Giant Human Skeletons

[epo333]

Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s

A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/



What a shame, makes you think what else in History has been destroyed.

[Doc]

Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s

A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/



What a shame, makes you think what else in History has been destroyed.

A couple of the more daring archeologists back in the days after Jurrassic Park raised interest in the subject to a peak mentioned that there were so many Mound Builder and related dwellings/artifacts that we should be tripping over skeletons and made statements to the effect of 'if the Mound Builders were so prolific, what happened to the fossil remains?' Maybe this is a partial answer. The list of discoveries in the Americas that mainstream archeology and paleontology have covered up one way and another is long list indeed.

[CasperParks]

Epo333,

Thanks for the update!

Not amazed by all of the bickering comments posted beneath the article at World News Daily Report's site. Glad we don't get much of that here at TOP.

Also, not amazed that main stream media is ignoring the story.

Not sure if it was History, Discovery or another network had a show on this topic of Ancient Giants. Much like Hangar 1 is doing now for Ufology, that show raised awareness of ancient giants.

[whoknows]

I think I am going to need documentation of the actual court case!

http://badsatiretoday.com/smithsonian-admits-destroying-giant-skeletons-1900s/

[Dragonfire]

Epo333,

Thanks for the update!

Not amazed by all of the bickering comments posted beneath the article at World News Daily Report's site. Glad we don't get much of that here at TOP.

Also, not amazed that main stream media is ignoring the story.

Not sure if it was History, Discovery or another network had a show on this topic of Ancient Giants. Much like Hangar 1 is doing now for Ufology, that show raised awareness of ancient giants.

I believe it was Ancient Aliens that brought up the giants. I remember David H. Childress commenting on it. It could of been In serch of aliens too, with Georgio. He was on Malta discussing giants.

Also, Forensic Geologist Scott Wolter has brought up the subject several times on his program America Unearthed.

[majicbar]

Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s

A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/



What a shame, makes you think what else in History has been destroyed.

OK, WNDR is a satire site, so if they had a report on UFO's that would mean that UFOs were just a joke right? NO! While there may be aspects of ridicule and satire in the article and the source WNDR may be satire, the subject is quite real and the subject has been around for over a century. There are contemporary researchers covering this subject and making the same claims that the Smithsonian destroyed the evidence of these skeletons existence. See:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DewhurstR1.php

"But the most amazing discoveries in California were eventually found on Catalina Island. In the 1920’s, the island of Catalina was owned by the Wrigley Chewing gum family, who hired Prof. Ralph Glidden to conduct a series of digs on the island under the direction of the Catalina Museum. What they found made headlines around the world, only to be written out of the history books less than 10 years later. In short, Glidden and his team exhumed the remains of 3,781 skeletons of a race of blond-haired giants. The tallest was believed to be a king who measured 9’2” tall and the average height of the skeletons was reported to be around 7 feet. In addition, the team found the remains of a megalithic “Stonehenge-era” temple. Later radio-carbon dating revealed that some of the skeletons unearthed were 7,000 years old. For over 50 years the proofs pertaining to these discoveries were vigorously denied by the University of California and The Smithsonian, but in 2011 it was finally admitted that the evidence for these finds had been locked away from the public in the restricted-access evidence rooms of the Smithsonian, along with detailed field reports and hundreds of photos."

[epo333]

Here is a link to another possible Smithsonian Cover-Up...

The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up: 18 Giant Skeletons Discovered in Wisconsin.

http://humansarefree.com/2014/09/the-great-smithsonian-cover-up-18-giant.html

...where there's smoke there's usually fire... (so they say :) )

[whoknows]

OK, WNDR is a satire site, so if they had a report on UFO's that would mean that UFOs were just a joke right? NO! While there may be aspects of ridicule and satire in the article and the source WNDR may be satire, the subject is quite real and the subject has been around for over a century. There are contemporary researchers covering this subject and making the same claims that the Smithsonian destroyed the evidence of these skeletons existence. See:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/DewhurstR1.php

"But the most amazing discoveries in California were eventually found on Catalina Island. In the 1920’s, the island of Catalina was owned by the Wrigley Chewing gum family, who hired Prof. Ralph Glidden to conduct a series of digs on the island under the direction of the Catalina Museum. What they found made headlines around the world, only to be written out of the history books less than 10 years later. In short, Glidden and his team exhumed the remains of 3,781 skeletons of a race of blond-haired giants. The tallest was believed to be a king who measured 9’2” tall and the average height of the skeletons was reported to be around 7 feet. In addition, the team found the remains of a megalithic “Stonehenge-era” temple. Later radio-carbon dating revealed that some of the skeletons unearthed were 7,000 years old. For over 50 years the proofs pertaining to these discoveries were vigorously denied by the University of California and The Smithsonian, but in 2011 it was finally admitted that the evidence for these finds had been locked away from the public in the restricted-access evidence rooms of the Smithsonian, along with detailed field reports and hundreds of photos."

OK I'm in... But this is a put up or shut up situation. I mean really I'm over 60 and been following all this (All things of an unusual nature) for most of that time, I don't outright dismiss anything.... Again, But, I need information, sources better than satire sites that publish outright bull**** lies that in their own right tend to totally discredit defame any real science that might at some time in the past have had some factual information to publish. I have, not, in all this time come across anything that I would consider reliable.

