Smithsonian Institution admits to destroying thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in early 1900's

a reply to: Vrill There are all kinds of cover-ups. Like the Mayans came from the Midwest of America. I saw an episode of Unearthing America, where it was either Scott Wolter or his guest had seen an ancient map of America and in the Midwest part of the map printing said ancient home of the Mayans. He said the reason that was never included on future maps was to prove no one was here when we claimed the land. They also went on to mention that The Mayans also lived in Florida that is where Miami came from it was first Mayanami when the Spanish explored Florida + The Mayans used a blue dye that can be found no where in Mexico but is abundant in Georgia.

a reply to: LA1IMPALA

Just because this is the LOL forum doesn't mean you should try to outdo the OP.

a reply to: Grimpachi LOL , I cant help it

a reply to: Sabiduria
I think there could be some truth to the idea that the Smithsonian holds back any info that contradicts the mainstream theory put forth. I too watched the searching for lost giants. One of the many clues i thought of was the New York Giants . everyone assumes they are named after skyscrapers in NY city. In fact they took their name from the NY GIANTS baseball team started in 1883 , no skyscrapers then just giants being dug up.

There is a disclaimer posted at the top of every World News Daily Report page. This disclaimer has been quoted below in its entirety:

World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

I've talked (candidly and off the record) to forest rangers and fire personnel in both Oregon and Montana and a retired LEO from Idaho that have admitted, one sitting atop a fie lookout, miles from anywhere, Montana and another along the Collawash river in Oregon (very secluded) that there are indeed cover ups of the Sasquatch and other such creatures going on in levels above them and they know, as I do, that these creatures exist but play along as if everything's on the up and up.

A cover up is something anyone paying the matter any attention at all should be able to accept, IMHO. It's ludicrous to think the Smithsonian has never, at the very least, curved history to certain benefactor's appetites and or agendas. Especially when you're talking about large sums of money and historical direction that could effect so much if disclosed.

Now I know from experience the level of open mindedness existing here with such topics but am hopeful that there might be someone willing to step away from the television's viewpoint and quick visits to snopes to discuss this topic with me?? As I believe this to be related to the red haired giants found in the Americas. My intentions are not to convince anyone of anything, just looking for info.

I believe this has more to do with this thread than mods might allow but I wanted to hear from anyone that might have similar experiences or information, not googled info about the red haired giants. I actually did have conversations with these agency people and know there to be... Things, existing that are kept out and away from public admission.

Again, not trying to convince anyone of anything, just looking for information and I hope there's someone with experience that might talk with me after all the snickering and jokes rattle off? Many cheers!! A pm is good too!

a reply to: spookysully

It's funny. I saw someone in another thread about this state to provide one bone, just one bone of a giant human...from any country...

There are many, but it goes right back to the paradigms supporting themselves. The bones found from gigantopithecus have been several molars and ONE partial jaw bone. The molars are indistinguishable from Human molars and the jaw is slightly larger proportionally. All of the depictions you see of gigantopithecus are fabrications. They are illustrations based on nothing but the imaginings of people that like to call themselves scientists.

Don't trust me, go find out for yourselves. Look for actual evidences rather than contrived propaganda and it becomes clear that the modern paradigms are so full of holes that my sillouette targets are more solid.

Jaden

a reply to: Sabiduria

I think this is a hoax because in the article there is not one lead to be found to official document numbers, case numbers or names of judges/ officials or smithsonian whisleblowers that are connected to the with the case.

James Churward and his comment can easily be explained to be not directly linked with the alledged court case. Then there is Hans Guttenberg, a colleque of Churward and both working for the American Institution of Alternative Archeology. I just can not find their website..

Does not take away the truth about giants tho...

a reply to: Sabiduria
Here's an interesting treatment of the whole Giant phenomenon, and how it applies to the American west.
"Giants" and Typologies of Race: The Example of Dinaric Skulls
A hint, though...it doesn't support the legends.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Not going to even try to dislodge your beliefs in what you can google. I am only saying that to perpetually claim that the Smithsonian is only providing the masses with truth is simply foolish. We're talking about some mighty big money being thrown around and by some, oft times, powerful people, for me to think they might have agendas beyond your admiration for them, seems quite likely.

Your reference to gigantopithecus is not applicable with me as this creature isn't in my discussion but as a strawman, it might serve you well.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: spookysully

It's funny. I saw someone in another thread about this state to provide one bone, just one bone of a giant human...from any country...

There are many, but it goes right back to the paradigms supporting themselves. The bones found from gigantopithecus have been several molars and ONE partial jaw bone. The molars are indistinguishable from Human molars and the jaw is slightly larger proportionally. All of the depictions you see of gigantopithecus are fabrications. They are illustrations based on nothing but the imaginings of people that like to call themselves scientists.

Don't trust me, go find out for yourselves. Look for actual evidences rather than contrived propaganda and it becomes clear that the modern paradigms are so full of holes that my sillouette targets are more solid.

Jaden

An overview that appears on wiki does not seem to support your statements. May I ask your qualifications as an anthropologist?

Here you go, links to original articles, copies of Original docs in Smithsonian archives, just needed to look a little harder.

