Smithsonian Cover Up of Giant Humans


NightTerrors

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
64
The discovery of bones of giants, buried under Indian Mounds across the US, is reported in the news.

 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,170
Total crap.
Newspapers at the time were also filled with stories of crops so large an entire military academy was established in a hollowed-out turnip.
The photos shown are from a photoshop contest, the results of which can be viewed online by anyone. (link)
The Supreme Court has never heard a case involving the Smithsonian and giants. (link)

Harte
 

Kairos

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
688
There really were lots of local reports of giant skeletons in the 19th century, though.
 

Classicalfan626

Moderator/Visionary
Premium
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
3,380
@Harte - I just want to point out that Snopes is biased to the left, particularly on their political and historical stuff. No genuine fact-checking from that site, they only look up and find "facts" that support their biased conclusions. And a lot of "facts" that they have on that site are just plain wrong. For instance, they say the idea that Obama's Hawaii "birth certificate" is a forgery is false, when in fact it is likely true.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,170
But the linked articel is not political. Anyone can research cases heard by every SC that ever was seated.
Giants is not one of them.
The source for this story about the Smithsonian "admitting" hiding evidence is a satirical website, exactly as Snopes points out.

I knew this before I ever even heard of Snopes, by doing my own research into the claim.

Harte
 
Last edited:

Kairos

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
688
I think the problem is that you are attacking this one guy's treatment of the theory instead of what people are actually addressing. There really were quite a lot of news reports of Americans uncovering "giant" skeletons throughout the 19th century (and I think some vague reports in the 18th as well).

It's related to the sasquatch issue which has a similar body of newspaper stories that will really blow your mind if you go and read them. They called them wild men or ape-men. It's the same stories you read about today, except they were only recently uncovered by archivists specifically searching through old newspapers for such stories.

Where this issue gets messed up is when you confuse all the woo woo theories that people propose as facts with the actual evidence we do have. The evidence is admittedly not much, but it's kind of difficult to explain away in both cases (and I think the two could possibly be related).

There very well could be a physical explanation for this. If you look at the thing historically, people have described these creatures across North America and Asia going back to the beginning of recorded history. To claim they all independently invented the same myth based on nothing in the real world does not constitute the most parsimonious explanation either. Hebrews described battling Nephilim. Sumerians described the wild men, of which one was befriended by Gilgamesh (and the Hebrews implied men like Gilgamesh were, in fact, related to them, in the references to the heroes of old being Nephilim). Natives described them as originally having the ability to use tools and so forth, just as the bronze age Near Easterners did. But they could have degenerated over time.

I have thoughts about this that I would not venture as a proper theory, but I wouldn't dismiss so many newspaper reports in the 19th century like that. These stories are remarkably consistent and there wasn't much cross-pollination of memes and fringe concepts going on in those days.
 

Classicalfan626

Moderator/Visionary
Premium
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
3,380
@Harte - I see your point. And besides, in any event, I don't have an inclination on whether giant humans have existed or not. I'm leaving it up in the air.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,170
I think the problem is that you are attacking this one guy's treatment of the theory instead of what people are actually addressing. There really were quite a lot of news reports of Americans uncovering "giant" skeletons throughout the 19th century (and I think some vague reports in the 18th as well).

It's related to the sasquatch issue which has a similar body of newspaper stories that will really blow your mind if you go and read them. They called them wild men or ape-men. It's the same stories you read about today, except they were only recently uncovered by archivists specifically searching through old newspapers for such stories.
Did you read my link about the military academy established in a hollowed out turnip?
That was a typical newspaper "report" in that era.

Where this issue gets messed up is when you confuse all the woo woo theories that people propose as facts with the actual evidence we do have. The evidence is admittedly not much, but it's kind of difficult to explain away in both cases (and I think the two could possibly be related).
I note you claim the presence of evidence, yet fail to point to any.
In fact, there IS no evidence of giants in anyone's past, in either hemisphere.

There very well could be a physical explanation for this. If you look at the thing historically, people have described these creatures across North America and Asia going back to the beginning of recorded history. To claim they all independently invented the same myth based on nothing in the real world does not constitute the most parsimonious explanation either. Hebrews described battling Nephilim. Sumerians described the wild men, of which one was befriended by Gilgamesh (and the Hebrews implied men like Gilgamesh were, in fact, related to them, in the references to the heroes of old being Nephilim). Natives described them as originally having the ability to use tools and so forth, just as the bronze age Near Easterners did. But they could have degenerated over time.
Are you aware that the very oldest reference to Goliath that we have states he was a little over six feet tall?
When did the Hebrews battle the Nephilim?
It was the Nephilim offspring that were supposed to be "men of renown."

I have thoughts about this that I would not venture as a proper theory, but I wouldn't dismiss so many newspaper reports in the 19th century like that. These stories are remarkably consistent and there wasn't much cross-pollination of memes and fringe concepts going on in those days.
You should read the link I posted. There absolutely WAS a lot of cross-pollinization going on in those days. One guy - an army tech stationed at a remote seismology station (at Pike's Peak) - was constantly making up tall tales and sending them to every newspaper in the frontier. It's in the link, but you have to read it. It's actually a very interesting book, and only the first 50 pages or so is excluded.

Nope. These articles carry no weight at all as evidence. And, given the fact that the Native peoples definitely shared aspects of their mythology, neither is the handful of giant legends they have.

But, you're right in that I was responding to this one looney tunes idiot that made the video. After all, his repetition of a claim entirely made up by a satirical website IS the subject of the thread, and not giants in general.

Harte
 

Kairos

Active Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2018
Messages
688
Did you read my link about the military academy established in a hollowed out turnip?
That was a typical newspaper "report" in that era.


I note you claim the presence of evidence, yet fail to point to any.
In fact, there IS no evidence of giants in anyone's past, in either hemisphere.


Are you aware that the very oldest reference to Goliath that we have states he was a little over six feet tall?
When did the Hebrews battle the Nephilim?
It was the Nephilim offspring that were supposed to be "men of renown."


You should read the link I posted. There absolutely WAS a lot of cross-pollinization going on in those days. One guy - an army tech stationed at a remote seismology station (at Pike's Peak) - was constantly making up tall tales and sending them to every newspaper in the frontier. It's in the link, but you have to read it. It's actually a very interesting book, and only the first 50 pages or so is excluded.

Nope. These articles carry no weight at all as evidence. And, given the fact that the Native peoples definitely shared aspects of their mythology, neither is the handful of giant legends they have.

But, you're right in that I was responding to this one looney tunes idiot that made the video. After all, his repetition of a claim entirely made up by a satirical website IS the subject of the thread, and not giants in general.

Harte

None of that is relevant to what I argued. Just fisking my post and trying to bury it in nonsense is not a winning argument either.

You cannot honestly dismiss as coincidence the fact that we can read the same stories about the same creatures going back centuries, or that completely unrelated tribes described the same creature across all of North America, and then people in remote Central Asia described the same creature as well.

To claim that it's all coincidence and that every human group from the East Coast of North America to Central Asia described the same animal that doesn't really exist involves countless assumptions. To argue that there likely exists a physical basis for these stories makes a single assumption.

Parisomy. Learn it.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,170
As I stated, the earliest version of the David and Goliath story has Goliath a little over 6 feet tall.

Where's your giants now?

Harte
 

Top