For instance they sight an age of 7,000 thousand years, who sighted that age and when, (after all carbon dating wasn't invented till the late 40's. I mean by that time they should have already been in full coverup mode! Locked away in that warehouse with the ark of the covenant right?) is there documentation of that, and who made this admission that "U of C and the Smithsonian" covered all this up, was it U of C and the Smithsonian.

Really I'm just into facts, not hearsay innuendo and out right BS from dubious sources.

[Doc]

I can start you with some facts of the accepted timeline for man in the Western Hemisphere. I am citing George Carter. Earlier Than You Think, Texas A&M University Press, 1980.

On page 7 he writes:"In the 1930's we were taught that the first immigrants entered America about 5,000 years ago, just prior to the beginning of the Neolithic, the time of revolutionary changes in life-style marked by the beginning of domestication of plants and animals."

A. L. Kroeber was the leading authority back then and he also considered a time for early man as recent as 2,500 to 3,000 years based on the belief that the entry of man into the Western Hemisphere was about the same time as the adoption of the (then) modern bow and aroow which just earlier thatn the time of Christ. That was considered an extreme date even then. 5,000 and under years was the generally accepted date in the 1930s.

Again citing Carter, from 1940 to 1970 the accepted earliest date was 10,000 and under. The figure usually given was 7,000 years, give or take several thousand. Carter began to fight for an earlier date, with practically no success at all, in 1950.(Page 15) There the subject lay until later finds and new and ever better dating systems pushed the date past 10,000 to the recently believed date of 12,000, taught in college as late as the 1960s.

I'd love to teach a course of the subject but I'm not able to do that. I have given you some facts and a pair of cites. The rest can be found with a little online searching.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-come-to-the-americas-4209273/?no-ist

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

[whoknows]

I can start you with some facts of the accepted timeline for man in the Western Hemisphere. I am citing George Carter. Earlier Than You Think, Texas A&M University Press, 1980.

On page 7 he writes:"In the 1930's we were taught that the first immigrants entered America about 5,000 years ago, just prior to the beginning of the Neolithic, the time of revolutionary changes in life-style marked by the beginning of domestication of plants and animals."

A. L. Kroeber was the leading authority back then and he also considered a time for early man as recent as 2,500 to 3,000 years based on the belief that the entry of man into the Western Hemisphere was about the same time as the adoption of the (then) modern bow and aroow which just earlier thatn the time of Christ. That was considered an extreme date even then. 5,000 and under years was the generally accepted date in the 1930s.

Again citing Carter, from 1940 to 1970 the accepted earliest date was 10,000 and under. The figure usually given was 7,000 years, give or take several thousand. Carter began to fight for an earlier date, with practically no success at all, in 1950.(Page 15) There the subject lay until later finds and new and ever better dating systems pushed the date past 10,000 to the recently believed date of 12,000, taught in college as late as the 1960s.

I'd love to teach a course of the subject but I'm not able to do that. I have given you some facts and a pair of cites. The rest can be found with a little online searching.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-did-humans-come-to-the-americas-4209273/?no-ist

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/

Actually Doc I have no argument with the even earlier dates for human immigration into North America, say at least 13,000 to 16,000 maybe even 20,000 years ago. I have felt that to be the case for many decades!

My question is to the validity of any verifiable evidence of giants Homo sapiens or sapient hominids at any time in history. The said evidence for that is lacking in mpov.

BTW This may be of interest.

First Peoples will air on Wednesdays, 9/8c, beginning June 24 on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/

[Doc]

Actually Doc I have no argument with the even earlier dates for human immigration into North America, say at least 13,000 to 16,000 maybe even 20,000 years ago. I have felt that to be the case for many decades!

My question is to the validity of any verifiable evidence of giants Homo sapiens or sapient hominids at any time in history. The said evidence for that is lacking in mpov.

BTW This may be of interest.

First Peoples will air on Wednesdays, 9/8c, beginning June 24 on PBS

http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/home/

Thanks for the link. The show looks very interesting and will probably have the latest accepted information.

I Understood you were asking for something factual about several areas of discussion. I kneew I could only help in one area, which I did. In all of the reading I have done I have not seen a single fact based account of giants such as you described. There is the occasional very tall human who is considered to be a human but not a normal human. Of course, just because I have not seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can say, though, even in the last few days online searches in that subject area don't give much in the way of results compared to other topics.

[whoknows]

Thanks for the link. The show looks very interesting and will probably have the latest accepted information.

I Understood you were asking for something factual about several areas of discussion. I kneew I could only help in one area, which I did. In all of the reading I have done I have not seen a single fact based account of giants such as you described. There is the occasional very tall human who is considered to be a human but not a normal human. Of course, just because I have not seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can say, though, even in the last few days online searches in that subject area don't give much in the way of results compared to other topics.

At some point in these discussion I think Occam's razor need come into play sooner than later. What really makes me a bit angry is how much more the waters are muddied by these non verifiable "facts."

Take for instances Gigantopithecus,(more closely related to the Orangutang) at least we have verifiable evidence for it's existence. Not so of any giant hominidea or any early type human. Honestly though after all this time I don't see any slacking of the spread of organic fertilizer. Which is kinda sad cuz that kind doesn't grow any good crop I know of.