AaronD Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Very interesting, poignant! But where are the 2.6 meter skeletons? "Authorities" remove them? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) This is my first posting here though I have lurked for many years. I'm not much of a "poster" but one of my other diversions is interest in what could be termed "alternate history." Many over the years, many people, to include Sir Isaac Newton, have subscribed to the belief that the accepted chronology of mankind has been severely miscalculated by ignoring inconvenient archeological evidence. The belief being that mainstream science has most definitely twisted and perverted fact for a variety of reasons to include power, political influence, and money. Archeologists and scientists who possess(ed) knowledge which didn't jive with accepted dogma were, and are, ostracized, not given opportunities for career advancement, ridiculed, and in some cases no doubt threatened to "keep quiet." As a matter of self preservation, many have done just that. I would be willing to bet that Dr. Meldrum has experienced a certain degree of this in his own career. To take it out of that context though, imagine the results if some staffer or department head at the Smithsonian came out and admitted to spotting a bigfoot and became a convert. Does anyone honestly believe that they wouldn't suffer some sort of shunning, ridicule, reprimand, or outright retribution? Does anyone really think that the head of Anthropology would say "Bob, you've made a really remarkable discovery. Why don't you take a couple of months to form up an expedition to explore this further."? To get back to the matter at hand though, and speaking of the Smithsonian...I fully understand the reluctance of skeptics to flat accept newspaper accounts, but do you accept the word of the Smithsonian Institution? One of the unfortunate cats that got out of the bag before damage control and denial became the first reactions to inexplicable artifacts was the discovery of giant skeletal remains that were carted off to Washington, D.C. and reported in the Smithsonians own reports. It would appear to me that based on the deafening silence since the initial discoveries and reports, that at some point they made a conscious decision to sweep the matter under the rug and never discuss it again so far as I can tell. I know for sure you can't walk in there today and look at one on display, and I'd be willing to bet you can call anyone you want over there and you'll either get hung up on, or mocked as a crank. You can find some of the documentation here: http://www.xpedition.../holocaust.html Before anyone tears into me about the author's credibility, or veracity of the website it is on, I will say I know absolutely nothing about that, nor do I care. All I was looking for was some quotes and leads to actual printed sources from the 19th Century which document the discovery of giants in that era to contribute to the discussion. Edited October 29, 2012 by Ike 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Thankyou, Ike, for that post and the info. There does appear to be a tide of "hush" when it comes to potential evidence that threatens to challenge the status quo. I suspect it isn't contained exclusively to the discovery of giant skeletons, and could possible extend to the field of bigfoot research; which would more than explain why public evidence continues to be hazy and subject to speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I suspect it isn't contained exclusively to the discovery of giant skeletons, and could possible extend to the field of bigfoot research; which would more than explain why public evidence continues to be hazy and subject to speculation. I have absolutely no doubts about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Giants articles, including many from other than newspaper sources... http://www.burlingtonnews.net/smithsonian.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Thanks Flashman2.0, for the link. Very fascinating stuff. My personal opinion is that bigfoot is connected to giant skeletons found. Of course, no evidence at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 After a long, bloody and protracted fight...odd how people who are supposed to be the most intellectual among us are the LEAST open-minded on so many issues. I don't think its a question of "open-mindedness" vs "close-mindedness" It can take years of researching and data gathering before scientists are sure that a theory is likely to be accurate. This was the case for the big bang theory and plate tectonics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Just watched the Bigfoot Report, which had a story saying that the Smithsonian has at least two complete sets of skeletons of Giant hominid found in the US. Anyone know anything more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Just watched the Bigfoot Report, which had a story saying that the Smithsonian has at least two complete sets of skeletons of Giant hominid found in the US. Anyone know anything more about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I've heard about that. Not sure if they are Bigfoot remains as has been specified, also the Uof BC supposedly has one as well, and like the Smithsonian, theirs is also supposedly "lost". http://bigfootology.com/?p=406 http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/why-no-bigfoot-bones-and-bodies/ Here's a few interesting articles on the matter. I'm hesitant to say conspiracy theory or cover up like Mr. Lindsay does, but both articles make some intersting points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cowlitz2 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 'fossilized Irish giant' http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=giants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 See Giant Skeletons thread: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/32381-giant-skeletons/ There were/are skeletons, lots of 'em, in coffins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 This thread double posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vasquatch1984 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yeah, I think it needs merged Yeah, I think it needs merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Museums and universities are almost universally way behind in cataloging and curating their collections. Would it surprise me if they did have a squatch skeleton either unlabeled or mislabeled in their collection for innocent reasons? No. That said, the Smithsonian, like Zahi Hawass in Egypt, has appointed itself gatekeeper and Head Debunker on a variety of issues within their perview from anthropology to history. One would do well to keep that in mind whenever dealing with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts