Multiple Giant Skeletons Found in Nevada Early 20th Century

www.msn.com... =msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=9b03f6ec79d84e6598550b754311d820&ei=30

nypost.com...

However, subsequent excavations in 1912 and 1924 unearthed a plethora of ancient artifacts, including a remarkably oversized sandal, similar to a modern-day size 29 shoe, and carbon-dated human bone fragments and plant material spanning from 2030 BC to 1218 BC.

Furthermore, in 1931, the Nevada Review-Miner reported the finding of two mummified skeletons outside Lovelock, measuring 8.5 and 10 feet respectively, with distinctive red hair.

While some attribute the hair color to environmental factors, it aligns intriguingly with Paiute legends of the Si-Te-Cah, a tribe of red-headed giants who met a tragic fate at the hands of the local tribes.

I read somewhere that years ago the narrow-minded brain trust in the Smithsonian Institute declared that giants didn't exist and arranged for skeletons and evidence to disappear. sorry no source.

this article is from April but apparently no new discoveries in decades. I guess somebody just decided to recycle the info.
the links just go back to the Front Page Detective site, not the specific article.

so how many believe these giants existed, in some numbers? and the scientists of the day decided to cover up?

www.ancient-origins.net...

other article with more info

A few of the professionals reporting these skeletal finds were Dr. Walter B. Jones, Moundsville Alabama (7ft 6 and many 7-footers); Dr. Forrest Clements Head of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma (six 7ft skeletons); Dr. Donald A. Cadzow Cambridge University (7ft 5in skeleton found in Pittsburgh with many other large skeletons with anatomic anomalies reported); Dr. Byron Cummings, head of the archaeology department at the University of Arizona, considered the “ Dean of Southwestern Archaeology" (several over 8-footers); Thomas Wilson, Curator of Prehistoric Anthropology at the Smithsonian (verified an 8-foot skeleton with massive jawbone); W. J. Holland, curator of the Carnegie Museum (unearthed an over 8 ft skeleton in Pennsylvania as reported in many scientific journals including Scientific American).

I don't pay much attention to finding single skeletons; they might have been part of the regular populace. I'm curious about groups and families of them.

I don't think all the indegenous people and different tribes made up these legends that are world wide. I also think the Smythsonian has hidden of destroyed a lot of things because it doesn't 'follow the science' that the establishment needs us to believe in.

What if the Hopi were right, and mankind-in his insatiable greed and lust for power-have destroyed three worlds before this one? Scientific evidence to support such a legend would most certainly take away the power to control humanity that we live under now.

a reply to: Coelacanth55

Classic ATS thread

I've heard of these finds as well. Doesn't help when the "experts" are disinterested or appear to have an agenda other than contributing to human knowledge.

Cheers

a reply to: Coelacanth55

The tallest man in the world today. In 2009, Sultan Kösen became the first man over 8 ft to be measured by Guinness World Records for more than 20 years. Giants are rare but still around today. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was 7 ft 2 in in his prime.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Coelacanth55

Classic ATS thread

I've heard of these finds as well. Doesn't help when the "experts" are disinterested or appear to have an agenda other than contributing to human knowledge.
Cheers

Sometimes, lack of engagement or contribution is they, the scientists, have no clue and are covering up for their ignorance.

a reply to: charlest2
Giantism is real, existed in my own family some 3 generations ago. My grandmother described her brother as 'man-sized at age 11' and he died the following year (upon hitting adolescence).

It is the groupings that interest me. One-offs could be some sort of genetic throwback but whole families? Groups? Did they procreate and was there some difference between then and now that allowed more to survive beyond adolescence?

Giants are/were real. The Smithsonian and other agencies collectively hide this shared history because it sets are taught paradigm (one moons, one sun, one God, one species of intelligence meant to rule the earth) into a tail-spin.

Just like Bigfoot is part of Northern Native American calendars (13 months mind you) along with deer, turtle, eagle etc.

I was just thinking about the red-haired giant of Kandahar that battled troops there and was slain. Of course you’ll never get anyone to admit they still exist. And all excavated skeletons are white-washed and “buried”.

In fact in my home town there was a story relating faints if 12 feet being found when the Spanish settlers founded the area of the coast I reside in. Besides, there are multiple structures across the US which are clearly larger than human life would have needed or were able to be built.

Cool thread. I find this stuff absolutely fascinating!

Thanks OP.

I don't think of 7-8 or even 10ft as a giant, but just a very big human.
I suspect in ancient times that giants as described in the Bible and other ancient texts did exist. Another race of people entirely that disappeared. A people that may have averaged 16ft or more in height. I think they were likely highly outnumbered by normal sized people but often ruled over groups of them by terrorism through their great size and strength. My theory there was rebellion (David vs Goliath for example) and the rebellion became widespread and the race of true giants was killed off the planet.

What is more interesting to me and far more significant is that red headed giants exist in myth, legends and oral history across the globe. South central and North America all have legends and supposed sightings of them in the early, pre colonisation days. North Africa, Europe, the Middle East, India and Asia. In fact pretty much everywhere. So why would they hide this from us?

a reply to: Coelacanth55

Is the consensus worried about nephilim or something? Don't want a race of giants wiped out by flood?

I can't make judgement here though. There's multiple hominid lineages and even insular gigantism to consider. Humans may not always go the the dwarfism route with "Island syndrome". Population could have split.

