It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Absolutely fascinating!!!!! Too bad the site is a satirical website...but wouldn't it be grand if it was on fact true....
edit on 13-12-2014 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I thought this was fake, but then I saw the name of the site...ufosightingshotspot.blogspot...and I thought, nah that sounds legit...
edit on 13-12-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
It's interesting that stories of Giants in the Americas have been around since the time of Magellan. He and his crew discovered a statuesque tribe in what is now Patagonia in 1520.

It is believed that the people were the Tehuelche who, although tall, don't seem to be as tall as reported at the time.

Here is the report fromMagellan's Voyage: A Narrative Account of the First Circumnavigation:



"When he was before us, he began to marvel and to be afraid, and he raised one finger upward, believing that we came from heaven. And he was so tall that the tallest of us only came up to his waist,” and had a big, booming voice.


However, Francis Drake's nephew had this to say in 1628 about his uncle's contact with the Patagonians:



“Magellan was not altogether deceived in naming these giants, for they generally differ from the common sort of man both in stature, bigness and strength of body, as also in the hideousness of their voices: but they are nothing so monstrous and giant-like as they were represented, there being some English men as tall as the highest we could see, but peradventure the Spaniards did not think that ever any English man would come hither to reprove them, and therefore might presume the more boldly to lie.”


Further:



According to William C. Sturtevant in his essay “Patagonian Giants and Baroness Hyde de Neuville’s Iroquois Drawings,” the Tehuelche were just a particularly statuesque people. While subsequent voyages after Magellan’s measured the Patagonians up to 10 feet tall, others put them more in the 6-foot range.

“Popular interest in Patagonian giants waned as scientific reports began to appear,” writes Sturtevant. “Some 19th century estimates or measurements of individuals were still high,” upwards of 7 feet. But better samples of Tehuelche men brought them down to around 6 feet tall, perfectly reasonable for a human being but entirely unimpressive for a giant. “If we accept the lowest (and least well documented) of these means based on modern measurements of males series,” he adds, “the Tehuelche are nevertheless among the tallest populations known anywhere in the world.” By contrast, male Europeans like Magellan in the 16th through 18th centuries would have measured in the low-5-foot range. Their imaginations, though, apparently outgrew their small stature.



Here is the link to the whole story:

www.wired.com...


There was another explorer, Sebalt de Weert (1567 - 1603) who, along with members of his crew claimed to have seen a race of giants in this region:



Sebald de Weert's “unusual” natives"

During De Weert's time in the Magellan Straits there were some anthropologically noteworthy events that are associated with him. One instance of which is that De Weert and several crew claimed to have seen members of a “race of giants” while there. De Weert described a particular incident when he was with his men in boats rowing to an island in the Magellan Strait. The Dutch claimed to have seen seven odd-looking boats approaching with were full of naked giants. These giants supposedly had long hair and reddish-brown skin. The Dutch claim to have shot three of the giants dead with their muskets before the giants finally retreated to the shore. On the shore the giants were apparently able to uproot trees from the ground to protect themselves from the musket fire and they waited with spears and stones so they could attack the Dutch intruders should they make a beach head. In fear of the giants, the Dutch dared not land.

De Weert's claims to sightings of giants were not totally unusual for this region as Magellan also first recorded sighting in 1520 in the straits at San Julian. It was also claimed that Magellan captured two male giants as specimens to return to Europe, but the giants died en route. These creatures were supposedly over three meters tall. Many others including Francis Drake, Pedro Sarmiento, Tome Hernandez, and Anthony Knyvet claimed to have seen giants in the Straits of Magellan with the last sighting have been at Cabo Virgines in 1764 by Commodore John “Foul Weather Jack” Byron. De Weert's expedition is the only one to have claimed to have witnessed aggressive behavior on behalf of the giants.



Source:

en.wikipedia.org...

(Wiki link used because it puts the story very neatly - more info below)

However, this book Travelers and Travel Liars has a lot to say on the subject - rather too much to quote - but it does deal with quite the controversy that was aroused over the Patagonian Giants:

books.google.co.uk... l=en&sa=X&ei=HZCMVJHTMMf0UuanhIAO&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sebald%20de%20weert%20giants&f=false

That's all I got
I thought it was interesting to see how far back these stories go. It's not surprising that people are still interested in Giants today.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: berenikeHe and his crew discovered a statuesque tribe in what is now Patagonia in 1520.

