Jump to content

Possibility Of Large Bones Being Found In North America


Guest JiggyPotamus

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor

Hello AaronD,

Aw shucks! That would be aimed at JDL. Not to say that Cervelo wouldn't be a good choice too though.

But yeah, JDL. Thanks for catching that A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not  a problem, it confused me for a second. JDL would be a good member to involve with your effort. He seems to know a lot about the subject. I was impressed with his knowledge a while back on a similar topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Hello AaronD,

Hey, thanks for the tip. He does look to be someone who plans well. Wonder if he plays chess. He probably would instruct me in THOSE niceties all TOO well methinks. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interest of assisting in this endeavor, I would like to offer some constructive criticisms and suggestions. I think I can offer some unique insights into this matter as I am one of the rare, fortunate few who have actually been behind closed doors at the Smithsonian to conduct research, albeit in a completely non-related field. First I will relate my constructive criticisms and then tell of my own experience, and others can glean from it what you will.

 

In my experience HF you are hitting the nail on the head, but unfortunately didn't take it quite far enough. I would strongly suggest you do some research on the Smithsonian’s website and find the specific curator who would be most likely be in a position to assist you and contact them. A generic "to whom it may concern" will most likely get you an equally generic response. In their eyes, you have already lost traction as a serious researcher because you couldn't be bothered to find the specific person you need to talk to, or had been possibly been recommended by one of their peers. Indeed, they receive hundreds if not thousands of inquiries per year, and a variety of underlings are tasked with filtering out those inquiries. As incredulous as it may seem, they are underfunded and understaffed as most museums are, and this being "THE" museum of the western hemisphere, they plain do not have the time to answer fully every off the wall inquiry or request.

 

To JDL, I can understand how the average person would conceive an idea such as you have. I don't mean this as a personal swipe or insult, but your idea is in some ways putting the cart before the horse and, quite frankly making the situation far more complicated than it is. The initial thing to do is establish if these artifacts exist or if they are willing to entertain said research.

 

The reality of the situation is, most museums and archives are quite easy to get into if you demonstrate you have some sense and actually bother to apply yourself. Keep in mind, most of these facilities are publicly funded, and in a sense, belong to "we the people" and are there to serve us. Their stated mission is generally to educate, and many curators are more than happy to be of assistance if for no other reason than to talk about their favorite subject with someone else. Admittedly though, others are not so inclined, and will purposefully erect barriers to avoid having to deal with the public.

 

The Smithsonian (at least in my experience) was initially more of the latter, and I just happened to get lucky in the end. They are a federal bureaucracy after all with a lot of disinterested staff. I do a great deal of work as an independent researcher and about a year ago wanted to see what artifact holdings the Smithsonian had in my field of interest. I prowled the internet and found the name of the curator who was most likely able to assist me and emailed her directly. I kept my message fairly brief and to the point of what I was looking for and who I was.

 

She responded within the next day or two and said yes, they had some artifacts that would be of interest to me. I then set up an appointment with her (at a date and time convenient to her) and within two weeks I went to meet with her. There were no background checks, no ID submitted, no pedigrees asked for...nothing. I should point out the items I was seeking to look at are exceptionally rare and valuable, not common garden variety objects found just anywhere. I entered the meeting with a professional demeanor and prepared to do my work. While examining the artifacts, conversation naturally ensued and I was thereby able to demonstrate I was knowledgeable about the topic (more-so than the curator herself) and "worthy" of being granted access. I use the term "worthy" because I was soon to discover that those given access to the collection are somewhat arbitrarily and subjectively chosen.

 

As the details of my mission unfolded (I was seeking to make museum quality reproductions of the items I was looking at) the curator confessed that had she known what I was wanting to do, she would have never granted access! Not because I wanted to replicate them, but because so many goofballs and wackos are in my field of study, they summarily dismiss them because the staff doesn't want "those people" wasting their time! She further admitted that she thought I had been given her name by a peer of hers, and thus thought I would be okay to allow in; even though at no point had I stated or even implied such.

 

All is well that ended well, I went back for another two visits to complete my work, confident that I had established myself as a serious researcher in her eyes. As it turned out, in a conversation with one of my peers, he was incredulous that I had gotten in, as he had been denied access for over 20 years, and even been told that 'no, we don't have any of that stuff.' Again, this was in a completely unrelated field to BF or any other kind of paranormal or controversial study, so charges of a conspiracy to suppress information do not apply here.

 

In the end, my general observation was that luck is the biggest determining factor. By and large, the staff at the Smithsonian for one reason or another don't want to fool with average researchers, but MAY on occasion allow it. It as much seemed to revolve around finding the right curator who just happened to be in a good mood that day to allow me in. Granted, this may just be the pervasive attitude in the department I was dealing with, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is not an across the board type mindset. So hopefully this has been of some assistance and I sincerely hope you can get a positive response from them, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ike, for that account. Yours indeed is not a typical result. Like you said,( besides luck and maybe a rsult of your personal swagger) your endeavor was completely different than the subject matter at hand, so conspiracy theory may not apply. Something tells me; however, that evidence of giant humans may be something they actively keep us out of the know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me; however, that evidence of giant humans may be something they actively keep us out of the know.