But they'd be beyond accurate direct carbon dating. My guess is between 1.8 million and 40,000 years ago.

First there was human known, then Neanderthal was discovered, then a subpopulation of neaderthal called The Denisovan, and all around the world. As of now @ 120,000 YBP there were like 7 or 8 living hominid species (that we've discovered).

It's like the Bible can't be partially right.

Perhaps there was a "hominid explosion" that happened, like other biological niche explosions, and quite possibly some long divergent lineages survive into more modern times under some no contact instinct.

Of course lack of evidence needs a mass conspiracy to explain why no even buried remains have ever been found. Assuming all upright hominids bury their dead.

But there's plausible and biological reasons that shouldn't be killed for lack of evidence. Maybe before natural selection selected homo sapien there were like 20 or 30 fighting it out too.

It happens with dominate bio-epochs, like age of sea creatures, age of dinosaurs, and age of Mammals, with specific niches being filled or exploited due to lack of predation.

Maybe there's an evolutionary mechanism to why some got larger in comparison that ultimate failed as "a early evolution of hominid".

You can be open-minded on this without being a total killjoy.

there's a fair amount of talk in the edge of Bible scholarship about the Nephilim being giants (Bible mentions)

several theories that they were demon seed and were close to wiping out humanity, and God flooded the world and saved Noah and his family as they were the only 'pure' humans.

there was a little contamination, as there were a few giants after the flood (Goliath and family), but not the masses of them threatening humanity.

stories of Native Americans tracking them down and exterminating. sounds cruel but self-defense.

Why does this debunked old trope keep reoccurring?

Skeletons were found in a cave. That matches the Paiute legends. They had red hair, as would be expected. Black hair turns red in mummified remains as the pigment decays and oxidizes.

However -- the skeletons were normal sized. You can see photos of the cave recovery in the Nevada State Museum. They are normal sized for the native populations of the era.

The story of 'giants' was an embellishment by an overeager reporter.

skeptoid.com...

originally posted by: Coelacanth55
several theories that they were demon seed and were close to wiping out humanity, and God flooded the world and saved Noah and his family as they were the only 'pure' humans.

Pretty sure bible says something about these giants finding human women very attractive and 'mating' with them? Perhaps too many of these raped women died in childbirth (part of the 'wiping out').

As the bible is all about the god of the ME, I think people assume words such as 'pure' relate only to spiritual matters. In this case, I would argue pure also means Noah and his sons knew how to keep their women folk away from giant lascivious eyes, making their bloodline fully human.

a reply to: Coelacanth55

The interesting thing about the Lovelock Giants story is that it's internally consistent and not physically impossible. So don't just dismiss it. Put it in the "plausible" basket.

originally posted by: dave5426
Skeletons were found in a cave. That matches the Paiute legends. They had red hair, as would be expected. Black hair turns red in mummified remains as the pigment decays and oxidizes.

However -- the skeletons were normal sized.

Don't you realize that means any mummified remains of Native Americans, if old enough, would have red hair?

So, finding red-haired, mummified remains of Native Americans would be expected, whether or not there also were giants?

originally posted by: dave5426
Why does this debunked old trope keep reoccurring?

Skeletons were found in a cave. That matches the Paiute legends. They had red hair, as would be expected. Black hair turns red in mummified remains as the pigment decays and oxidizes.

However -- the skeletons were normal sized. You can see photos of the cave recovery in the Nevada State Museum. They are normal sized for the native populations of the era.

The story of 'giants' was an embellishment by an overeager reporter.

skeptoid.com...

Oh. You’re referring to one instance. Pretty neat.

Now do the hundreds of others throughout time.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Coelacanth55

Is the consensus worried about nephilim or something? Don't want a race of giants wiped out by flood?

I can't make judgement here though. There's multiple hominid lineages and even insular gigantism to consider. Humans may not always go the the dwarfism route with "Island syndrome". Population could have split.

But they'd be beyond accurate direct carbon dating. My guess is between 1.8 million and 40,000 years ago.

First there was human known, then Neanderthal was discovered, then a subpopulation of neaderthal called The Denisovan, and all around the world. As of now @ 120,000 YBP there were like 7 or 8 living hominid species (that we've discovered).

It's like the Bible can't be partially right.

Perhaps there was a "hominid explosion" that happened, like other biological niche explosions, and quite possibly some long divergent lineages survive into more modern times under some no contact instinct.

Of course lack of evidence needs a mass conspiracy to explain why no even buried remains have ever been found. Assuming all upright hominids bury their dead.

But there's plausible and biological reasons that shouldn't be killed for lack of evidence. Maybe before natural selection selected homo sapien there were like 20 or 30 fighting it out too.

It happens with dominate bio-epochs, like age of sea creatures, age of dinosaurs, and age of Mammals, with specific niches being filled or exploited due to lack of predation.

Maybe there's an evolutionary mechanism to why some got larger in comparison that ultimate failed as "a early evolution of hominid".

You can be open-minded on this without being a total killjoy.

Denisovans were not a subspecies of h. Neanderthalensis. They were a completely different (and much larger) species of the Homo genus.

a reply to: FloridaManMatty

Well that's why you check and don't go off memory, right? It was something about a cave both were found in. Corrected.

I don't think that lineage is related to any missed giants. Which was what the main comment was about.

a reply to: charlest2

He looks pretty cool about it.

I wonder if that's what they meant when they wrote about the "sultans of swing"?