Have explorers in Ecuador found ‘Lost City of Giants'?

Mugen
I don't think they mentioned the actual weight of one of the hammers.

Reminded me of something I read the other day. About Sultan Murad IV, in the 1600's:

A panopoly of badass # that included a custom-made rifled musket with a laser sight, flash/sound suppressor, and ACOG scope, an Odysseus-grade longbow, a 130-pound steel mace, and a massive broadsword that weighed in at 110 pounds.

Sultan Murad IV

That is a funny historical web sight... Thanks for posting !

coredrill
If you are so into Annunaki Giants, but still believe in basic physics, don't know about the "Square Cube Law"? which is also written about at here
Physically and Physiologically it is not possible for Giants to exist.
Maybe, genetic variations in a community could result in people of great sizes/heights, and maybe medical anomalies could result in giant/tall people like Robert Wadlow.
But not giants of 15 feet etc.

Well, actually, if you pay close attention when reading about the Square Cube Law as it applies to the stucture of biological organisms, what it says is that it is physically impossible for members of a given species to exceed certain size limits and still retain full functionality.

So yes, the Square Cube Law makes it clear that it is both physically and phisiologically impossible for Giant Humans to exist.

But who says they were human? By which I mean, members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Many other hominid species have been found by archaeologists and anthropologists, some of which differ quite drastically from the familiar Homo Sap form. The Square Cube Law makes it clear that humans couldn't have grown to immense heights once upon a time, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a hominid species that did grow to such heights.

BruceF
reply to post by Harte

 

Charlatan?

Certainly.

From your website:

We are personally aware of legends in that area that pertain to giant humans and their lost cities, in fact bones of giant people have been found in caves in the area – as well as in other parts of Ecuador

Right out in the middle of nowhere a couple of hours West from Sydney an extensive site has been found at Kariong which seems to strongly support the aural history of extra-terrestrials visiting earth in remote antiquity, remaining on a permanent basis and then engineering modern human beings. Around this site are found unique glyphs that tell a story of star heroes, rocks seemingly melted by extreme heat, caverns tunnelled with advanced engineering skills and strange energies detected on modern measuring devices

We share with you the events at an ancient stargate site in Cairo that led, just over two months later, to direct contact with an extra-terrestrial race, the Pleiadian beings that had piloted the ship to Earth one million years previous.

ow is it that we know so much? Long before the events of 2011 and 2012 there had already been connections between us and UFO´s and non-human beings, even an event involving the past life recall of having been on a ship that arrived to Earth on a mission to help the resident population long, long ago. From 2001 until present we have voyaged through a flow of supernormal events and psychic revelation that culminated in our understanding and remembering having been members of the crew of that Pleiadian mission.

The Kariong Glyphs site is the most argued over and controversial archaeological site in Australia. Decried as utterly bogus by authorities and sceptics, it is an archaeological ‘poison chalice.’ My colleagues and I have been denounced as “dumb and dumber,” “liars,” motivated by “money” while working in an “unscientific” manner driven by an unstated “agenda,” simply because we find fault in every explanation of a hoax and merit in the notion that some of hieroglyphs were carved by ancient Egyptians.

Charlatan? Yes. Liar? Absolutely.

And - for profit.

Harte

This is absolutely fascinating ! WOW


Just imagine the experience of being over there. Digging up such items, literally the possibility to rewrite history.

Thanks for the share OP

Namaste
~sacri~

I don't deny that could be a "hammer head" if it has holes or markings from where it was connected to a piece of wood, since it was so big it would take quite a bit of strong binding to hold it onto the wood, from my view of the picture it has neither, so in my case it looks more like a two handed crushing pestle, for maybe large amounts of seed or raw material crushing of some sort; face the rounded end down and palm against the flat squared end. All you would
Need is a good strong, maybe rounded or bowled surface? And even if it was so you would have be pretty strong to use it , but I guess that all depends on the markings left on the stone , if any. And that does not mean I deny the existence of giant beings, I just mean to say it may or may not be a hammer head

Hello,
Nice post and the other day I had the chance to speak to a man who claimed to be one of the researchers and shared stories and beliefs.
Where I live and these so called effigy mounds shaped like animals and other beings, them glorified grave robbers had unearthed remains of Giants.
These stories and the data is like night and day, concerning our myths and beliefs. Very interesting!

reply to post by chachonee


"the other day I had the chance to speak to a man who claimed to be one of the researchers and shared stories and beliefs.
Where I live and these so called effigy mounds shaped like animals and other beings, them glorified grave robbers had unearthed remains of Giants.
These stories and the data is like night and day, concerning our myths and beliefs."

