sykes declares it to be highly unusual and not that of an ordinary human.It is larger, for one thing.

He has also DNA tested the saliva of six remaining living desendants of Zana in Abkhasia. The DNA has come out as being of Eastern African origin but not matching any known type.

Crucially,Sykes denies the possibility that Zana was an escaped slave (the descriptions of her - and there were many, many witnesses - are not those of an ordinary human being -and the DNA of her descendants has no living match) and speculates that there is a race of `antique humans` still living in remote parts of the Caucuses!

This revelation has been massively under-discussed, it seems to me: particularly as Sykes is widely thought to be a sceptic on the relict hominids issue.

There's no conspiracy here - the information is out there - just people not picking up on what is really quite extraordinary news coming from a mainstream science quarter.

For further information:

Sykes, Bryan The Nature of the Beast: The first scientific Evidence on the survival of Apemen into modern times (London, Coronet: 2014).

This is actually a good read, and ends on something of a scientific cliff-hanger.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Yes - the Dewhurst book had been available for a while before the most common (and most blatant) stories appeared (the ones that go beyond insinuating a Smithsonian cover-up to claiming it had been proven to the point a Supreme Court ruling had addressed it).

It's always been my theory the Dewhurst book was the inspiration for the later stuff. Dewhurst's book was one of the few to have been based on an author's own research (as opposed to simply quoting as fact any and all stories one could find). Still, the book struck me as more speculation than specifics.

One also needs to bear in mind that many bones forwarded to the Smithsonian (and other museums) and hailed in newspaper (etc.) articles as those of human giants - especially back in the 19th century - didn't disappear at all. Once at the museum(s) they were subsequently identified as belonging to non-human megafauna.

See, for example, the discussion in this 1891 collection of essays:

https://books.google.com/books?id=b10XAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA177&dq=Henrion giants&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nx5eVYf6Is7_yQS0-IC4Dg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Henrion giants&f=false
Click to expand...

And what of the ~ 300 some odd giant Peruvian skulls found on the Paracus peninsula? Ref post #32. These seem to be one of the few cases in which the bones weren't hidden away or destroyed?

This phenomenon of hiding the evidence of giants has been reported to have perpetrated by the many governments other than that of the US. It would seem academia would rather not deal with the uncomfortable question of who is this alternate race and how do they fir the model.
 
Jim said:
And what of the ~ 300 some odd giant Peruvian skulls found on the Paracus peninsula? Ref post #32. These seem to be one of the few cases in which the bones weren't hidden away or destroyed? ...
Click to expand...

The skulls from the Paracus peninsula provide examples of evidence for anomalous (intrinsic) cranial shape or (deliberate) cranial shaping, not gigantism. The Paracus skulls are noteworthy for their form, not their size.
 
EnolaGaia said:
The skulls from the Paracus peninsula provide examples of evidence for anomalous (intrinsic) cranial shape or (deliberate) cranial shaping, not gigantism. The Paracus skulls are noteworthy for their form, not their size.
Click to expand...
The cranium of the Paracas skulls is ~ 25 % larger and ~ 60% heavier than the skulls of regular human beings. Researchers believe that these traits could not have been achieved through head bindings. Not only are they different in weight, the skulls from the Paracas peninsula are structurally different and only have 1 parietal plate while ordinary humans have 2. Some 300 of the skulls have been found so the differences found are not unique to one or several individuals. The links below would bear out that they are not the result of head binding, but are instead a larger different shaped skull of natural origin.

http://www.elitereaders.com/paracas-skulls/

http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-americas-opinion-guest-authors/elongated-human-skulls-peru-possible-evidence-lost?page=0%2C2

http://www.ancient-code.com/dna-test-results-paracas-skulls-are-not-human/

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/these-ancient-elongated-skulls-are-not-human
 
An interesting ~ 20 minute interview. I don't know if I buy into any off planet theory. I find another race of man a bit more believable, however?

 
Apart from the top, those skulls have some fairly human prportions. I don't see any connection to giants there.
 
Xanatic* said:
Apart from the top, those skulls have some fairly human prportions. I don't see any connection to giants there.
Click to expand...
From what I understand they were around 6' to 61/2' tall, which is considerable taller than later south American peoples, i.e.: Nazca peoples from same area, who were all well under 6' in height.
The giant Paracas skulls is a somewhat unrelated issue to the possible Smithsonian cover-up of larger American giants
 
Last edited:
Is that with or without skull elongation?
 
Xanatic* said:
Is that with or without skull elongation?
Click to expand...
Articles didn't specify, the point is that likely buts them head and shoulders over the rather short natives.
 
Not head and shoulders, just forehead. I have a different definition of giants.
 
