Conspiracy To Hide Existence Of Ancient Giant Humans?!

[Frideswide]

Have they jumped at a chance to help investigate the phenomena?

why would archaeologists have to do with it?

 

[Jim]

why would archaeologists have to do with it?

There is a culture that goes with the people. A multidisciplinary approach can yield the most answers.

 

[Mythopoeika]

why would archaeologists have to do with it?

Why wouldn't they?

 

[Frideswide]

It's more anthropology.....

 

[Frideswide]

There is a culture that goes with the people. A multidisciplinary approach can yield the most answers.

As an archaeologist I think I can demonstrate multidisciplinary working.

where is your evidence?

 

[ramonmercado]

Sometimes it takes a while for new ideas and theories to gain footholds; this is true of Anthropology and Archaeology as much as in any other discpline.

There is however the Radical Anthropology Group, upcoming event:

Radical Anthropology Group
Tuesday January 26, 6.45pm:
Introduction to social and biological anthropology,
‘A plains Indian myth: the wives of the sun and moon’.
Speaker: Chris Knight.
Daryll Forde seminar room, Anthropology Building,
14 Taviton Street, off Gordon Square, London WC1.
Organised by Radical Anthropology Group:
http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/

Back copies of their journal at: http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/journal

Audio/Visual at: http://radicalanthropologygroup.org/av

Some Archaeology as well, especially by Lionel Sims in the Audio/Visual section.

 

[Jim]

As an archaeologist I think I can demonstrate multidisciplinary working.

where is your evidence?

I don't understand the nature of your inquiry, nor do I know how to explain it any more than this. I agree the skull phenomena would seem to lie in the anthropology realm. Although it seems the science of genetics is required as well.

But by examining the cultural surrounding the Paracaus people it would help better understand how they fit in. I have no better answer for your question than this.

However I can assure you no massive archeological effort is taking place in Panacas Peru presently, at least from the last I heard. At least that's the impression I get from my reading and watching of video's to date

 

[Xanatic*]

I think it's retrophrenology.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... 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.

I agree 100%!

Just one comment ... I tend to believe the lack of apparent motivation (from academia / 'science') has little or nothing to do with a fixed opposition to what the results may be, but rather an inability to embrace (and justify to funders ... ) a claim the evidence to date can't be explained in terms of known factors (practices, medical conditions, etc.).

Given the level of counterproductive 'noise' surrounding the Paracas skulls, I suspect you'd have to undertake a substantial study just to produce a compelling case for doing a substantial study. D'oh! :banghead:

 

[ramonmercado]

Are Hyperborean Giants Buried Atop Portals to Shambhala in Romania?

We all know that Ancient Origins has low standards and the Romanian nationalist writer who goes by the name of Valdar has among the lowest standards in fringe history, but are people really willing to accept an obviously Photoshop-manipulated photograph of a skeleton as a 10-meter-tall giant allegedly uncovered in Romania in 1976? Apparently so, since this particular conspiracy theory about giants in Romania has been percolating since at least 2013, with spikes in interest annually. The anti-gay gigantologist Steve Quayle has an article about the supposed giants or Romania, which appears to have been mechanically translated from a Romanian original, and which supposedly tells the story behind the fictitious photograph.

In the account, a man with the exquisitely Romanian name of “John Moses” (presumably translated by the software along with the rest of the text) alleges that a 10-meter-long skeleton was uncovered in an underground gallery in 1976, and a bunch of officials covered up what they declared to be a “Hyperborean” individual. According to this account, the atheist communists of the Romanian government immediately felt threatened by the discovery, fearing that it would undermine the theory of evolution. “Man is descended from monkeys!” one allegedly said. “Where have you ever heard [of] monkey 10 meters [tall]?” Moses said that the communist officials packed up the skeleton and shipped it to Moscow. However, Moses said that he knew the truth, that the giants were the true ancestors of the Romanian people, on whom be praise and glory forever. Like a true pulp horror story—which might be the origin of this tale—Moses finished by claiming that he was being followed and had to quickly pass along the photograph before something untoward happened to him. ...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/are-hyperborean-giants-buried-atop-portals-to-shambhala-in-romania

