Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Wickian

Giant skeletons in North America/Grand Canyon

326 posts in this topic

I looked at the crystalinks site where you got that skull picture from.

Well, here it is again, but with a bit extra (from the same site):

conehead1.gif

And then you will see it's not the skull of some 'giant', but of a normal human being who's head has been artificilally reshaped.

This person must have been a really good swimmer! LOL~! Sorry couldn't help it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though for giants, keep in mind, the average height for people used to be much shorter than what it is currently.

A person of average height today would have been fairly tall to many of these people.

I think this explains the majority of the anecdotal stuff. Remember, there are lots of accounts out there that talk about the Vikings being a race of giants. They averaged about 5'8" in the 13th/14th century.

Imagine a world where the "tall guys" you know are 5-and-a-half feet tall. Now picture a really huge person walking through a crowd of these folks. How easily could a glance give someone the impression that the person is bigger than humans are supposed to be?

I'm average height (5'10"). I met Shaquille O'neil in a club in Orlando. It's a strange experience to reach above your head to pat someone on the shoulder when you're an average sized person. If you couldn't quickly Google his actual height, I can easily imagine that "Holy crap, this guy's huge!!" feeling translating to stories of him being 8 or 9 feet tall.

As for the "found a skeleton but it disappeared" stories. Anyone who's been around fishermen can tell you that the one that got away is always a monster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been giants and other life forms many times over and over again on earth.

There are loads of stories about them with pics etc.

The question is not whether it has been coverred up, the question is why... It is tied to the whole agenda of the 20th century...

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst." J. Edgar Hoover - Director of FBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been giants and other life forms many times over and over again on earth.

There are loads of stories about them with pics etc.

The question is not whether it has been coverred up, the question is why... It is tied to the whole agenda of the 20th century...

Not at all, there is simply no evidence what so ever outside of misinterpretation. There is no global academic conspiracy, such an idea is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of only two giants..lol

1st...andre the giant

14.jpg

2nd....The Jolly Green Giant

MNBEdawngiant.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think this explains the majority of the anecdotal stuff. Remember, there are lots of accounts out there that talk about the Vikings being a race of giants. They averaged about 5'8" in the 13th/14th century.

Imagine a world where the "tall guys" you know are 5-and-a-half feet tall. Now picture a really huge person walking through a crowd of these folks. How easily could a glance give someone the impression that the person is bigger than humans are supposed to be?

I'm average height (5'10"). I met Shaquille O'neil in a club in Orlando. It's a strange experience to reach above your head to pat someone on the shoulder when you're an average sized person. If you couldn't quickly Google his actual height, I can easily imagine that "Holy crap, this guy's huge!!" feeling translating to stories of him being 8 or 9 feet tall.

As for the "found a skeleton but it disappeared" stories. Anyone who's been around fishermen can tell you that the one that got away is always a monster.

I agree with your point of view very much.

I lived in Peru for half a year, and visited the rural areas quite a lot of times.

I remember some Europeans got harassed by native Peruvians in a train at the moment I entered; these Europeans were not that tall, like 5 feet and a couple of inches. Then, all I said was "Que pasa, hombres?" (what's the matter with you guys?, or something like that). And the Peruvians answered with, "Nada señor, no problemas, eh?", and fled to every corner like cockroaches.

I am 6 feet tall and a bit, and afterwards I heard from those Europeans they got scared of my height, lol. Well, and the fact I wore a black beard and camouflage clothes and an army backpack, that helped too.

And I tell you, I am the smallest of my brothers; the largest of my brothers is near 7 feet. But my father could have been a Peruvian, just taking his height into account.

OK, I think it's nothing but good and healthy food, and not much stress during growing up, combined with health care that is responsible for people growing large.

I have seen it here, in Holland. Hindustan people of my age (from Surinam, an ex-Dutch colony) are always small compared to most Dutch people, but their sons are always a lot larger.

I can imagine an ancient native Indian tribe growing tall on good food (lots of proteins, like fish and clams,, and eating lots of green vegetables) and good health care (herbal medicine) and a relative easy life.

No need for any "Annunaki" or "Watchers" or "angels" or 'Atlanteans' to explain this thing.

We Dutch are on avarage the tallest or one of the tallest people on earth, but a century ago it was a different thing altogether. Did aliens land in Holland and mix with us? No.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are periods of human history where we were shorter. There were also periods where we were taller.

Look at the heights of our prehistoric hunter-gatherer ancestors. They were actually taller on average than a modern human from the current era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your point of view very much.

I lived in Peru for half a year, and visited the rural areas quite a lot of times.

I remember some Europeans got harassed by native Peruvians in a train at the moment I entered; these Europeans were not that tall, like 5 feet and a couple of inches. Then, all I said was "Que pasa, hombres?" (what's the matter with you guys?, or something like that). And the Peruvians answered with, "Nada señor, no problemas, eh?", and fled to every corner like cockroaches.

I am 6 feet tall and a bit, and afterwards I heard from those Europeans they got scared of my height, lol. Well, and the fact I wore a black beard and camouflage clothes and an army backpack, that helped too.