Xanatic* said:
Not head and shoulders, just forehead. I have a different definition of giants.
Click to expand...
They were giants compared to the area natives and would also be considerably taller than the average modern man, "unless your playing for the NBA that is". Most modern men are under 6' to 61/2 '. I'm sure the 3" or 4" or however many inches that are added onto this height by the longer skulls is included in the total height est..

I explained this is not to be confused with the giants found in the USA which were reported to have been between 7' to 12' tall.

I've provided numerous videos and links for further research.

We can draw our own conclusions about definitions about giants
 
Last edited:
Jim said:
The cranium of the Paracas skulls is ~ 25 % larger and ~ 60% heavier than the skulls of regular human beings.
Click to expand...

This might be noteworthy if there were any hard data to substantiate the claim. If there's been a detailed craniometric survey covering even a majority of the skulls I'd love to see the published results.

In any case, no such claim holds water unless the measurement data is categorized and / or correlated with regard to deceased individuals' ages (and to a lesser extent gender).

Jim said:
Researchers believe that these traits could not have been achieved through head bindings.
Click to expand...

This might be noteworthy if any of the 'researchers' claiming this were not principals or affiliates of a certain private museum and / or paranormal tour guide service from which most of the recent Paracas skull hoopla has originated.
 
Jim said:
Not only are they different in weight, the skulls from the Paracas peninsula are structurally different and only have 1 parietal plate while ordinary humans have 2.
Click to expand...

News Flash: If you're a normal modern human in or beyond your mid-30's you, too, only have one!

This sub-topic isn't about the parietal plates - it's about the sagittal suture that separates them in normal newborns. The sagittal suture typically closes and fuses during the late 20's / early 30's, and subsequent ossification turns the fused pair into a single structure upon which the suture's former location can be remarkably indistinct / smooth. For an illustration of this normal process' results, see Figures 1 and 2 in:

http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v27n2/art26.pdf

But what about the Paracas skulls believed to be from individuals of less than the normal suture closure age? Good point! However ...

Premature sagittal suture closure / fusion is a well-known and not particularly rare occurrence associated with a number of syndromes subsumed under the general label of craniosynostosis. Such premature closure / fusion can be in effect as early as birth.

The results of untreated craniosynostosis include abnormal skull growth and shaping, and the effects may extend to abnormalities in facial features and proportions. Sound familiar?

There are precedents for atypically high rates of craniosynostosis occurrence among relatively interbred or isolated populations, which suggests at least some cases may result from genetic causes. Other suspected causes include hormonal influences, hyperthyroidism, and environmental factors.
 
Jim said:
Some 300 of the skulls have been found so the differences found are not unique to one or several individuals.
Click to expand...

This would be interesting if (as noted above ... ) a craniometric survey of even a majority of these skulls had been done.

It should also be borne in mind that the notably abnormal skulls are not universal among the Paracas remains excavated over the last 90 years.

Jim said:
The links below would bear out that they are not the result of head binding, but are instead a larger different shaped skull of natural origin.
Click to expand...

These particular links bear out nothing beyond the ability to pump arbitrary and economically self-serving 'copy' to a global audience and have it amplified by endless (re-)propagation throughout (e.g.) the blogosphere.

I'm actually glad about the general effect of popularization (i.e., making a wider audience aware of these and similar anomalies). The problem lies in the way the last decade's wave of Paracas-related content has ignored what substantive data has been reported in the physical anthropology literature, focused on one highly speculative interpretation, cherry-picked only those facts supporting this preferred (and self-servingly provocative ... ) interpretation, and consistently emphasized sensationalism over analysis.
 
EnolaGaia said:
These particular links bear out nothing beyond the ability to pump arbitrary and economically self-serving 'copy' to a global audience and have it amplified by endless (re-)propagation throughout (e.g.) the blogosphere.

I'm actually glad about the general effect of popularization (i.e., making a wider audience aware of these and similar anomalies). The problem lies in the way the last decade's wave of Paracas-related content has ignored what substantive data has been reported in the physical anthropology literature, focused on one highly speculative interpretation, cherry-picked only those facts supporting this preferred (and self-servingly provocative ... ) interpretation, and consistently emphasized sensationalism over analysis.
Click to expand...
I agree the sensationalism of the skulls and DNA testing is not the result of a lengthy - costly multidisciplinary scientific effort. However mainstream anthropology – archeology would likely prefer to ignore such finding or to have them just go away. It would be wonderful if they backed a full fledged effort to investigate the phenomena of the skulls, thus either adding credence to the sensationalism or cleaning the slate. Until then we are left with an enigma.
 
Jim said:
However mainstream anthropology – archeology would likely prefer to ignore such finding or to have them just go away.
Click to expand...

why? how do you justify this statement?
 
Frideswide said:
why? how do you justify this statement?
Click to expand...
Have they jumped at a chance to help investigate the phenomena? Not to my knowledge. That is the claim that the skulls are of natural origin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top