Wow! Thanks for sharing that! Is there any chance that you could have this person chime into the conversation with any tidbits we can use to further delve into this? ATS-ers are so badd*ss at lifting legitimate finds to the public consciousness by ripping it to shreds. We have so little real info to go on, Rephaim/Annakim/Annunaki/Nibiruan/Tezcatlipocas/Titans/Giants notwithstanding.

reply to post by EzekielsWheel

Hello,
I will ask him, Cannot hurt to ask right? He is suppose to come to my area and I hope to finally meet him in person.

PrinceDreamerneeds a full investigation by qualified people and a lot more study before wild claims are made.

did you see the thread about the spear head found in a mammoth bone in Mexico that was totally covered up by not only the Mexicans but the US?

And if someone requests funding to investigate this site they will be either laughed at or ignored or intimidated or killed. so as far as it ever happening I wouldn't count on it so we're left with wild ideas.

bottleslingguy

PrinceDreamerneeds a full investigation by qualified people and a lot more study before wild claims are made.

did you see the thread about the spear head found in a mammoth bone in Mexico that was totally covered up by not only the Mexicans but the US?

Wow. That lie didn't take long, did it?

The motto is "Deny Ignorance" not "Create More Ignorance."

Harte

bottleslingguy

PrinceDreamerneeds a full investigation by qualified people and a lot more study before wild claims are made.

did you see the thread about the spear head found in a mammoth bone in Mexico that was totally covered up by not only the Mexicans but the US?

And if someone requests funding to investigate this site they will be either laughed at or ignored or intimidated or killed. so as far as it ever happening I wouldn't count on it so we're left with wild ideas.

I think you're mixing up a couple of different incidents. The spear tip found in mammoth bone was never covered up and was published rather prominently in 2011. It was a pretty crucial find because it predates Clovis culture and was one of the final nails in the Clovis First hypothesis. news.nationalgeographic.com...

The alleged cover up the site, Hueyatlaco was not covered up either. The issue with that site was the dating predates current accepted timlines by a factor of 10. When you make an extraordinary claim it must be backed up by extraordinary evidence. Most of which was not forthcoming until the last decade or so. One thing a lot of people seem to not understand is that just because its not on the nightly news or their twitter feed then nobody is talking about it or its being hushed up. With the Hueyatlaco site it has been an ongoing debate for over 50 years with several papers being published per decade. It's generally only punished unscientific journals that the MSM ignores until a consensus is come to regarding the data. The other problem with Hueyatlaco is that none of the finding have been reproduced elsewhere and no human remains have been found associated with the tools. For the original date of 250,000 years it couldn't have been modern humans and the most likely candidate is Homo Erectus which there is no evidence of anywhere as inthe Americas. Now dont get me wrong, I'd love for the dates of Hueyatlaco to pan out. Even with the most recent dates of 75,000-125,000 years it would be a paradigm altering event for anthropology and paleontology. Most of the evidence at Hueyatlaco points to a very old date for humans in the Americas. What we need now is another site that corroborates Hueyatlaco.

reply to post by Harte


what lie?

why are you the head debunker on all things archeology? if you support the main stream science which we all know is full of it then that makes you what? www.s8int.com...

reply to post by peter vlar


the extraordinary evidence was as simple as the diatoms which proved it conclusively. Separate the b.s. from the science and you have one hell of a body of evidence. People who try to downplay this by pointing out McIntyre went out of protocol by publishing without approval as if it changes the scientific proof are obviously blocking the truth from their minds.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


