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

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

Only if you ignore the overwhelmingly vast amount of evidence supporting evolution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

SJ - Time-lines. Minoan civilization = bronze age. Even Wiki is pretty close on this one. 4700 BP- 3500 BP. No forensic evidence of giants. Also no structural evidence of giants. This time period, while certainly worthy of continuing research, would not tend to support the position that "giants roamed the earth". In actuality, this time period is not all that old.

For a somewhat interesting article on the significance of the double-bit axe, you may find the below of interest. Bottom line, they were likely "ceremonial" in nature. Not unlike speculation in regards to the Wenatchee Cache.

Hodge, A. Trevor

"The Labrys: Why was the Double Axe Double?"

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 2 pp. 307-308

The above may possibly accessed via the A.I.A website.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The fact that they were purely decorative is actually stronger than you would think. Although the double-headed axe remains a forestry tool to this day and the labrys certainly functioned as a tool,it was invested with symbolic function as well.

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. To find such an axe in the hands of a Minoan woman would suggest strongly that she held a powerful position within the Minoan culture. In the Near East and other parts of the region, axes of this sort are often wielded by male divinities and appear to become symbols of the thunderbolt, but in Crete, unlike the Near East, this axe is never held by a male divinity, only by female divinities and her priestesses.

Another example of the symbolisme of the labrys, it is associated with an archaic symbol of the thunder deity whom Zeus and others become as storm gods wielding their thunder weapons. Take the Nordic god Thor, who hurls his mjolnir to cast thunder and lightning upon the earth, or Indra, who uses his favorite weapon the vajra. Similarly, Zeus throws his labrys, or pelekys, which Zeus uses to invoke storm.

So you see, the labrys was a powerful symbol and as such, will have been extensively used in decoration. Knowing this, it's not really surprising they would build giant versions of it as decoration. Priests being preists, they needed their symbols to be impressive and intimidating. Decorative is what they were and not an indication of giants.

Besides there is the point made by Swede : No forensic evidence of giants.

Only if you ignore the overwhelmingly vast amount of evidence supporting evolution.

Reminds me of Total Science, he also used quotes all the time and didn't let reality get in his way. A scary thought just occured, what if it is TS, reborn like some phoenix from his ashes?

SJ - Time-lines. Minoan civilization = bronze age. Even Wiki is pretty close on this one. 4700 BP- 3500 BP. No forensic evidence of giants. Also no structural evidence of giants. This time period, while certainly worthy of continuing research, would not tend to support the position that "giants roamed the earth". In actuality, this time period is not all that old.

For a somewhat interesting article on the significance of the double-bit axe, you may find the below of interest. Bottom line, they were likely "ceremonial" in nature. Not unlike speculation in regards to the Wenatchee Cache.

Hodge, A. Trevor

"The Labrys: Why was the Double Axe Double?"

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 89, No. 2 pp. 307-308

The above may possibly accessed via the A.I.A website.

You wouldn't have the URL for that by any chance? I'd be interested to read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they were purely decorative is actually stronger than you would think. Although the double-headed axe remains a forestry tool to this day and the labrys certainly functioned as a tool,it was invested with symbolic function as well.

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. To find such an axe in the hands of a Minoan woman would suggest strongly that she held a powerful position within the Minoan culture. In the Near East and other parts of the region, axes of this sort are often wielded by male divinities and appear to become symbols of the thunderbolt, but in Crete, unlike the Near East, this axe is never held by a male divinity, only by female divinities and her priestesses.

Another example of the symbolisme of the labrys, it is associated with an archaic symbol of the thunder deity whom Zeus and others become as storm gods wielding their thunder weapons. Take the Nordic god Thor, who hurls his mjolnir to cast thunder and lightning upon the earth, or Indra, who uses his favorite weapon the vajra. Similarly, Zeus throws his labrys, or pelekys, which Zeus uses to invoke storm.

So you see, the labrys was a powerful symbol and as such, will have been extensively used in decoration. Knowing this, it's not really surprising they would build giant versions of it as decoration. Priests being preists, they needed their symbols to be impressive and intimidating. Decorative is what they were and not an indication of giants.

Besides there is the point made by Swede : No forensic evidence of giants.

Reminds me of Total Science, he also used quotes all the time and didn't let reality get in his way. A scary thought just occured, what if it is TS, reborn like some phoenix from his ashes?