THE BOOK: archive.org.../n7/mode /2up

archive.org.../112/mo de/2up

And the other pages:

archive.org.../362/mo de/2up

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Read the original documents. The link below is to the original documents, go to the pages 113 and 362 and draw your own conclusions. It would appear that there was indeed large skeletons unearthed.

archive.org.../n7/mode /2up

a reply to: soficrow

The original documents are below, the news site just created a story around it, which i imagine was a way of drawing attention to a subject which is so easily discarded. I have found the original article source here, online, click it and read through for yourself.

archive.org.../n7/mode /2up

Page 113 and page 362 appear to have the information which was cited in the world news article.

originally posted by: Nustle
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Read the original documents. The link below is to the original documents, go to the pages 113 and 362 and draw your own conclusions. It would appear that there was indeed large skeletons unearthed.

Cyrus Thomas, who prepared the report, was not a field archaeologist. He had hired staff who did the investigations, and in the absence of empirical evidence we really should consider the reports in the context of their times. Thomas did much to dispel the 'vanished race' theories prevalent in those days, in fact he originally believed them but by the publishing of the1894 BE volume, he had changed his mind. Yes, there are reports of giant skeletons...certainly tall very people existed then as they do now. But there is no evidence that these were a 'people', nor are there any remains to examine.

There were very good reasons for America to promote the premise of the vanished race of giants, and these were a combination of religious convenience and a greed for land. Such theories could be used to explain away the very inconvenient fact that there ought not to have been native peoples in the Americas...sure don't say so in the scriptures. Also, they could be used to disenfranchise the First Nations in order to justify their extermination and the theft of their lands. Not to mention go to support the Mormon religion.

And we need not over-analyzse the press of the day...that's easy to dismiss. Ask yourself, why is this strictly an American phenomenon? We have no such reports in Canada. Cover-up? Archaeologists are a notoriously humourless bunch when they figure their data is being screwed with, and secrets don't last very long...especially, as I mentioned, when there's a beer on the table. I've said all this before, but I figure your reference to the BE report deserved a response. The story is not in why there is a repression of an ancient race of giants in America...the story is in why we are being asked to believe it.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: Nustle
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Read the original documents. The link below is to the original documents, go to the pages 113 and 362 and draw your own conclusions. It would appear that there was indeed large skeletons unearthed.

Cyrus Thomas, who prepared the report, was not a field archaeologist. He had hired staff who did the investigations, and in the absence of empirical evidence we really should consider the reports in the context of their times. Thomas did much to dispel the 'vanished race' theories prevalent in those days, in fact he originally believed them but by the publishing of the1894 BE volume, he had changed his mind. Yes, there are reports of giant skeletons...certainly tall very people existed then as they do now. But there is no evidence that these were a 'people', nor are there any remains to examine.

There were very good reasons for America to promote the premise of the vanished race of giants, and these were a combination of religious convenience and a greed for land. Such theories could be used to explain away the very inconvenient fact that there ought not to have been native peoples in the Americas...sure don't say so in the scriptures. Also, they could be used to disenfranchise the First Nations in order to justify their extermination and the theft of their lands. Not to mention go to support the Mormon religion.

And we need not over-analyzse the press of the day...that's easy to dismiss. Ask yourself, why is this strictly an American phenomenon? We have no such reports in Canada. Cover-up? Archaeologists are a notoriously humourless bunch when they figure their data is being screwed with, and secrets don't last very long...especially, as I mentioned, when there's a beer on the table. I've said all this before, but I figure your reference to the BE report deserved a response. The story is not in why there is a repression of an ancient race of giants in America...the story is in why we are being asked to believe it.

I don't think anyone will argue that victors write histories and after the genocide committed (but never talked about) against the native people of the US and Canada and Mexico the history books are pretty much devoid of any Native traditions or histories, religion or love of the land as they're all looked at as silly or superstitious. There are certainly Native people that talk about giants and not just one tribe but many. You'll have to wade through old whitey telling you how its... You guessed it, superstitious silliness on most sources but there are some with a more native feel which I trust wholeheartedly more than the others.

Skeptoid

Native lore

Prevailing opinions of us superior white men aside, its funny to read what the skeptics have to say regarding the way in which evidences were gathered. "It's a fact that earliest excavations of Lovelock Cave were exceedingly destructive, and unscientific in the extreme." But then the writer carries on as if there's nothing to his first bit about the excavations... Hilarious! "So let's take a look at the known history of Lovelock Cave to see when and where these red-haired giants may have lived and died." Basically saying, ok, everything is either destroyed or stolen but, let's base our skeptical decision on what's left! WTH? The comments are filled with banter worthy of ATS as well.

The smithsonian has worked with the edison family to cover up where their father came up with electricity. He stole it from tesla. But its in th e history books so it wont be changed.Even though there was proof to th e contrary i f i remember.

a reply to: Sabiduria

The only reason to hide it, if it were true, is because the reality would annoy the evolutionists so much.

a reply to: Sabiduria

I've heard this rumor but there is no official page suggesting they admit it.

a reply to: LA1IMPALA

The only reason to hide it, if it were true, is because the reality would annoy the evolutionists so much.