No. The diatoms are a very convincing piece if the puzzle but extraordinary evidence would have been human remains or an additional site dating to the same age with the same types of tools. Since this isn't a laboratory experiment that can be Independantly reproduced you have to ge able to reproduce the site or results. I've said it several times, I'd love for this age to he true but that doesn't mean that you drop rigorous methodology simply because you want something to be true.

reply to post by peter vlar

problem with rigorous scientific study is that at some point a human has to be involved and that's where things that challenge the official word get shelved. sure science is great but people will say and do some irrational things in contrast to what the science says in order to save their jobs.

reply to post by bottleslingguy


I keep hearing that but its far less common than you would seem to think. Personally I find that more scientists are willing to tick their neck out in hopes of being the first to introduce a paradigm altering event or site. You're certainly entitled to that opinion if it jives with you but having been through a graduate level anthropology program I can say first hand that the competition between everyone in regards to oneupmanship is very real. Everyone was trying to outdo someone else and present the more impressive hypothesis for testing. Think of it like high school football for nerds.

peter vlar
reply to post by bottleslingguy

 

I keep hearing that but its far less common than you would seem to think.

that's probably because it only has to happen where it really counts. What kinds of challenges did you guys get involved with? You mention paradigm changing stuff, what kind for example? Stuff that's still within an accepted range won't be so paradigm changing but the few amazing details that are irrefutable are the ones that get fiddled with but the worst is that they are ignored. Even McIntyre couldn't believe the time frames, come on you can't tell me the idea is irrational. I'll bet these people were the Annunaki who first came here half a million years ago in some sort of Survivor Earth reality show to prove which bloodlines were hearty and crafty enough to earn the honor of populating a new planet. We talk about populating planets, why is it unreasonable to think someone already has?

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte

 

what lie?

why are you the head debunker on all things archeology? if you support the main stream science which we all know is full of it then that makes you what? www.s8int.com...

edit on 14-1-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah.

Linking a Creationist website - that'll establish your credibility.

If you want me to be the "head debunker," I will be.

But first, I would require at least an iota of evidence that you possess one.

Harte

Harte

bottleslingguy
reply to post by Harte

 

what lie?

why are you the head debunker on all things archeology? if you support the main stream science which we all know is full of it then that makes you what? www.s8int.com...

edit on 14-1-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

Oh yeah.

Linking a Creationist website - that'll establish your credibility.

If you want me to be the "head debunker," I will be.

But first, I would require at least an iota of evidence that you possess one.

Harte

one what? a head debunker? head debunkers need good grammar first, too.

And as far as your method you should attack the data but oh gee guess what? no one can find it. imagine that?

bottleslingguy
that's probably because it only has to happen where it really counts. What kinds of challenges did you guys get involved with? You mention paradigm changing stuff, what kind for example? Stuff that's still within an accepted range won't be so paradigm changing but the few amazing details that are irrefutable are the ones that get fiddled with but the worst is that they are ignored.

I realize in hindsite that I opened Pandora's box with my statement but I'm not terribly comfortable getting into specifics of work I have done in the past. There's a reason people don't use their real names or have their facebook accounts linked to their profiles on this site. As a generalization I will say that what I was doing involved Neanderthals and possibilities for their demise. One hypothesis I worked on wasn't able to be tested at the time due to technological limitations and I now believe, due to new data over the past 15 years, that while my hypothesis may have played a role, it was not in and of itself the root cause.

Even McIntyre couldn't believe the time frames, come on you can't tell me the idea is irrational. I'll bet these people were the Annunaki who first came here half a million years ago in some sort of Survivor Earth reality show to prove which bloodlines were hearty and crafty enough to earn the honor of populating a new planet. We talk about populating planets, why is it unreasonable to think someone already has?

I love how you follow up a statement about an irrational idea with an Annunaki hypothesis. It isn't unreasonable to think that per se however presenting it with nothing to support the idea is disingenuous and dangerous.


a little addendum related to your response to Harte-

And as far as your method you should attack the data but oh gee guess what? no one can find it. imagine that?

This link has within it a dearth of published data relating to Hueyatlaco including data from Irwin-Williams the data is there if you know where to look.
www.archaeologyfieldwork.com...