 

[ramonmercado]

Did the Smithsonian Try to Cover Up Giant Skeletons in West Virginia? You'll Never Guess What the Facts Say
3/17/2016

22 Comments

Today I want to point to an article running at Ancient Origins in which gigantologists Jason Jarrell and Sarah Farmer try to make the case that the Smithsonian engineered a cover-up of giants uncovered in a West Virginia mound. According to their research, Ernest Sutton of Salem College uncovered the skeletons of as many as four giants between 7.5 and 9 feet in height in mounds located on the property of Benjamin Zahn in Morgansville, West Virginia, in 1929. These “giants” were reported in local newspapers in 1930. The authors then tried to prove that the newspaper accounts were true by examining Sutton’s field report, filed 29 years later in 1958.

The field report matched the newspaper accounts in most details, but it lacked measurements of the skeletons. The authors speculate that Sutton purposely omitted the measurements after he was made aware of the official Smithsonian policy of censorship about “giants.” As someone working outside of the establishment, Ernest Sutton may have been initially unaware of the policy of secrecy enacted under the authority of Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian, regarding the reporting of gigantic skeletons. As a result of these circumstances, Sutton may have gone public with what he considered to be very important anthropological discoveries in June of 1930, and then avoided the mention of the size of the skeletons in his official report filed almost three decades later.
This is ridiculous, and there never was a policy designed to suppress knowledge of giants. Hrdlička, the head of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, was quite clear about what he thought “giants” were. As he told Science News Letter in 1934, the so-called “giants” were almost always the result of mismeasurement or mistaking Ice Age mammal bones for human ones. The evidence Jarrell and Farmer provide actually tells a very different story than the one they think it does, and one that conforms quite closely to Hrdlička’s 1934 observation.

In 1966, Sutton provided a report of some additional excavations he conducted in 1962 and 1963 to Martha Potter of the Ohio Historical Society, and the authors examined this letter in order to learn about Sutton’s methodology. There, Sutton, a professor of geography, explained that he estimated the height of the “giants” by multiplying from the length of the femur bone: “By examination and checking, I find that the length of the femur bone is approximately one-third of the total length.” Our authors miss the import of this piece of data and instead spin it as part of a conspiracy:
In the letter, Sutton also assures Potter that the “Johnson-Thompson Mound report has been revised in conformity with instructions and is now returned.” This is clear evidence that large “official” organizations were enforcing specific criteria in the publication of archeological data. In relation to this, the specific reference to the measurement of skeletal height in Sutton’s letter would indicate that this subject was among those bounded by these criteria....

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/d...virginia-youll-never-guess-what-the-facts-say

 

[Brig]

There are many reports of giant skeletons found through out the United States. Many of these finds were, at the time, verified by both local professionals and even the Smithsonian. There are books that detail these finds. Whether or not the West Virginia finds are correct is a moot point. It hardly seems that so many people, both professional and layman would make so many mistakes. The Seneca and Iroquaise had traditions and tales of their wiping out a giant, red haired, tribe.

 

[Jim]

There are many reports of giant skeletons found through out the United States. Many of these finds were, at the time, verified by both local professionals and even the Smithsonian. There are books that detail these finds. Whether or not the West Virginia finds are correct is a moot point. It hardly seems that so many people, both professional and layman would make so many mistakes. The Seneca and Iroquaise had traditions and tales of their wiping out a giant, red haired, tribe.

You might consider reading the whole tread there's quite a bit to this tread pro's and con's.

 

[ramonmercado]

There are many reports of giant skeletons found through out the United States. Many of these finds were, at the time, verified by both local professionals and even the Smithsonian. There are books that detail these finds. Whether or not the West Virginia finds are correct is a moot point. It hardly seems that so many people, both professional and layman would make so many mistakes. The Seneca and Iroquaise had traditions and tales of their wiping out a giant, red haired, tribe.

