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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
3.2.1.0.
forget all about this.........
what?




posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TechUnique

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.
OK...first thing I see there is an image which has been royally debunked Nat Geo. That took me all of 30 seconds. But suck it all up if you want to...just don't ask me to buy in to this codswallop.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Uh yes, this is a lame hoax which some people at ATS are swallowing it like coprophagists swallowing... (you know what). Never mind that it is in the LOL Forum.


badsatiretoday.com...


This phony write-up comes from satire site World News Daily Report. The bogus column states that the Smithsonian Institution was compelled into releasing confidential documents which revealed that officials had destroyed thousands of 6-12 foot skeletal remains discovered throughout North America in order to preserve the scientifically accepted view of history. According to the fictional article, the institution released the papers after losing a legal case ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Included in the article are several false quotes attributed to a “James Churward” and “Hans Guttenberg” as well as some details of the imaginary court case.

There is a disclaimer posted at the top of every World News Daily Report page. This disclaimer has been quoted below in its entirety:

World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.


Even the knucklehead author of the article cited by the OP, who bought this made up satire in the first place, said at the bottom of the story:


Editors note: I put a question mark on this story, but if this story is true, history can be rewritten, so let's wait and see if they release the documents in 2015 or not.


If this case were truly before the US supreme court, wouldn't it have received some attention by the MSM -- or even slightly anti-establishment media, or are they all in on the conspiracy to deny that giant hominids once ruled North America.

And yet there are some in this thread who think there is some truth to it. Deny ignorance by derrière.

edit on 15-12-2014 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MrInquisitive

You appear to have read the rest of the thread and yet you are the umpteenth person to point out that the article cited is a hoax.

Also, it wasn't originally posted in the LOL Forum - it got moved there well after it was first made and replied to.

Some of us thought the subject as a whole was worthy of discussion and made an attempt to make the thread informative rather than sit back and watch the OP getting bashed for nothing more than making a mistake.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
Some of us thought the subject as a whole was worthy of discussion and made an attempt to make the thread informative rather than sit back and watch the OP getting bashed for nothing more than making a mistake.
Couple of things...Yes, the OP got nailed by a bad site, but this topic...tired as it is...turns up in other places on the interwebz that do not self identity as poop. Secondly, this has been covered substantially on ATS, so if you want to learn more, just look for it. It's still nonsense, but there's no need for you to feel your quest is being stifled.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I've actually looked into this subject a lot and I'm not about to take the word of one or two people here that the subject of Giants is all nonsense even if the allegations against the Smithsonian might not stand up to scrutiny.

As to the member I was replying to - I don't really understand why yet another person would take the time to point out that this is a hoax having found it in the LOL Forum.

The subject may well have been covered already both on ATS and other sites but where is the harm in contributing to a thread that might have caught the attention of persons new to the subject? It would be a shame to see them turn away from Giants as a subject because of the negativity here.

Evidence of 10 foot tall Giants might never be found but but the more you research history, myths and legends the more interesting avenues you find yourself going down. I've found that the pursuit of knowledge is never a waste of time and I can consider an idea without deciding one way or the other if it is fact or fiction.

Taking an interest in a subject doesn't make me gullible and I tend to think other people are capable of weighing up evidence too. Far better to do that than just accept 'Nonsense' as an answer.

edit on 15-12-2014 by berenike because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
Taking an interest in a subject doesn't make me gullible and I tend to think other people are capable of weighing up evidence too. Far better to do that than just accept 'Nonsense' as an answer.

You misunderstand me. I entered into this discussion before it was dumped into the LOL bin...in fact, I didn't know that there was one. What I was trying to do was mollify your feelings a little and encourage you to seek out this topic elsewhere on ATS. Admittedly, you'll see exactly the same level of discourse, but it will not be tainted by the media source on this one.

There'll still be a lot of poop...but the discussion will go on.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

NVM - you quoted my post so can't be changed.
edit on 15-12-2014 by berenike because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I've re-read your post and now I've got it. I hope you can see how that line could be taken the way I read it the first time.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with a bit of mollification on a cold Winter night so thanks for that


Really, I thought there'd been a bit of an over-reaction felt and bad for the OP.

I agree that the OP was piled-on. But, there is a valuable lesson to be learned about checking the veracity of sites that are sourced. Many have a different agenda from the topic at hand. Just as this topic is not about denying history...it has always been about religion...and land.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Ok so let's never make a thread about politics because it's done to death on ATS, oh and while we're at it, let's never make a thread about Obamacare, Ferguson, Police Brutality, 9/11 or any other conspiracy as there are already threads about it.

Forget trying to have a discussion about something that is a high probability, the destruction of giant skeletal remains, that's not what ATS is about. It's about saying "yes that's true" or "no that's not true" and nothing more.

*roll eyes*


Even 8ft tall can be considered giant when the average height 3-4ft shorter. There could have been a race of 8ft tall people & it would be something that the other races talked about for generations. As with all tales, this one would have been changed slightly over time.
edit on 12 15 2014 by Sabiduria because: (no reason given)

edit on 12 15 2014 by Sabiduria because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
We just did this last month...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh wait it was this month...




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Ok so let's never make a thread about politics because it's done to death on ATS, oh and while we're at it, let's never make a thread about Obamacare, Ferguson, Police Brutality, 9/11 or any other conspiracy as there are already threads about it.

Forget trying to have a discussion about something that is a high probability, the destruction of giant skeletal remains, that's not what ATS is about. It's about saying "yes that's true" or "no that's not true" and nothing more.

*roll eyes*


Even 8ft tall can be considered giant when the average height 3-4ft shorter. There could have been a race of 8ft tall people & it would be something that the other races talked about for generations. As with all tales, this one would have been changed slightly over time.

OK, let's see some evidence. We have just seen one of our Canadian archaeologists hand the Prime Minister a large 'va fangul' because he is trying to stifle her research on political grounds. What makes you think that skeletons of giants would be successfully suppressed? I might add that archaeologists are an ornery bunch when jerked around...and noisy when they drink.
So...indisputable evidence, please...you first! Gimme that 'high probability' of which you speak!

Incidentally, did I not steer the poster towards other discussions of the topic that have not been relegated to the joke file?
edit on 15-12-2014 by JohnnyCanuck because: it seemed like a good idea at the time.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why have I never heard of such an endearing term like "codswallop" before...

Hope you don't mind if I steal it..




posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why have I never heard of such an endearing term like "codswallop" before...

Hope you don't mind if I steal it..

Please...it's yours! Use it wisely, mind.



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Well good thing ATS is about just having only one thread to talk about a subject



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Yeah but first we have to explore the word monkies being the plural of monkey. Which is actually monkeys. a reply to: AnuTyr



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I actually read up about this today and it seems very real that countless skeletons in the height range of 6ft to 12ft tall were destroyed by Smithsonian curators to protect the then young Darwinian class from ridicule. It seems these skeletons could have proven the biblical accounts of giants in ancient history. I also read on other sites that to this day archeaologists are quickly threatened into silence when they turn up new giant North American skeletons. The USA doesn't care much for anything historical buried under thousands of years of soil, unless of course it contains technology that surpasses what they already got.


a reply to: Sabiduria



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Asynchrony
Please cite your sources...'cuz that's the kind of world it is.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Paisley Herald and Renfrewshire Advertiser - Saturday 23 January 1869

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tracey369
Paisley Herald and Renfrewshire Advertiser - Saturday 23 January 1869

Well then...I stand corrected.




top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join