The Giants' graves - Sardinia

"Skin of iron" could just be armour, sophisticated full plate perhaps.

It depends how far back the tales of six-digit, double-row-of-teeth giants come from.

Originally posted by Hanslune

Howdy oldtimer2

Originally posted by Oldtimer2
Speaking of Smithsonian,funny how things sent there disappear from records,there are areas there where the president of US can't go past I know my sister and brother in law had top clearence,they were heads of Secret Service,but as always if asked a question all I ever hear is"Your probably right!"

Ah so how come college student interns have access to this material?

I think you are making stuff up oldtimer!

I'd take anything David Hatcher Childress has to say about anything with a piece of salt the size of Gibraltar. When people hint that some fringe writers do it for the money - they are often thinking about Childress.

So you are telling me that college interns have unfettered access to the greatest store of human history on the planet? I find THAT harder to believe than the stories of giants, for sure!

Methinks you are misrepresenting in an attempt at informal fallacy.

The Smithsonian itself admits that it has "lost" material in its' vast storehouse. What else ARE we to make of it?

So you are telling me that college interns have unfettered access to the greatest store of human history on the planet? I find THAT harder to believe than the stories of giants, for sure!

That's because you don't know anything about the Smithsonian. What exactly do you think they are hiding?

Lost stuff? Yeah sure, not like you've every lost a sock or screw driver at home have you? LOL

Large organizations tend to lose stuff - how many words errors did the Oxford English Dictionary project make after over 70 years of preparation?

reply to post by Hanslune


I do not know, or really even claim that they are hiding anything. I think that it is a possibility, for sure. I know how "upper management" can work to make things happen, and the Smithsonian surely is not some ivory palace of purity that other organizations cannot achieve.

I know that science has a FIERCE propensity to fight for the status quo, resisting change at nearly all costs.

if i am to believe that the government (or DoD) can "lose" billions of dollars, i certainly should believe that the Smithsonian could lose, in its vast warehouse, various artifacts. From my understanding (which you are correct in questioning, as I have never worked for a museum), there are artifiacts that were delivered before record keeping was standardized and have fallen below the radar. Further clouding the scene must be various misclassifications and misidentifications of artifacts.

I will tell you what, though. If you are knowledgable, provide me some educational background that i may expand my understanding a little better with. I am sure that others in this forum would benefit from it as well. I truly do not mean this sarcastically, and apologize if it seems as such. Gotta get to work.

Howdy BFFT

resisting change at nearly all costs.

Not in science - you will note that the people who become famous, win the Nobel, get tenure, book deals, research grants and other goodies are those who find new stuff - not much for people who find nothing but what is known....I think your remark is more correctly aimed at religion!

Yep stuff gets lost in museums - some of the best places to look for new information (cheaply) is to go thru old materials in museums and dead scientist's papers.

The old systems of classification, often on 3 x 5 cards and later microfilm are both subject to human error and lost - as are modern systems.

Often times Museums have money problems and they tend to skimp in the storage areas, both personnel and "accounting" systems.

reply to post by Hanslune


My wife is a nurse that has spent a few years working in a doctors office. The office manager at the most recent "gig" she had was dyslexic. She says that she would have to look up by chart number, and then use all possible combinations of the same 4 digit number to find the chart. Scary, yet funny.

Regarding the resistance to change....consider the Clovis People. Despite several verified preclovis sites, Clovis is considered the "first". Somewhere around here i have a very well put together piece that disputes Einstein's relativity. Very interesting. I will see if i can find it...but now i need sleep (too many hours at work this week).

Take care.

Despite several verified preclovis sites, Clovis is considered the "first".

That was true about twenty years ago, as the disputes over dating are still on going. However the acceptance of earlier cultures than Clovis has occurred although a few scientists still consider them the first substantial culture in the Americas.

Sites like Lake Chalco and Topper are still in dispute.

reply to post by Hanslune


The "mising link" here, i think, is the coastal cultures that are missed by being beneath the waves currently. What was that lady's name that claims to have found pyramids off the coast of Cuba?

To me it just seems so obvious that cultures beyond 25k years ago might be further out to sea than currently discovered, due to changing coastlines in the last eon.



[edit on 11-4-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

There probably will be more cultures found. But the question to ask is, if the culture existed why did it exist only on the coast? The rise of sea levels would have been slow making moving inland easy.

Most cultures on the coast line also had sites inland.

They are not all on the coast. They were in the Ohio Valley as well, and what about the Iron Bed of Goliath. Assuming myth is from real accounts read this Giants part 1 and don't forget part two. Hi Internos, nice to meet ya.

Originally posted by Hanslune
There probably will be more cultures found. But the question to ask is, if the culture existed why did it exist only on the coast? The rise of sea levels would have been slow making moving inland easy.

Most cultures on the coast line also had sites inland.

it depends on the level of civilization, and type of civilization, they had. if they didn't do mining, then the "inlands" might be relegated to those who are a little wierd.

now, imagine why you would live in coastal areas...the same reason it is done worldwide for all of history: food is there. if you can be seafaring enough to make it 100 meters into the ocean, you can have access to good fishing. closer to shore you get crustaceans. Most often you see them people at the mouth of a river for freshwater, which makes them certain lowlands comparatively.

we don't find our ancient history because it is mostly under water. the rest are frail remnants that are mostly discussed as "ooparts" and the like.

at least, that is one theory.