However, this book Travelers and Travel Liars has a lot to say on the subject - rather too much to quote - but it does deal with quite the controversy that was aroused over the Patagonian Giants:


That's all I got
I thought it was interesting to see how far back these stories go. It's not surprising that people are still interested in Giants today.






better known simply as Gulliver's Travels (1726, amended 1735), is a novel by Anglo-Irish writer and clergyman Jonathan Swift, that is both a satire on human nature and a parody of the "travellers' tales" literary sub-genre. It is Swift's best known full-length work, and a classic of English literature.

The book became popular as soon as it was published. John Gay wrote in a 1726 letter to Swift that "It is universally read, from the cabinet council to the nursery."[1] Since then, it has never been out of print




so, sailors tales from 1520's to pop-culture books in 1726....... that's 200+ years

of a genre of fables. passed on as being real (in the eye-of-the-beholder)

I still say exhume a untouched 'ancient Mound' with today's technology



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Why is this on the front page and not in the Hoax bin?

The supreme court web site has no record of this case ever being before the court.

Have they changed the name of this site to Before it`s above top secret, or am I missing something?



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Maybe the support for the claims here is why it hasn't been hoaxed. If enough people wan't to believe it they keep it as is even though the story is admitted fiction from the source.

Strange that it is still up.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Reply to St Udio



so, sailors tales from 1520's to pop-culture books in 1726....... that's 200+ years

of a genre of fables. passed on as being real (in the eye-of-the-beholder)

I still say exhume a untouched 'ancient Mound' with today's technology


I'm all for further investigation. I tried to be as even-handed as I could in presenting the old tales and rumours.

I don't think they in any way discount the idea that there could have been real Giants - if anything the discovery of one tall tribe might make it more credible. Plus someone pretty big would have made the enormous mounds, I would imagine. (Well - I don't think the particular ones you are referring to were built by termites)


There are stories and finds of tall or giant red haired beings all over the world, probably not relevant to this thread but well worth researching.

edit on 13-12-2014 by berenike because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Why the heck isn't this in the hoax bin already?

Fair notice: while this story is clearly fake, I'm open to the need for a reassessment of the mainstream interpretation of human history.

It's certainly not a smooth curve.






edit on 13-12-2014 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria



There is evidence all over the place for Evolution


Really that is news to the whole planet? Show me one example of any animal changing from one to another? Adapting is not Evolving!!!

Evolution is false and the scientist who spew it can not even show one example of it themselves. They claim bacteria as proof lol. Micro Evolution sure but not in one animal on the planet ever. Monkey are still Monkeys by the way.



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Since when did archeologists or anyone in a position to order the smithsonian around have widespread belief in evolution in 1900?

This couldn't have even found enough widespread support today without someone immediately leaking it.
edit on 13-12-2014 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: Sabiduria



There is evidence all over the place for Evolution


Really that is news to the whole planet? Show me one example of any animal changing from one to another? Adapting is not Evolving!!!

Evolution is false and the scientist who spew it can not even show one example of it themselves. They claim bacteria as proof lol. Micro Evolution sure but not in one animal on the planet ever. Monkey are still Monkeys by the way.



I mean the mechanisms at work in the theory of evolution clearly show that species just magically transform during their lifetimes...so if you can't show a monkey turning into a human during a lifetime, obviously evolution is fake...stupid darwinists!
edit on 13-12-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I found this. The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up: 18 Giant Skeletons Discovered in Wisconsin - See more at: humansarefree.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
dcxposed.com...
edit on 13-12-2014 by DeafRaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing OP! This a step in the right direction, took them long enough! Since they've finally admitted to covering up/destroying evidence of giants, then you know they've covered up a hell of a lot more artifacts. This most likely coincides with the major discovery in the Grand Canyon in 1909 with all the Egyptian and Indian artifacts. Only time will tell if they spill the beans with everything else. It'll start leaking little by little, but I'm sure that there will be some things that will never be released to the public.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vrill
I find this interesting because that show on the History Channel called Search for the Lost Giants is a very interesting show. I fully believe that there is something to all of this. For centuries there are reports of Giant Human Skeletons being found in various caves, tombs and crypts around the world that stand anywhere from 8 to 12 foot tall and have double rows of teeth. So if this is being covered up, the question is, why?

Is it really as simple as being too lazy to rewrite history?


Check out this thread which deals with why Giants were covered up.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: framedragged
Since when did archeologists or anyone in a position to order the smithsonian around have widespread belief in evolution in 1900?

This couldn't have even found enough widespread support today without someone immediately leaking it.


You do realize that the occult elite have had plans set in place for CENTURIES, through their bloodlines and family legacies. You can bet they were planning this before it was commonly known or accepted. The evolution theory fits their agenda perfectly, because it is anti God.