And I tell you, I am the smallest of my brothers; the largest of my brothers is near 7 feet. But my father could have been a Peruvian, just taking his height into account.

OK, I think it's nothing but good and healthy food, and not much stress during growing up, combined with health care that is responsible for people growing large.

I have seen it here, in Holland. Hindustan people of my age (from Surinam, an ex-Dutch colony) are always small compared to most Dutch people, but their sons are always a lot larger.

I can imagine an ancient native Indian tribe growing tall on good food (lots of proteins, like fish and clams,, and eating lots of green vegetables) and good health care (herbal medicine) and a relative easy life.

No need for any "Annunaki" or "Watchers" or "angels" or 'Atlanteans' to explain this thing.

We Dutch are on avarage the tallest or one of the tallest people on earth, but a century ago it was a different thing altogether. Did aliens land in Holland and mix with us? No.

Quite correct Abe, I have a similar story, but I was in Japan at the time, when you're 6ft3 tall and crossing the street in Tokyo, you have a quite interesting view, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"We want to make clear that the existence of giant people [in ancient times] ... must be regarded as a scientifically certain fact." -- Louis Burkhalter, paleontologist, 1950

The physical evidence that historical giants used long bows has also been rediscovered: giant flint arrowheads cleverly labeled as "axes" by mainstream coverup community have also been recovered in Africa.

7798_4_giant_axes.jpg

"Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now. Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin." -- Oxford University, September 2009

Giant Stone-Age Axes Found In African Lake Basin, University of Oxford, Sep 2009

But as these blow Darwninism out of the water and pretty much most accepted history, they are filtered out and either called or hoax or they will smear anyone who dares to speak out.

Exactly.

Edited by Actual Facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no global academic conspiracy, such an idea is ludicrous.

You're on the payroll I take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We want to make clear that the existence of giant people [in ancient times] ... must be regarded as a scientifically certain fact." -- Louis Burkhalter, paleontologist, 1950

The physical evidence that historical giants used long bows has also been rediscovered: giant flint arrowheads cleverly labeled as "axes" by mainstream coverup community have also been recovered in Africa.

7798_4_giant_axes.jpg

"Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now. Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin." -- Oxford University, September 2009

Giant Stone-Age Axes Found In African Lake Basin, University of Oxford, Sep 2009

Exactly.

Your attempt to present the pictured hand axes as projectile points (and arrow points at that!)is patently absurd. Given your apparent first-hand knowledge of lithic technology, one would be inclined to presume that you have observed the degree(!) of basal thinning. One may also suspect that you are personally aware of the lateral edge grinding often associated with the hafting of projectile points. Then one would need to spend a bit of time with the mathematical extrapolation of mass, i.e., most projectile points are measured on the scale of grams.

Said extrapolation will lead to a combination of factors of which there is no present qualified supportive evidence. Period.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your attempt to present the pictured hand axes as projectile points (and arrow points at that!)is patently absurd. Given your apparent first-hand knowledge of lithic technology, one would be inclined to presume that you have observed the degree(!) of basal thinning. One may also suspect that you are personally aware of the lateral edge grinding often associated with the hafting of projectile points. Then one would need to spend a bit of time with the mathematical extrapolation of mass, i.e., most projectile points are measured on the scale of grams.

Said extrapolation will lead to a combination of factors of which there is no present qualified supportive evidence. Period.

.

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions thinly veiled in jargon with no supporting evidence.

Do you claim the giant so-called "axes" were actually chiseled by Homo floresiensis?

Edited by Actual Facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions thinly veiled in jargon with no supporting evidence.

In plain English, why are the supposed "bottoms" pretty obviously sharpened to an edge while at the same time there're no marks to indicate that it was attached to a shaft? Even I spotted that before swede pointed it out.

Do you claim the giant so-called "axes" were actually chiseled by Homo floresiensis?

On the contrary. Clearly what we have here is evidence of earth being visited by natives of the planet Taurus II.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Clearly what we have here is evidence of earth being visited by natives of the planet Taurus II.

At least that hypothesis has more scientific evidence supporting it than Darwinian evolution.

Edited by Actual Facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the photograph i used was from Crystalinks, does that mean i have to agree with the theories given by them? That's all they are... theories.

Not to mention the capacity of the skull and many others like it have a BIGGER capacity than a human skull, you can bash and mishape your head as much as you wish, but you can't change the capacity. That's a fact. And the capacity of these such skulls were over twice that for a human skull. That's also a fact. So either this skull goes against an obvious scientific fact or...... it didn't belong to a human being.

The fact Neanderthals where born with skulls the same size as modern Homo Sapiens(and for what ever reason there heads changed shape)....far from makes this skull the product of a *giant*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But as these blow Darwninism out of the water and pretty much most accepted history, they are filtered out and either called or hoax or they will smear anyone who dares to speak out.

You obviously don't know what head binding is or plagiocephaly is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions thinly veiled in jargon with no supporting evidence.

Do you claim the giant so-called "axes" were actually chiseled by Homo floresiensis?

Jargon? The terminology utilized is common amongst even amateur flint-knappers (some of whom, by the way, are quite adept).

Assumptions? Quite the contrary. The technical analysis of lithic modification is a field subject to quite intense and ongoing study. Just for starters;

Sullivan and Rosen

"Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation"

American Antiquity, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp 755-779

More available upon request.

H. floresiensis? While your reference clearly states that no temporal assignment has been established, the geographic factors alone would lead one to question the point behind this question.

Chiseled? A remarkable display of ones knowledge of the modification techniques involved.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We want to make clear that the existence of giant people [in ancient times] ... must be regarded as a scientifically certain fact." -- Louis Burkhalter, paleontologist, 1950

The physical evidence that historical giants used long bows has also been rediscovered: giant flint arrowheads cleverly labeled as "axes" by mainstream coverup community have also been recovered in Africa.

7798_4_giant_axes.jpg

"Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now. Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin." -- Oxford University, September 2009

Giant Stone-Age Axes Found In African Lake Basin, University of Oxford, Sep 2009

Exactly.

Swede's explanation is actually quite correct, these are most definitly not arrowheads. Anybody who has ever made flint arrowheads could tell you that. This said, I also think you misinterpret the article entirely. In fact the article is more interested in what this find says about the out of Africa migration route.

Professor Thomas said: ‘The interior of southern Africa has usually been seen as being devoid of significant archaeology. Surprisingly, we have found and logged incredibly extensive Middle Stone Age artefacts spread over a vast area of the lake basin.

'The record the basin is revealing is one of marked human adaptation in the past. Early humans saw the opportunity to use the lake basin when it was not full of water, but at least seasonally dry. It shows that humans have adapted to climate change and variability in a sustained way.'

Many archaeologists believe that equivalent lakes in the North African Sahara desert played an important part in the ‘Out of Africa’ human expansion theory, as the ancestors of all modern humans would have chosen a wet route out of Africa. The new research is the first time that this giant Botswanan lake basin in southern Africa has been the focus of scientific research, and these findings could provide new evidence to support the theory about a hominid migration through and expansion from Africa.

From the same article btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swede's explanation is actually quite correct, these are most definitly not arrowheads. Anybody who has ever made flint arrowheads could tell you that. This said, I also think you misinterpret the article entirely. In fact the article is more interested in what this find says about the out of Africa migration route.

From the same article btw.

Sounds interesting Searcher, could you post some links on the Botswana basin research and anything to do with the Sahara pre desert?

What is the latest skeptical explanation for the giant labrys axes from Knossos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds interesting Searcher, could you post some links on the Botswana basin research and anything to do with the Sahara pre desert?

What is the latest skeptical explanation for the giant labrys axes from Knossos?

Matey, you'll have to look for it yourself, since the research is still ongoing as such. Might take a while till results are known.

I don't think the latest explanation for the giant labrys axes has ever changed to be honest. The labrys might have been used during sacrifices. The sacrifices would likely have been of bulls. The labrys symbol has been found widely in the Bronze Age archaeological recovery at the Palace of Knossos on Crete. According to archaeological finds on Crete this double-axe was used specifically by Minoan priestesses for ceremonial uses. Of all the Minoan religious symbols, the axe was the holiest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matey, you'll have to look for it yourself, since the research is still ongoing as such. Might take a while till results are known.

I don't think the latest explanation for the giant labrys axes has ever changed to be honest. The labrys might have been used during sacrifices. The sacrifices would likely have been of bulls. The labrys symbol has been found widely in the Bronze Age archaeological recovery at the Palace of Knossos on Crete. According to archaeological finds on Crete this double-axe was used specifically by Minoan priestesses for ceremonial uses. Of all the Minoan religious symbols, the axe was the holiest.

Will do, I really like the serpent statue in Botswana dating to 70,000bce so will check the research out later.

Were the pictures I've seen of the incredibly large labrys a fake then. I am sure they could do it on photoshop but the picture had people standing in shot to give perspective and i was relatively convinced that they were too heavy for a normal sized individual to handle. I shall look for the picture later.

There is an occult mystery about the lords of Sidon in masonry and this is all to do with the Axe as a symbol. Sorry to drift off topic but my suggestions of Morley as evidence of Giants has been quashed before and this is all I currently have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is a link to the pictures I refered to. They look about three times the size of a normal axe making the wielder three times the size. The only other possibility is that they were purely decorative but this seems quite unlikely. Put into context with the Phillistines and the Apocrypha books of the OT I think it is strong evidence of giants in the old world. Maybe they were really good swimmers like Phelps X 3.

http://www.undergroundnewscast.com/giants-axe-at-the-archeological-museum-of-herakleion

Edited by SlimJim22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But as these blow Darwninism out of the water and pretty much most accepted history, they are filtered out and either called or hoax or they will smear anyone who dares to speak out.

A clear sign of someone not having a clue about what the hell they are talking about and demonstrating very clearly that they know nothing at all about evolution.

But Actual Facts wouldn't let his ignorance get in the way.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least that hypothesis has more scientific evidence supporting it than Darwinian evolution.

There is no hypothesis in the post you are replying to and if you are talking about evolutionary theory, because the Darwinian thing throws me off, then there is not another theory in any field of science that has as much supporting evidence as the theory of evolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.