You wouldn't have the URL for that by any chance? I'd be interested to read that.

Searcher - Apologies for the slow reply. Most (!) consumed with field work/research/reports. Seasonality is an ongoing reality in this field. Was not able to find a direct link. If you do not have access to the A.J.A publications, I could provide (construct/distill) an abstract of the paper.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Blocked by the government" It may be possible. There are some things that are best kept secret from the public, but only for National Security. But I don't think this has to do in relation to National Security.

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

Exactly.

Look at this, a standing spear made of stone by a huge giant: :

menhir.jpg

Now think of the animals these giants hunted...

-

Jeesh.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!! This is proof that there were giant northmen roaming the earth!!!! :D

2757002169_3e99c39595_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Blocked by the government" It may be possible. There are some things that are best kept secret from the public, but only for National Security. But I don't think this has to do in relation to National Security.

You are quite correct. The fact that the referenced paper is not readily accessible via "net" connections has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with intellectual property rights and publication rights. The A.J.A. publication is readily available to anyone willing to put forth the effort to access such. The simple truth is that the "real stuff" is not always available on web-sites, and that those that use said medium as their sole source of information may find their data-base to be lacking.

Searcher - Although you have not specifically requested such, I will provide an abstract, as others may find it informative. Will attend to such this weekend.

.

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.

it seems to me that everything was bigger in the past, including humans. This size difference is thought to be due to higher atmospheric oxygen levels (allowing diffusion through spiracles over greater distances) and higher temperatures (enhancing metabolism).

post-103171-003528300 1277438698_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me that everything was bigger in the past, including humans. This size difference is thought to be due to higher atmospheric oxygen levels (allowing diffusion through spiracles over greater distances) and higher temperatures (enhancing metabolism).

humans did not exist during this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had read somewhere that A Human as a Giant is not possible, due to various factors like bipedalism, the gravity etc. i cant recollect where. any one help out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite correct. The fact that the referenced paper is not readily accessible via "net" connections has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It has to do with intellectual property rights and publication rights. The A.J.A. publication is readily available to anyone willing to put forth the effort to access such. The simple truth is that the "real stuff" is not always available on web-sites, and that those that use said medium as their sole source of information may find their data-base to be lacking.

Searcher - Although you have not specifically requested such, I will provide an abstract, as others may find it informative. Will attend to such this weekend.

.

Thanks a bunch mate, I was going to look for it, but this of course is easier.

it seems to me that everything was bigger in the past, including humans. This size difference is thought to be due to higher atmospheric oxygen levels (allowing diffusion through spiracles over greater distances) and higher temperatures (enhancing metabolism).

When the oxygen levels were high enough to make that kind of difference, there was no such thing as a human yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Such an entertaining thread.

Anyway why would anyone want to cover something like this up even if it did exist? What do they gain from it except the, "HAAHAHAH WE KNOW AND U DON'T!"? Why would the Church want to cover it up? After all it would prove a portion of the Bible, in fact, that the "Nephelim" did exist. Why would the governments of the world hide them? Do they emit some sort of mystical power source? Or were the bones accompanied with ridiculously advanced biochemical blueprints of how to create a lesser "human" slave race designed for the sole purpose of toiling away in a Factory of Eden? If so did they also leave behind advanced technology to control this slave race?

This is the sort of evidence the Church would be throwing in everyone's faces, everywhere.

Unless these "artifacts" provided some sort of means to manifest power or control over people in a tangible manner why would the government hide it (and that's assuming every government in the world is secretive, evil, big-brother, and conspirators)?

I can think of no sane plausible reason from hiding such things from the general populace. If giants existed, they are dead today, the only impact it has on our lives is a philosophical/psychological one (if you even would bother to care, I know I wouldn't). Would it change your life even if you knew humans were created as a slave race (or whatever other crazy conjecture of human origin)? Would you crawl in a hole and die because you feel no purpose in life? Regardless of what the past is, fact or fictional, it has no bearing on your life today; it is the present that was dictated by the past and the future dictated by the present (it's not like you are going to stop loving, go to work, or even eat). I just don't see how any sane person could consider the clandestine knowledge of giants a controlling factor over human society.

Some people need to get off the crazy horses they are on and read real science, which I assure you, is a thousand time more mind-blowing (if you take the time to try to understand it) than any of these fictional fringe fields of science.

Edited by over9millionyearsold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me that everything was bigger in the past, including humans. This size difference is thought to be due to higher atmospheric oxygen levels (allowing diffusion through spiracles over greater distances) and higher temperatures (enhancing metabolism).

A. humans don't breath through spiracles. That only works for arthropods. The same argument has been raised for large lung breathers like dinosaurs though.

B. Humans, being mammals, are endothermic, not exothermic. Our metabolisms are self-regulating and therefore not enhanced by external heat sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they find the tombs of the UNBA there will be no denying the giants.

(UNBA = Upper Nile Basketball Association)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a bunch mate, I was going to look for it, but this of course is easier.

When the oxygen levels were high enough to make that kind of difference, there was no such thing as a human yet.

Searcher - Abstract; The author begins with a brief evaluation of the use of the double-bit axe from the perspective of warfare, wood harvest/carpentry, and religion. He points out that the religious application likely comes later and compares the use of such to the derivation of bishop's crozier from the shepherds crook. Further evaluation leads the author to suggest that the original axes had one edge maintained in a sharp form for felling and the other edge allowed to be somewhat duller for splitting. He thus concludes the the original use of the axe was by woodsman.

This, of course, could lead one to speculation as to why they became such a prominent religious symbol. My own thoughts here, but could it relate to the "dualism" concepts that are prevalent in other religious frameworks?

Another paper that you may have an easier time accessing is;

Vermeule, Emily Townsend

1959 "A Gold Minoan Double Axe". Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts. Vol 57, No. 307, pp. 4-16. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, USA.

Though a bit (no pun intended!) dated, the paper brings up some interesting points. Among them;

"The finds from Arkalochori are warlike in aspect, compared to the peaceful pottery, figurines, and libation tables of other Cretan caves. Although the axes are mostly miniatures, some are real tools, and the swords and daggers are genuinely lethal". Thus, the recovered axe artifacts would appear to cover quite a size range. If one were to follow the "giants" hypothesis, one would also have to entertain the idea that the Minoan population also included "wee folk". Quite an interesting demographic!

The report also includes a number of artifact photos. On page 12 is a photo of the Hagia Triada Sarcophagus. Depicted on this sarcophagus are large axes supported on sacred pillars fixed into round bases. While precise scaling is often found rather wanting in such depictions, it is rather clear the these ceremonial axes are notably over-sized.

Other aspects of the report are also of interest. Hope that you can access a copy.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I was just gonna say that they were typical hand axes produced by biface reduction. :lol:

Hunter gathers used many wood containers such as canoes, mortars and cooking logs and you need a big two handed axe to make these items. I've seen 17 to 20lb. grooved axes from the Piedmont Tradition of the Late Archaic and those people averaged 5ft.

Lapiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In masonry the double headed axe relates to the Lords of Sidon who allegedly felled trees for Noahs's Ark and where then left to drown. Also, heard it is a symbol synonymous with a butterfly which could be interpeted as dualistic.

Found this info and wondered if they had been debunked already.

In the book, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, author John Haywood describes; "very large" bones in stone graves found in Williamson County, Tennessee, in 1821. In White County, Tennessee, an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length.

In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. The first of these two skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similar to the Egyptian manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long.(Review - Miner, June 19, 1931).

George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. In 1879, a nine-foot eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana(Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975)

In 1875 workmen were constructing a bridge near the mouth of Paw Paw Creek at Rivesville. While digging through heavy clay soil they were astonished to uncover three giant skeletons strands of reddish hair clinging to the skulls. A local doctor was called to examine the remains and was able ascertain after careful measurement, the skeletons had supported people approximately 8 feet tall.

Gigantism often found in America, is not an abberant mutation, but a genetic throwback to a 'time that was'. As variations in the environment put pressure on these groups, whether it be large predators or famine, numbers dwindled in the populations less suited to the environment. This eventually led to the situation today where most humans are between five foot and six foot 6inches.

http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/Catastrophes.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In masonry the double headed axe relates to the Lords of Sidon who allegedly felled trees for Noahs's Ark and where then left to drown. Also, heard it is a symbol synonymous with a butterfly which could be interpeted as dualistic.