 

Oh I agree entirely :) Just trying to give an avenue of approach that worked for me (albeit I think 80% of it was luck driven). I imagine when approached about giants, they can and would dummy up real quick, even when presented with documentation from their own journals that they do/did exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure they would. But there are other ways around it--surely the Smithsonian isn't the only holder of such artifacts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anticipated reticence is one of the reasons I structured my suggestion as I did.  A well-organized, well-coordinated, independently resourced effort backed by private money is harder to ignore, particularly if you're offering the opportunity to co-author, and if the curator is savvy enough to understand that someone with resources will likely go over his head if necessary.  If, after an initial approach you find resistance, then you know that you have to go in from above.  That's where money and influence become more important.

 

The illusion of a curatorial fiefdom is easily dispelled by a congressional inquiry into one's lack of responsiveness to the public.



Particularly if one's supervisor, or supervisor's supervisor is demanding that one do what is necessary to get the congressman off of his back.



But to make this work, your organization, coordination, and resources must be solid enough to sway the congressman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Hello All,

I've already submitted one correspondence so the ball is rolling. I will do the next best thing given some time submit a second to the proper channel. I took the protracted approach to test the waters. Don't worry I'll get my reply. I have sources and resources that can come to bear on this. Didn't want you to think I'd take on this kind of thing without back-up. This isn't exactly the BFRO were talking about here now is it. I do know people in D.C.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ JDL, this is one of the things I like about you--you have a solid handle on reality and a fluent way of conveying your thoughts. You're right, what it would boil down to is money and power....and influence because I can bet anything even without trying that they're going to deny everything. The best resource, if you aren't so well connected, would be to try to find a friend who happens to work on the inside. It might be a reasonable approach, since the kind of money and power it would take to roll over a giant entity (no pun intended) like Smithsonian isn't found with your average Hollywood A-lister even......you could see if Bill Gates would be interested ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Aaron,

 

Best case, I think it could be done for $20,000.  This assumes the Smithsonian immediately welcomes the research group.  The $20,000 would go to pay travel and lodging costs for the group while at the Smithsonian.

 

Worst case I think it could be done for $100,000.  By worst case I mean that you put together a solid, credentialed, privately funded, research group to investigate the artifacts recovered from the Midwestern mounds, approach the Smithsonian, and they slam the door in your face.  The additional $80,000 would have to be used to put together the right mix of interested parties.  It could probably be done for significantly less if well planned.

 

At this point you have to include political interest groups.  I would probably reach out to one or more of the indigenous tribes from the mound building region and then identify which congressmen from the same region to approach.  Best case is one or more with a favorable relationship with the participating Native American organizations.

 

What would the Native American group gain?  Greater public understanding and acknowledgement of their richly advanced pre-Columbian culture, documentation of their past and, ultimately, recovery of the artifacts returned to their custody.  The opportunity exists to found a new, or expand an existing, Native American Museum to fully develop the cultural value of the finds.  Perhaps this Museum could fall under the Smithsonian family as a jointly developed partnership.  In this way, the Smithsonian actually loses nothing and gains public recognition for finally giving Native Americans their full due, potentially reversing their reputation as 19th century grave robbers.  True success depends on everybody winning in the process.

 

Hopefully in the process the mystery of the tall people who were the source of the "giant" skeletons could be explored, to include their genetic origin.

 

Whatever their origin, they were clearly an integral part of the mound building culture and, though extinct, deserving of recognition, study, and understanding.

 

Personally, I believe that they were a distinct race that once inhabited much of the Americas prior to dying off.  Why they died off is an important question that needs to be answered.  Was it a disease to which they were specifically vulnerable?  Was it cultural conflict?  I think it possible that the Si-The-Cah of Paiute legend and the Lovelock cave finds were members of this race, perhaps some of the last, resorting to cannibalism as described by the Paiutes.  It may also be possible that the Patagonian giants were the last surviving members of this same race.

 

We know so little about Ice Age culture, and more and more evidence is emerging not only that there were significantly developed populations during that time, but that they went through some extraordinarily stressful cultural transition as the climate changed (apparently relatively abruptly) from ice age to modern temperate conditions.  Hypothetically (and in some cases folklorically), the decline of the giants coincided with these events.  There is some value in examining this possibility beyond the documentation of their species.

 

If they were a distinct species like the Denisovans (or perhaps actually Denisovans), then their remains are the most recent (and accessible) evidence of a separate, parallel, and contemporaneous, but comparably advanced, hominid culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great, but I am doubtful the Smithsonian willl give up its secrets that cheap or for that purpose. I'm also doubtful that they care about shedding their rep as grave robbers. And, I'm not sure the giants are NA....although they get the label NA artifacts, I'm thinking this is a convenient excuse for their swift confiscation of whatever they can grab of the huge bones. Again, I think they have  an agenda for hiding the evidence and for this reason I don't think we'd be successful even at getting a quick glimpse. Call me a pessimist, but I'm sure this has been tried in the past.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that there is likely a long-standing agenda.  Hopefully a case can be made that the reasons for it, established in the 1800's, are now outdated.

 

For now, this pursuit is a pipe dream, but hopefully in a couple of years I'll be able to devote some time to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems unlikely, but we can always hope--that their agenda is outdated. My thoughts are that it is more important now than ever that they maintain their position of innocense. I'm going to guess that the "evidence" has been under lock and key but as pressure increases to show and tell, they may start destroying it....if they haven't already. When you're ready and able to devote some time to it, I may be in a position to help finncially. We'll keep that on the table for now. I also have some ideas to perhaps prime our culture up for some interest.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...