Ancient America’s Giants, Native Legends From Many Tribes

a reply to: SLAYER69

I've brought up Saudi Arabian digs before, and was quickly shut down. I was told only "Bible thumpers" use that as an excuse to prove that what the Bible tells us is true. After more research on the subject, I came to the conclusion that it was scientists that covered all of that up. Covered it up to disprove the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible never tells us when men were created. The only thing It tells us about time is "In the beginning." As I do truly believe that God is our creator, I don't assume that there was a certain time, 6,000 years ago that we were created. I acknowledge that none of us know that answer.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I brought this topic up to my father recently and asked if him if there were trully giants and where the where the bones were. My dad has many titles. He is a genius research scientist that will turn 89 in 31 days. He is a retired Chemist, Microbiologist, director of research for a fortune 500 company, with an extensive medical background as well.He has been summoned to the White house for meetings in the 70s with top officials. He said they are being hidden from us for a reason. Evidently it blows holes in Darwins theory. With Darwins theory you are just an animal that trully has no rights. Yes, it is about control

That is probably deadly accurate.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Here , let me take it a bit further....
My Dads Dad was born in Turkey ( Armenian) in 1900 at the base of mount Ararat. Remember that mountain? In about 1965 I asked my Grandpa if Noahs ark story was true or just a fairy tale. His jaw dropped. He said the people in the old city would have thought me a fool to ask that. He said of course it is true, and that people from our city had been on it before. He went on to say that it was verry high up on the mountain, on the Turkish side and was petrified and frozen in solid ice. He said that the only time even part of it was visible was when there had been at least 15 years consecutive drought.
So..... What is a giant ship doing that high on a mountain and what what was its purpose?

Kinda makes the "AGW is gonna kill us all" believer rethink things, eh? If the Earth was warm enough that long ago, to let the Ark settle on the mountain after the water subsided, and now it is frozen in ice, it had to have been much warmer than this in the past.

a reply to: LSU0408

Nearly every place around the world has legends of giants.

If archaeology 'proves' something, I'm going to believe exactly the opposite of what they say, I don't believe a single word they say anymore.

Archaeology has become a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control used for social conditioning against the masses and has been lying to us about our real history.

The biggest clue regarding giants is the fact that mainstream academia says they don't exist.

In U.S. Army Intelligence, I was trained that the truth most often lies in the exact opposite direction of the public rhetoric. You must learn this technique if you are to successfully glean the truth from news reports.

LEARNING TO THINK IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF PROPAGANDA

In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:

“Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor.

“The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited.

“This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.”

The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up

In 1944 an accidental discovery was made by Waldemar Julsrud in Acambaro, Mexico, 175 miles northwest of Mexico City. He proposed that the Smithsonian Institution and other archaeological authorities conducted a campaign of disinformation against the discoveries. The Smithsonian dismissed the entire Acambaro as a hoax. Tierney later discovered the whole Smithsonian's Julsrud case files are missing. Julsrud is now dead, his house sold, and the collections in storage, which is not open to the public.

The Smithsonian Institute, National Geographic, and Discovery Channel have not revealed one single bone fragment, fossil, or artifact that would refer to these Giants. Multiple findings turned over to the government, specifically the Smithsonian, only to have those artifacts permanently disappear. Many have accused the Smithsonian Institution of covering up these discoveries from public view that likely threaten mainstream belief systems. Giants don't fit the Darwinian paradigm. I am going to prove to you that the Smithsonian Institute people are lying. It’s evident through Newspaper articles before the 1950’s. It’s documented.

heartcheckreality.blogspot.com...

"...authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied- and, of course, lost to the scientific study they deserved.” Source

"A cave full of giant skeletons was found by telephone employees near Santa Barbara, California. Unfortunately, the cave entrance was sealed shut before proper excavation could be conducted."

"A giant skeleton on Santa Cruz Island, California, was sent to the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., where it was promptly "misplaced". Source

"...authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied- and, of course, lost to the scientific study they deserved.” Source

There are FAR too many pieces of evidence that were either buried, lost or just plain lied about over the years.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

I am as skeptical as you, Byrd. But if i am being honest, expecting an extinct race of people to have cities and furniture is somewhat anthropomorphic.

 

On the topic....there is always Angus MacAskill

Angus Mòr MacAskill[pronunciation?], frequently referred to as Giant MacAskill or Black Angus (1825 – August 8, 1863), was a Scottish-born Canadian giant. The 1981 Guinness Book of World Records posits Angus as the tallest non-pathological giant in recorded history (7 ft 9 in, or 2.36 m), as well as being the man with the largest chest measurements of any non-obese man (80 inches, or 200 cm).

The stories of his exploits are barely believable.

It always seems like the health of a "giant" from today deteriorates rather fast for a human as well.

a reply to: Murgatroid

I agree 110%...

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: LSU0408

Nearly every place around the world has legends of giants.

And in every part of the world there is a late variance in dimorphism. To a 5'7" Romam Centurian, a 6'2" Gaul was a giant. So,Eli,Ed it's about context and perspective.

If archaeology 'proves' something, I'm going to believe exactly the opposite of what they say, I don't believe a single word they say anymore.

So which scientific disciplines are trustworthy as you seem to believe thst there is a massive, worldwide, multidisciplinary conspiracy specifically against Christian Theology despite most of the world being decidedly not Christian and those people have no stake in proving or disproving biblical interpretations.

Archaeology has become a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control used for social conditioning against the masses and has been lying to us about our real history.

Then who is telling the truth about "real" history? You afford far more power and credence to institutions such as the Smithsonian than they actually wield. If Anthopology and Archaeology are tools of disinformation as you claim, why then are there so many varying opinions and schools of thought? If what you believe was actually true, there would be universal consensus. People wouldn't be encouraged to engage in due diligence and do their own research. It's a pretty preposterous insinuation of a magnitude that is impossible to maintain.

The biggest clue regarding giants is the fact that mainstream academia says they don't exist.

This statement is false. Aside from there being absolutely zero evidence of 30 foot tall people and the physical impossibilities of those alleged people being able to exist, I've never seen a dig where individuals of far larger stature than the average person for that time and place were covered up or made to disappear. It was only last year where an Egyptian cemetery was discovered and one of the individuals was so tall that they literally folded him in half to fit into the grave.

There are many instances of extraordinarily tall people littered throught out history and the archaeological record. What there is not evidence for beyond the anecdotal, is for a wholly seperate sub species of massive humans. Believe it or not, the Anthropologists and Archy's I've worked with are all very open minded. You can't fault people though for only acknowledging what the physical evidence supports.

There are FAR too many pieces of evidence that were either buried, lost or just plain lied about over the years.

This is a bit of a conundrum here. If it's all been buried, "lost" or lied about, then how do you know it ever existed in the first place?

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

i don't know if there is truth in this story www.zianet.com...

They're the tales of a traveler who didn't know much about archaeology but knew a lot about the Bible. Tel Hazor and others have been identified and have (and are) being studied. Houses and burials show that the people there were about the same size as people everywhere at that time (around 5'5" or so) Indeed, even in the Bible they are not mentioned as cities of giants.

See en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: XTexan

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

Just to play Devil's advocate, perhaps it was a small population. Any houses, food, clothing, villages, cities and tools could of easily been re-purposed, or destroyed by us. We are pretty good at genocide and burning bodies.

The OP mentions a "race" of giants. A population of a few hundred does not make a race. A group of a few hundred that lasted for a generation or two is not a race, either.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

I am as skeptical as you, Byrd. But if i am being honest, expecting an extinct race of people to have cities and furniture is somewhat anthropomorphic. .

In the stories, though, these races of giants have culture, wear clothing, speak a language, live in cities, and wield weapons. In cases where it's only their bones found, people talk of artifacts being found with them.

Hence they aren't a race of beings that are wandering around in the wild (ala Bigfoot, etc)

a reply to: Byrd

At least as advanced as the people telling the tales. Or more advanced.

The more advanced the people, the more trash/remains.

a reply to: LSU0408

For someone with Gigantism, or any other disease induced size increase, health deteriorates rather rapidly.

The traits Macaskill had, however, don't seem to be disease related. He was just immense in height and girth. The most notable thing to me, however, is his strength. It could be assumed that there is some embellisment...but this isn't a Paul Bunyan story. Macaskill was fairly well known, and had been seen by many folks of his time. And his death, caused by him over exerting his strength which diminished his health quickly, tells me that his story isn't generally embellished (not much of a hero if tossing an anchor can kill him, in other words).

What is interesting about his strength is that it seems to exceed the strength expected from a large human. I'd assume that there is a curve or ratio that is tied to human physiology. Certainly, the musculature of humans is far, far less than that of chimps, despite his having larger overall dimensions. It has to do with how our muscles are made, and how they attach to the bones. It was postulated that Neanderthals were far stronger for the same reasons as a chimp (roughly): musculature and connection to the bones.

What made Macaskill so much stronger? He was reported to lift items in the 2000lb range. I was a powerlifter in high school, and lifted against Marcus Henry ("Sensual Chocolate" in the WWE) during his senior year in high school when he went to Silsbee. At the time he was only 1 month away from breaking a few world records and being considered the strongest man alive. While I saw him deadlift close to that mark, there is a long way between seeing him struggle to lift that amount, and Macaskill tossing 2k lbs over his shoulder and walking down the street.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
If archaeology 'proves' something, I'm going to believe exactly the opposite of what they say, I don't believe a single word they say anymore.
Archaeology has become a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control used for social conditioning against the masses and has been lying to us about our real history.
The biggest clue regarding giants is the fact that mainstream academia says they don't exist.

On the other hand, the biggest clue that this is hooey is that archaeologists can't keep a secret.

But believe what you want...I don't care as long as it doesn't affect funding.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Hey, thanks, man. Best thing that came out of this thread for me is now I know what "Epoch Times" is. It's good to know that the Chinese are putting so much effort in to creating infotainment bull#.

I think that studying "media groups" like ET, that have a "network of local reporters throughout the world", just became my new "infotainment" for the foreseeable future.

Awesome!

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

....Hello Byrd...

where are the homes and furniture and tools of the builders of Gobeki Tepi????
have they been found.????
I am not trying to be a smart butt...

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

If you look to the Australian Aboriginals they never had furniture and were nomadic in nature, the graves were apparently the Mounds found all through out the US however the Smithsonian Institute took it upon themselves to snatch all the evidence...if you were to believe the story.

originally posted by: tri-lobe-1

originally posted by: Byrd
If they walked the Earth, then they would have had to have houses and food and clothing and tools.

So where are the traces of civilizations and villages and cities with furniture and graves of people over 6' tall found?

....Hello Byrd...

where are the homes and furniture and tools of the builders of Gobeki Tepi????
have they been found.????
I am not trying to be a smart butt...

It is believed they carried their homes with them, since they were hunter-gatherers.

However, a great many artifacts have been found at the site - many of them personal items.

The truth is, what they find in the dirt is more interesting than the structure the dirt covers.

Harte

a reply to: SLAYER69

G,day mate
you spike my interest and memory with this thread
the smithsonian as reported earlier this year on ats lost a court case on this subject
several years ago someone on ats mentioned buffalo bill and the reason why the indians extended out their hand showing their palm and fingers when meeting
remains of the giants found in the america's and else where show six fingers one each hand and six toes on each foot
plus two rows of teeth
somewhere here i have mentioned the ancient ruins in arnhem land in the northern territory
taboo place for blacks and whites
guarded by blacks who if finding you there would prob still would kill you
found out about it back in the seventies. a city for giants
word from a bloke in kiwiland by the name of jonathon grey
is that remains of cities of the giants are to be found in southern syria
keep searching there is so muc h more for you to find
good luck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: LSU0408

For someone with Gigantism, or any other disease induced size increase, health deteriorates rather rapidly.

The traits Macaskill had, however, don't seem to be disease related. He was just immense in height and girth. The most notable thing to me, however, is his strength. It could be assumed that there is some embellisment...but this isn't a Paul Bunyan story. Macaskill was fairly well known, and had been seen by many folks of his time. And his death, caused by him over exerting his strength which diminished his health quickly, tells me that his story isn't generally embellished (not much of a hero if tossing an anchor can kill him, in other words).

What is interesting about his strength is that it seems to exceed the strength expected from a large human. I'd assume that there is a curve or ratio that is tied to human physiology. Certainly, the musculature of humans is far, far less than that of chimps, despite his having larger overall dimensions. It has to do with how our muscles are made, and how they attach to the bones. It was postulated that Neanderthals were far stronger for the same reasons as a chimp (roughly): musculature and connection to the bones.

What made Macaskill so much stronger? He was reported to lift items in the 2000lb range. I was a powerlifter in high school, and lifted against Marcus Henry ("Sensual Chocolate" in the WWE) during his senior year in high school when he went to Silsbee. At the time he was only 1 month away from breaking a few world records and being considered the strongest man alive. While I saw him deadlift close to that mark, there is a long way between seeing him struggle to lift that amount, and Macaskill tossing 2k lbs over his shoulder and walking down the street.

Holy shmoly! 2000 pounds over his shoulder??? Yeah, that's crazy that he could do that... I can't believe you lifted against Sexual Chocolate, was he as sweaty in High School as he was in the WWF? Lol, kudos my friend.

a reply to: LSU0408

Well...2000k wasn't in a single lift. It was the total between bench, squat, and deadlift:

www.txpowerlifting.com...

While someone broke his state record a couple of years later (gasp!!!), he went on to break that record the following month at a national level event:

en.wikipedia.org...

Only few weeks afterwards, he became 1991's International Junior Champion in Powerlifiting as well.[2][9] In Henry's first year in competitive weightlifting, he broke all three junior (20 and under) American records 12 times, and became the United States' top Superheavyweight, surpassing Mario Martinez.[14]