Archaeologica.org

*sigh*

The 19th century was an era of great hubris, showmanship and uncritical credulity. Yellow journalism flowered & prospered in the 19th century. So did carnival Side Shows & Freak Shows...

All the 'evidence" cited hails from the 19th century. The Smithsonian knows nothing about a lot of things that have been donated to it -- skeletal remains of giants in particular. Go back through the old county history books & collect the accounts of their discovery, examination and acceptance by Smithsonian officials (including "thank you" letters quoted verbatim). Where are those letters? Surely someone saved at least ONE of them...

Much of the material from the well known 19th century hoaxes involved personal hatreds, personal agendas and/or a desire to make MONEY off the credulity of the general public.

Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon the person who wishes to promote these as factual. NOT negative evidence. ("It's missing!" or "It's been destroyed!") The absense of evidence doesn't meant that there is a conspiracy to hide something.

Well, we have gone to the oppisit end of the dumbbell.
But, for what it is worth....

Discovery Channel and giants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaKkgDK9 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGq1YRtx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppMQIdQL ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_396zKk ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFKSPKz ... re=related

Maybe it is easier to find evidence of giants just because it would be bigger?
After all, if we plowed over their mounds, how much easier would it have been to plow of those of pygmies?

The disappearance of multiple, documented donations is a smoking gun.

Your claim that every one of them must have been an independent hoax puts the burden of proving that (it is, after all, an unsupported allegation) squarely on you.

Yeah, I know. And you would, too. But the dog ate your homework.

Who on earth ever got you to believe that if something incongruous with your worldview wasn't found recently, it was never found at all ?

Like there's a code date on discoveries ? Discard by _________ ?

MEGO

ANCIENT MYSTERY!!!
LOST!!!
HIDDEN!!!
SUPPRESSED!!!
REVEALED!!!
UNVEILED!!!

Oh pooh! Yeah, right.

You say it is so, therefore it MUST be.

You say that because you say it is so, then the burden of proof is up to everyone else but you. Why should YOU bother with presenting credible proof or evidence?

Show me...

Show me one shred of real, tangible evidence. Not hearsay. Not florid 19th century 'testimonial' prose. Real concrete evidence. Don't cop out & say that the
evidence once existed & is now gone because the 'powers that be' decided to suppress it. Where's the evidence? Where is the supposed documentation from
the prominent museums? Where are the actual sites where the material was supposed to have been excavated? No excavation of that era was ever thorough &
many new discoveries have been made at old 'worked out' sites.

The only smoke that I see is not from a smoking gun. It's the smoke that you're trying to blow up my arse.

Oh, and by the way... Some of the most profound archaeological discoveries of all time were made in the 19th century... By gifted amateurs who created & defined
the discipline as they worked in the field. The reason that their work is accepted is because they meticulously documented their work. Then they submitted their work
to the world in an open & above board manner that would one day evolve into the peer review process. Their work stands to this day, no expiration date needed.

Conspiracy? (No comment from me!)

Not on display but available for viewing in 2008
http://www.sydhav.no/giants/lovelock.htm

More on Lovelock and other physical evidence, but unfortunately, tainted with the alien pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcXvhx5fQNg

And in Preu
http://www.sydhav.no/giants/peru_gold_museum.htm

kbs2244 wrote:Conspiracy? (No comment from me!)

Not on display but available for viewing in 2008
http://www.sydhav.no/giants/lovelock.htm

More on Lovelock and other physical evidence, but unfortunately, tainted with the alien pandering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcXvhx5fQNg

And in Preu
http://www.sydhav.no/giants/peru_gold_museum.htm

So.... What are you trying to say kb?

”Terry” is an Ancient Alien idiot. He has an agenda.

The jaw he ballyhooed looks to be only slightly larger than average. If you actually look at the photo, he placed a replica of a dental arcade next to a complete jaw. No wonder it looks so small in comparison. So ignore the rest of the complete jaw & focus only on the dental arcade. Similar size & identical shape. I see nothing special there.

I have a nephew who stands 6'10” tall barefooted. Does that make him a descendent of ancient aliens?

My son's paternal side of the family exhibits a tendency for vestigial polydactyl hands. Does that also make him a descendent of ancient aliens?

In the words of the great philosopher Bugs Bunny: ”What a MAROON!”

OMG!!! A Vestigial Polydactyl???
Is it carnivorous? I thought they were exstinked!!

hardaker wrote:OMG!!! A Vestigial Polydactyl???
Is it carnivorous? I thought they were exstinked!!

Yes, quite carnivorous!

I put no credence in the alien idea.
It is outside the logic of the evidence.

But there is pretty good evidence of “human” populations outside the current norms of size.

Both larger and smaller.

As I said earlier, I think the “giants” are the more popular just because they are easier to find.

Back to the original post, it should be noted that the belief in the “small people” is still very much alive in the Eastern foothills of the Rockies.
People will talk about encounters among friends, but are afraid of being labeled kooks if they go public.

It is that same fear people have of reporting UFO contacts.
(And, no, I am no an UFO fan.)

Hi min -

Actually, a former curator of anthropology at the Smithsonian did throw out anomalous remains.
I may bother you with the details if I get some time in a few weeks and feel like it.

[Or you could send me a used 23" Mac Cinema Display, even with a few bad pixels, and I'll move it to the top of my "Must Do" list.]

In the meantime, you may want to consider reading the standard text on "Adena", "Mounds for the Dead", before you dig yourself any deeper in this hole.

Yep. I was going to point out that Dragoo had excavated & documented one in that work. But when people are determined to not listen, there's not much point in talking except to point out what they're doing. To the onlookers.

Just make sure they aren't posted on Abovetopsecret.com or whackadoodle.com, E.P.

Is this a picture of one of those little people?

For the "pygmies", an easily available description of the height of the Yuchee may be found in "Tribes that Slumber". The Ocanachee materials are very difficult to find.

RE: The giants PIC.
No…
As far as I can research the PIC was taken in NE Africa.
Around present date Somalia.
The Brit with the hat was obviously picked because he was a small guy and presented a good contrast to the “Natives“
But, given that he was perhaps a head (8 inches) shorter than the average Brit of the time, the height difference is still pretty amazing.