I'm not satisfied by that post either. I put it here as part of the debate.

 

[ramonmercado]

The Patagonian giants were seen by several early explorers. Unless these early explorers were midgets I have a problem seeing them all as hoaxters. Have you ever read "Forbidden Archeology by Thompson. The unabridged copy will give details of this and many other "swept under the rug" discoveries. I wasn't disputing ramonmercad's post.

And to clarify I was referring to the picee from Jason Colavito's Blog which I posted!

 

[Brig]

Some times a " fact" by science turns out to not be a fact at all. For example the bumble bees wings are too small to allow the bumblebee to fly. No one told the bumble bee and he flies quite well. When the Brontosaurus was discovered it was determined it had to live in deep water as its bulk was too great for it to be free standing. Not only was the Brontosaurus not water dwelling there have been dinosaurs much much larger than the Brontosaurus that lived on dry land very well. No one actually knows how large a human could be. Many of the skeletons sent to the Smithsonian by various scientists mostly ranged in the 7 to 9 ft. range. We know nine foot is not impossible as Robert Wadlow lacked only an inch of that height when he died of an infection. Wadlow had not yet stopped growing.

 

[Brig]

Sometimes its just tough trying to figure out who to believe. Especially with a government that withholds information four "our own good". However the old news reports from the mid to late 1800's have many stories about giant skeletons. Unfortunately we also know those old editors would allow danged near anything on a slow news day. Still it seems there are too many for then all to be hoax. AND there are books that give details about the finds, as of who, when, where, verified by who, when and what happened to the evidence. Many of these accounts are way too well authenicated to be a hoax.

 

[Frideswide]

Still it seems there are too many for then all to be hoax. AND there are books that give details about the finds, as of who, when, where, verified by who, when and what happened to the evidence. Many of these accounts are way too well authenicated to be a hoax.

When things are fashionable they spread.

The details in early accounts of archaeological finds - as in folklore collections of a certain date - were often added to give an aura of truth.

sorry.

 

[Frideswide]

Forbidden Archeology by Thompson

Have you seen the Wikipedia article?

 

[Xanatic*]

I'd like to hear more about the 10 foot giants. Also that bumblebee thing is just a misunderstanding.

 

[Brig]

OK, getting back to you. The book I read was "The Ancient Giants who ruled America". by Dewhurst. There is quite a few others (I have not read, but would like to) listed on Amazon. By the way I saiod Forbidden Archeology was written by Thompson which was correct as far as it went , but it was co-authored by Michael Cremo. Crèmo is a strange sort of fellow; however, it doesn't change the facts that are laid out in this book of unaccepted (by the establishment) facts and finds in the field of Archeology. Details as to who, when, where and why nonacceptance is there for anyone to follow up on. You can find many articles by Michael Cremo in Atlantis Rising magazine. I am open minded on the subject. I have read enough to find ground to support some sort of cover-up. Why? I have no idea. I like to think I have an open mind......just not so open my brain falls out.

 

[Brig]

I'd like to hear more about the 10 foot giants. Also that bumblebee thing is just a misunderstanding.

NOW, they say the Bumble bee thing was just a misunderstanding. When I was in school it was out there as a scientific fact. I'm talking circa 60 years ago. It certainly was a widespread scientific misunderstanding. Another "misunderstanding must of been the matter of "Continental Drift". When I brought the matter up in a college class the Professor blew his top. I was informed in no uncertain terms that the continents were most assuredly fixed with no movement what so ever. I had read a report by a German scientist who proposed earth plates and the continents moved over time. The east coast of the U.S. and western Europe fit rather well together. That was simply a coincidence. Keep in mind this matter is just with-in my lifetime; not so long ago. I was right, Professor Hardhead was wrong. Unfortunately continental drift was not accepted by the scientific establishment until well after I'd graduated from college. So I never got to "rub it in".

