Archaeological Suppression

I'm a firm evolutionist, but I don't always agree with mainstream biology in the finer details of how the process unfolds. For one, I think that Lamarck's ideas have a lot more credence than they're given (In combination with Darwin, not separate from).

I also get annoyed by those charts of paleo-humans walking in a markedly bent style, and then becoming progressively more upright-bipedal and taller with each walking man. It gives such an impression of linear development and its almost as if its placing the end result as superior to all of the other forms.

I'm pretty certain that evolution is more like a line graph of recorded temperature over time at a particular location, where there's countless chaotic ups and downs but still an overall trend.



Some of the evidence that has lead me to to this conclusion:
1. The sheer variety of modern Homo sapiens on this planet in every physical characteristic
2. The amount of difficulty that paleoanthropolgists have on coming to a consesus on the species to which any specimen belongs (further confusticated by the problem that a "species" doesn't really exist)
3. Homo floriensis, the extremely recent "hobbit" of indonesia
4. An interesting account about an ATSer's childhood encounter with primitive men

Anyway (with that perspective in mind), I came across the following site a while ago and was pretty taken aback by it. It opened up a whole realm for me of hidden fossils and suppressed data concerning archaeology. The first half wasn't too powerful as far as the evidence presented goes, but the Giant Humans subsection had me quite astounded.

ourworld.compuserve.com...

It's not that any particular account or explanation hit me with a major epiphany or had a lot of credibility, it's that there's so much of it. There's dozens of names, places, and dates, far too much for me to just dismiss it all off-handedly. Since then I've gone on to read through dozens of other Giant-related texts from throughout the Net.

So is there some secret warehouse underneath the Smithsonian that's full of classified 9 feet tall hominids, or am I just immensely gullible? And I'm talking about organized tool-wielders, not Gigantopithecus big feet.

Zak, They are the nephilim, they had six fingers and 6 toes. Some of them had 2 rows of teeth. They have been digging up the bones for years. In the 1800's they found them in California burried in caves. They were between 9' and 14' tall. It was said the authories got rid of the bones. The giant bones have been discovered all over the US and other countires. They are said to still be alive in the Soloman Islands.

Here's some interesting links.
www.burlingtonnews.net...
www.returnofthenephilim.com...
www.geocities.com...
www.stevequayle.com...

Originally posted by Zaknafein
For one, I think that Lamarck's ideas have a lot more credence than they're given (In combination with Darwin, not separate from).

How so? They're kind of anti-thetical. Lamarck was an evolutionist however his rather complex theories about how change came about seem at odds with natural selection and adaptation to me.

I also get annoyed by those charts of paleo-humans walking in a markedly bent style, and then becoming progressively more upright-bipedal and taller with each walking man. It gives such an impression of linear development and its almost as if its placing the end result as superior to all of the other forms.

I'm pretty certain that evolution is more like a line graph of recorded temperature over time at a particular location, where there's countless chaotic ups and downs but still an overall trend.
In some cases there ends up being a strong trend, but in most cases there doesn't seem to be a real progression. Horses, for example, don't show this. A common 'trend' within horses is larger teeth, larger size, and a reduction in the number of toes, however there are many species of horse that reverse this supposed 'trend' and go off in their own direction.

As long as there is continuous selective pressure, you'll get trends. I don't think that lamarckism can explain these patterns effectively tho.

but the Giant Humans subsection had me quite astounded.

he Smithsonian Institution apparently took possession of the remains, but they were never heard of again. ‘Is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?’ Sanderson wondered.17

There are a lot of accounts like this, however they're almost allways quite baseless. The Smithsonian doesn't gather up and hide revolutionary specimins. If anything, the people that work there have an interest in making such specimins public. It'd make their careers.

In 1958 Louis Leakey announced that he had found a giant human molar on Middle Pleistocene living floors at Olduvai in Tanzania, in association with many giant herbivores, including two giant pigs the size of a hippopotamus, with teeth like normal elephant tusks.19 Further details about the tooth are lacking.

Leaky certainly wouldn't sit on such information. No more was probably heard because it either didn't happen like they are describing it or because it ended up not being a giant molar.

Writing in 1880, one of the adepts behind the formation of the Theosophical Society referred to the reigning scepticism toward the idea of gigantic human ancestors, saying that ‘their huge frames when found are invariably regarded as isolated freaks of nature’, and added that in the Himalayas, on the territory of British India, ‘we have a cave full of the skeletons of these giants’.

The theosophists are not a good soure for scientific information. They were a sort of esoteric-philosophic society that used all sorts of 'mystical' means to get their information. For all we know from that quote one of them 'channeled' the 'spirit' of a tibetan 'sage' who told them these things, without ever having been to the himalyas.

Most of the rest of the page after that cites things like bigfoot and the orang pendek as evidence of giant humans.

I don't see any good information about revolutionary fossil discoveries being supressed. At most I'd bet that these are cases of strange reports beign exaggerated, and then when they ended up not being particularly interesting on further investigation, people just didn't pass the information around.

IOW, poor research on the part of the webpage organizers.


Mauiostacie:

Which of those pages do you find convincing? Only one has any sort of citation section and even that is just refering to other 'mystrious subjects' books. I don't see any serious research being done there or any evidence that these things actually exist.

[edit on 28-7-2005 by Nygdan]

I absolutely have no doubt there were 'giants' as well as some sorts of 'little people' in our not-too-distant past. Close enough to leave evidence but distant enough to be pushed under the rug of 'myth.'