You may argue that the Evolution theory is not anti God but, in fact, it is most definitely used in this sense and that is why it is an agenda. A product of that agenda, using a tool based on false Science.
edit on 26/10/2010 by TechUnique because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge


Really that is news to the whole planet?


ROFL, No it is not news the whole planet. Anyone who doesn't hold fast to the dogmatic teachings of the Church is able to see the evidence of Evolution all over the place.


Show me one example of any animal changing from one to another? Adapting is not Evolving!!!


I can do better than that as there is way more than one example. First we'll do speciation:


Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 34

Some More Observed Speciation Events

In case you want to argue about no mammals having limbs, I'll save you the trouble:


Living whales and dolphins found with hindlimbs:

Probably the most well known case of atavism is found in the whales. According to the standard phylogenetic tree, whales are known to be the descendants of terrestrial mammals that had hindlimbs. Thus, we expect the possibility that rare mutant whales might occasionally develop atavistic hindlimbs. In fact, there are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary atavistic hindlimbs in the wild (see Figure 2.2.1; for reviews see Berzin 1972, pp. 65-67 and Hall 1984, pp. 90-93). Hindlimbs have been found in baleen whales (Sleptsov 1939), humpback whales (Andrews 1921) and in many specimens of sperm whales (Abel 1908; Berzin 1972, p. 66; Nemoto 1963; Ogawa and Kamiya 1957; Zembskii and Berzin 1961). Most of these examples are of whales with femurs, tibia, and fibulae; however, some even include feet with complete digits.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution


Evolution is false and the scientist who spew it can not even show one example of it themselves. They claim bacteria as proof lol. Micro Evolution sure but not in one animal on the planet ever. Monkey are still Monkeys by the way.


By the way, just because one subspecies adapted into something different, doesn't mean all subspecies will do the same. So in the case of arguing "Monkey's are still Monkey's", it's pointless and shows me that you aren't really educated on Evolution. Most people who argue against it aren't that knowledgeable in the subject.

Macro & Micro evolution are the same thing!

As our third example, consider the African apes. Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa (as determined by cladistic morphological analysis and confirmed by DNA sequence analysis). Why did the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and Robert Broom go to Africa in search of early hominid fossils? Why not dig in Australia, North America, South America, Siberia, or Mesopotamia? Charles Darwin gave an answer for this question over 130 years ago - long before any early hominid fossils had been found.

"We are naturally led to enquire, where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarrhine stock? The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere." (Darwin 1871, p. 161)

Thus, the theory of common descent predicts that we may find early hominid fossils on the African continent.
Confirmation:

Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa. For examples, discussion, pictures, detail, and extensive references refer to Jim Foley's comprehensive Fossil Hominids FAQ. These examples include such fossil species as Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus garhi, Kenyanthropus platyops, Kenyanthropus rudolfensis, Homo habilis, and a host of other transitionals thought to be less related to Homo sapiens, such as the robust australopithicenes. At this point in time, the difficulty in reconstructing exact genealogical relationships among all of these fossils species is that there are too many links, not that there are missing links. Like most family trees, the family tree of the hominids is best described as a wildly branching bush.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I suggest reading all the information found on the 29+ evidences for Macro evolution, it's got a lot of the evidence for things you say doesn't exist.

In case you want to bring up transitional fossils, I'll save you the time:


Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

-Nautiloids to ammonoids
-Cephalopods
-Evolution of insects
-Evolution of spiders
-Invertebrates to fish
-Chondrichthyes
-Bony Fish
-Fish to tetrapods
-Amphibians to amniotes (early reptiles)
-Turtles
-From lizards to snakes
- Lizards
- Pterosaurs
- Archosaurs to dinosaurs
- Dinosauria
- Dinosaurs to birds
- Bird evolution
- Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals
- Evolution of mammals
- Early artiodactylans to whales (evolution of whales)
- Evolution of sirenians
- Evolution of the pinnipeds
- Evolution of the horse
- Human evolution

List of transitional fossils



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TechUnique

Evolution is not anti-God and to make a claim is very ignorant. The theory of Evolution is based on the premise that life already existed The scientific process used to describe how life began is called Abiogenesis and that is still only a hypothesis. Evolution could be the answer to how and god could very well be the answer to why since evolution doesn't address god in the slightest.

You are just feeding into the problem by either being uneducated on the subject or choosing to remain uneducated on the subject because it fits your agenda.

What false science are you claiming evolution is based off of?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join