 

[Jim]

If I remember my old National Geographics correctly. I remember an article about a tribe of Africans where-in the average height of the male members was over 7 ft. with a few very close to 8 ft. I have no idea as to the year or volume. Yes, Jim I remember an artcle about the Scotsman. Here again is proof the tallness does not have to equate with physical problems. There were a couple (married) in Ohio, in the late 1800s. Both were over 8 ft tall. They had their house especially built to fit their size. Again I cannot tell you where I read the article.

An interesting films out of time, the Watussi. I believe they are the African's you spoke of. Pretty cool film from a long bygone era.

 

[oldrover]

Brig, the bumble bee thing has never ever been regarded as scientific fact. Not now, not sixty years ago. It has been doing the rounds for many decades, but never been presented in any way as formal science. You may have heard it in school, maybe even from your teacher, but that does not make it science. It was then, just as it is now, a myth.

The business about continental drift is different, that is a fundamental change in accepted science. And one which as you say has happen very recently. As is the example of the Brontosaurus, which apparently you should call an Apatosaurus these days, I know which I prefer. Previously thought to be a lumbering thing that couldn't support its own weight. A view which, as you say, has given way recently to a totally different picture as more work has been done, and more evidence come to light.

There are lots more examples of revision and change in scientific theory, medicine for example changes before your eyes almost. As what was last years best evidence based practice, becomes this years abandoned practice.

I think though that these genuine instances are good examples of science, which is a methodology not a set of doctrines, working in front of you. After all it's not and never was supposed to be immutable and set in stone, but constantly reviewed and rigorously tested. After which the best evidence, best in the sense that it can be tested and repeated, is accepted. Is there arrogance and resistance to this in practice, absolutely. Just as there are vested interests, prejudices, peer pressure and gigantic egos throughout every scientific discipline.

Plus, even when it's applied rigorously, objectively and fairly, there's no guarantee that that'll result in any common consensus. A great example of this is if you've had the chance to watch two different consultants, in the same specialty, treat the same patient, for that same illness, at the same time.

There are though some empirical facts which, to date, aren't up for revision. Such as, out of the current seven odd billion humans in the world today, plus all those who've lived in the previous century where reasonably accurate records have been kept, there has not been one single verifiable account of an individual who's reached a height of over nine foot.

The only people who've even approached this have suffered from pituitary disease, have been unhealthy, both because of their underlying condition, and because extreme height puts stresses on the human body. The tallest 'supposedly' non pathological giant Angus Macaskill, died suddenly at the age of only 38. Even today, people who are unusually tall don't tend to be very long lived.

The human body works well within its size limits, scaling it up puts huge pressure on the joints, major problems on the cardiovascular system, as well as apparently issues with the nervous system.

You can get unhealthy individuals even, as Robert Wadlow proved, approaching the nine foot mark. But that looks to be about it.

 

[Brig]

I suggest you borrow or buy the two books I recommended. I'm sure any large library will have them.

 

[oldrover]

I won't be doing that Brig. Having read around both of those books it's clear to me at least that they both have very clear agendas, far more obviously than any supposed cover up by the Smithsonian.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Thought you might appreciate this giant skeleton - spotted at Lake Constance:

 

[PeteByrdie]

Thought you might appreciate this giant skeleton - spotted at Lake Constance:

View attachment 2273

Don't let the Smithsonian see this. We'd better delete that post before they close down the forum and assassinate us all for having seen it.

 

[ramonmercado]

Don't let the Smithsonian see this. We'd better delete that post before they close down the forum and assassinate us all for having seen it.

Smithsonian Albino Curators are more effective than Opus Dei Monks.

 

[eburacum]

This is a little collage I call 'Giantman bumps into things'. The biggest superhero in 1963 (literally) was a bit of a klutz.
Yeeopp!!