But I also don't think there's any such thing as a 'fictional' myth--they are all sprung up from an ancient truth somewhere. If myths were fiction, we wouldn't have them!

Originally posted by queenannie38
Close enough to leave evidence

Such as what?

If myths were fiction, we wouldn't have them!

There are little people, and stories about them might be transformed into fairies and piskies, but that doesn't mean fairies are real.

As for giant humans, I think that its got nothing to do with especially large people. The past is allways seen as being better, bolder, bigger. It's allways a 'golden' age when men were the threats were huge and the victories were enourmous and even the heroes themselves, as a result of this nostalgia and disatisfaction with present times (whether its for a manhattanite in this century or a hebrew sheep herder in a previous one) results in stories about giants amoung men.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Such as what?

Archeological ruins, also ancient writings. Mainly remains of things which were built by much larger humans.

[edit on 7/29/2005 by queenannie38]

How so? They're kind of anti-thetical. Lamarck was an evolutionist however his rather complex theories about how change came about seem at odds with natural selection and adaptation to me.

I don't see why they have to be exclusive. Darwinism is undoubtedly responsible for most of the significant macro changes, but it seems that it would be advantageous to have perhaps "impressionable" DNA that can be altered over the course of a lifetime. If my past thirty generations of ancestors all developed strong neck-muscles in their lifetimes, it might be beneficial for me to have the same.

Admittedly--if it exists--its subtle, and for the moment I'm not going off much more than intuition (it makes a lot of sense at face value). Still, I'd like to find a way to test it, as I haven't yet seen anything that looked sufficient to either discredit or confirm the possibility. Unfortunately I think that such an experiment would rely heavily upon genome-mapping, which is beyond my capacity at the moment.

If anything, the people that work there have an interest in making such specimins public. It'd make their careers.

That's a reassuring thought, yet I'm still going to have to research the matter more. The Fringes tend to be thoroughly full of BS, but I always discover something cool about every myth (both modern and ancient) that I put enough time looking into.

It might be some anomalous form of natural preservation, it might be an unknown burial tradition, it might be an overlooked species of mammalian megafauna...but there's something there and I'll probably find it eventually.

I just don't have it in me to completely discredit what seems to be a somewhat widespread phenomenon.

Originally posted by Zaknafein
So is there some secret warehouse underneath the Smithsonian that's full of classified 9 feet tall hominids,

No. And why the Smithsonian? They don't control globally archaeology/palaeontology......

The simple fact is, that there is no evidence for a race of 'giants'.

Is this something you've confirmed yourself, or is just what 'they' have said? Because unless you can say you have seen for yourself there is none, how do you know? The possibility exists until it is ruled out. And the suggestion of the powers that be is not a 'rule out.' It is a subtle form of creating conformity to necessary 'facts' so that the truth won't come out.

This is a conspiracy forum, right? JK

Originally posted by queenannie38
Mainly remains of things which were built by much larger humans.

What demonstrates that they were built by giants tho? Just because they are of large scale??

The possibility exists until it is ruled out

Anything is possible, but there is no evidence for the assertion that there were giant humans.

And the suggestion of the powers that be is not a 'rule out.'

It has nothing to do with the opinions of people who claim to have authority. The evidence presented is what its all based on. Stories of giants are better accounted by simply myth and mistakes about existing fossils, rather than there actually being a race of giant humans, who have left no remains.

Zaknafein
If my past thirty generations of ancestors all developed strong neck-muscles in their lifetimes, it might be beneficial for me to have the same.

It might be, but the biology and chemistry shows that information flows from the genome to the organism, not the other way around.

it makes a lot of sense at face value

It does. The Chevalier d'Lamarck was no slouch. His theory is actually very detailed and interesting, from what I understand, it gets short shrift in most texts. Ultimately its wrong, but usually what is presented (especialyl in high school textbooks, but also in the wider literature) is something of a 'straw man'.

That's a reassuring thought, yet I'm still going to have to research the matter more.

Can't go wrong with that.

but I always discover something cool about every myth (both modern and ancient) that I put enough time looking into.

The page you cited orignally notes a book by Adiren Mayor that you might like then. Its called the 'First Fossil Hunters". Basically she finds that the stories about giant heros, fantastical monsters, etc, are all associated with places that are highly fossiliferous. For example, there is a place in greece that the ancients said was the site of the Titanomachy (the war between the olympians and the titans). Its a place were the ground looks scorched and is very hot (from zeus's thunderbolts), and the bones of these heroic titans can still be found. Whats actually going on is that there are (i think in this particular case) coal seams that ignite and smolder, yes underground, and there are lots of mammalian megafauna fossils in the deposists the erod out on occasions. So you have disarticulated giant femurs and giant shoulder blades, giant teeth, etc, that look very much like those of man, but are actually elephants, wooly rhinos, etc etc. Its another example of the triumph of science over superstition. A foreward thinking greek of those times might've noted that tehre are a lot of bones, and how could a perosn grow that big, and why aren't there bones specific to humans, and what are these other animal bones, and how could it still be hot, it'd've had to be real hot, too hot, to still be cooling off, but be brushed aside by pious, faithful, well intention but ultimately superstitiou greeks. 'With zeus, all things are possible' etc etc.

Sounds interesting, I'll be sure to check it out.