Found this info and wondered if they had been debunked already.

In the book, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee, author John Haywood describes; "very large" bones in stone graves found in Williamson County, Tennessee, in 1821. In White County, Tennessee, an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length.

In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the Humboldt lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. The first of these two skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similar to the Egyptian manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long.(Review - Miner, June 19, 1931).

George W. Hill, M.D., dug out a skeleton "of unusual size" in a mound of Ashland County, Ohio. In 1879, a nine-foot eight-inch skeleton was excavated from a mound near Brewersville, Indiana(Indianapolis News, Nov 10, 1975)

In 1875 workmen were constructing a bridge near the mouth of Paw Paw Creek at Rivesville. While digging through heavy clay soil they were astonished to uncover three giant skeletons strands of reddish hair clinging to the skulls. A local doctor was called to examine the remains and was able ascertain after careful measurement, the skeletons had supported people approximately 8 feet tall.

Gigantism often found in America, is not an abberant mutation, but a genetic throwback to a 'time that was'. As variations in the environment put pressure on these groups, whether it be large predators or famine, numbers dwindled in the populations less suited to the environment. This eventually led to the situation today where most humans are between five foot and six foot 6inches.

http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/Catastrophes.htm

The red hair part has already been discussed but in a nutshell, black hair bleachs out to red after it dies and 90% percent of full blood American Indian babies with are born with red hair.

As for gigantism among the Ohio Moundbuilders, pituitary problems run heavy through the Algonquian gene pool (Swede can attest to this).

Lapiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red hair part has already been discussed but in a nutshell, black hair bleachs out to red after it dies and 90% percent of full blood American Indian babies with are born with red hair.

As for gigantism among the Ohio Moundbuilders, pituitary problems run heavy through the Algonquian gene pool (Swede can attest to this).

Lapiche

Really? I've been told over and over by several of our local "experts" that the Native Americans had zero history of gigantism. But, you are saying that is not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The red hair part has already been discussed but in a nutshell, black hair bleachs out to red after it dies and 90% percent of full blood American Indian babies with are born with red hair.

As for gigantism among the Ohio Moundbuilders, pituitary problems run heavy through the Algonquian gene pool (Swede can attest to this).

Lapiche

And another thing about red hair... I saw a documentary, long ago, about a Papuan tribe. Some kids had red hair, and that was being explained by a lack of iron in the diet.

And when are people called 'giants'? What do you people call that famous Russian boxer? He looks like a Homo Erectus on hormones, 7 feet tall (or close) and uses his opponents as boxing balls (or punching balls, I wish I could post just one post without editing it....sigh).

Another edit:

Valuev was born on August 21, 1973, in Leningrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union (now Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). He is of Russian descent, but he also had a Tatar grandfather.

He wooed his wife, Galya, with poetry that he composed himself.[citation needed] He has two young children, daughter Irina and son Grisha (Grigoriy). In his professional boxing career Valuev has been defeated only twice by Ruslan Chagaev and David Haye.

Valuev is a Russian Orthodox Christian.During his youth he played water polo and basketball.

http://en.wikipedia..../Nikolai_Valuev

He's 7 feet tall, not an alien, he's not from "Atlantis", and has nothing to with the other bullcrap people here love to believe in.

He's just a really big hombre.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I've been told over and over by several of our local "experts" that the Native Americans had zero history of gigantism. But, you are saying that is not true?

Maybe on the West Coast, or among the Dine', but here in the East it's documented. I know a entire Stockbridge-Nanticoke family whose members suffer the gigantism and the uncontrolable weight gain.

Lapiche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The red hair part has already been discussed but in a nutshell, black hair bleachs out to red after it dies and 90% percent of full blood American Indian babies with are born with red hair.

As for gigantism among the Ohio Moundbuilders, pituitary problems run heavy through the Algonquian gene pool (Swede can attest to this).

Lapiche

Good lord, do you just say the first thing that pops into your head. You can even find out about red hair from WIKI and it has nothing to do with black hair bleaching out to red after it dies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, it is true that many ethnic groups have black hair that fades to red after they have died. You can see it in Native American remains, Egyptian mummies and many Polynisian remains.

Edit: You'll find many conspiricy theorys to try to explain these world wide red heads, that often involve lost European civilizations, which is just bunk.

Edited by DieChecker

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.