Speaker 1: Okay, so have you ever heard about like giants roaming America? Giants? Yeah,
not just like mythical figures, but actual junkeant skeletons found
across the country.
Speaker 2: It is captivating how tales of giants appear in cultures globally,
you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What we'll be exploring is whether these stories are purely
mythical or if there's any like tangible evidence to support
them exactly.
Speaker 1: We'll be examining like reports and controversies and the possible
suppression of evidence related to giant skeletons found in America. Okay,
I think eight foot skeletons in Ohio, a possible twelve
foot sarcophagus in California, and a Nevada cave brimming with
artifacts seemingly too large for average sized humans.
Speaker 2: The Lovelock Cave in Nevada is a great starting point.
It's intertwined with the Payute tribe's legend of the cytikaw
rare hair giants, who, according to their stories, terrorize the region.
Speaker 1: So are these legends just imaginative tales or could they
point to a hidden chapter in human history.
Speaker 2: What's fascinating is that the Pioute accounts to pick these
Citi Ka as cannibalistic giants, incredibly strong and difficult to defeat.
They waged war against the Payut and neighboring tribes.
Speaker 1: Wow, and these aren't just campfire stories. Right. In the
early nineteen hundreds, excavations at Lovelock Cave uncovered some startling findings. Right.
They found thousands of artifacts, including a giant handprint on
the cave wall. It makes you wonder how big were
these hands.
Speaker 2: They even found a size twenty nine sandal. Wo imagine
trying to find shoes that size today. Yeah, and there
were reports of mummified remains of giants with red hair,
just like in the Paiutee legends.
Speaker 1: It's so interesting you see. The Lovelock Cave findings, alongside
similar global legends, raised a crucial question. Are these stories
purely mythical or do they hint at an alternative history
we haven't fully grasped.
Speaker 2: That's the core of the mystery. Yeah, and it becomes
even more intriguing when we consider them numerous reports of
giant skeletons found across the US, spanning from Ohio to California.
Speaker 1: Take for instance, the eighteen seventy two report in Noble County, Ohio,
describing three skeletons over eight feet tall, each with double
rows of teeth. Double rows of teeth. That's a detail
that sticks with you, isn't it. And in eighteen ninety one,
anthropologist Frederick Ward Putnam unearthed large skeletons in the same region,
measuring seven feet or taller, with skulls twice as thick
as a human's almost like a different species.
Speaker 2: These discoveries, each with its unique details, add to the intrigue.
Then there's the Miamisburg Mound in Ohio, where a skeleton
over eight feet tall was supposedly found but later vanished
from a local museum. The vanishing skeletons are a recurring
element in these accounts, making verification difficult exactly.
Speaker 1: It's like pieces of a puzzle are deliberately being removed.
We see a similar pattern with the Cressat Mound in
West Virginia, where in nineteen fifty nine a seven foot
two inch skeleton was unearthed during an excavation. So many reports,
yet the evidence seems to disappear. It makes you wonder
where these skeletons ended up.
Speaker 2: So you're seeing a pattern here, right numerous reports of
giant skeletons, all vanishing without a trace. It begs the
question is there a Dula liberate effort to suppress this
evidence or are we simply chasing shadows. Some researchers point
fingers at the Smithsonian Institution.
Speaker 1: This is where things get really interesting. There are numerous
reports suggesting that the Smithsonian received many of these giant
skeletons over the years.
Speaker 2: It's like a whisper running through these accounts. The Smithsonian
received the skeletons, but they're nowhere to.
Speaker 1: Be found now and when researchers request information about specific artifacts,
they often hit a wall vague answers, claims of missing
items or inaccessible storage locations. It's almost like they're being
deliberately evasive.
Speaker 2: For example, in nineteen fifty, researcher Frederick J. Poe inquired
about ancient wooden coffins from Crump's Cave, Alabama, sent to
the Smithsonian. The institution couldn't locate them, despite records showing
they had been received, and.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety two researcher David Barron faced a similar situation.
He was told the coffins were wooden troughs and inaccessible
due to as best as contamination. Oh wow, missing files
inaccessible warehouses vague responses. It definitely raises eyebrows, wouldn't you say?
Speaker 2: It does make you wonder? To understand the Smithsonian stance,
we need to rewind a bit and look at how
their perspective on archaeology shifted in the late nineteenth century.
Speaker 1: They initially supported the idea of diffusionism, the notion that
ancient civilizations interacted and shared cultural ideas. Okay, but then
their stance shifted towards isolationism, rejecting the idea that Native
American cultures could have interacted with those across the oceans.
Speaker 2: I understand the Smithsonian's initial openness to diffusionism, but their
shift to isolationism seems quite abrupt. What factors could have
contributed to such a dramatic change in their perspective.
Speaker 1: That's a great question and one that deserves further exploration.
Could it be that certain discoveries challenged the prevailing narrative
of human history so much that they were deemed too
disruptive to acknowledge. Perhaps the idea of a more interconnected
ancient world, one where giants might have roamed was simply
too radical for the time.
Speaker 2: And it seems the shift and perspective might have influenced
how the Smithsonian handled evidence that challenge their newly adopted narrative.
Perfect example of this is the controversy surrounding the A.
Cambero artifacts discovered in Mexico in nineteen forty four.
Speaker 1: Now, speaking of challenging conventional narratives, let's look at these A.
Cambero artifacts. Over thirty three thousand ceramic and stone figurines
depicting dinosaurs alongside humans. There are depictions of various ethnic groups, mermaids,
human animal hybrids, and even a bigfoot like creature.
Speaker 2: Imagine that the imagery is truly striking. It's almost as
if these artifacts are trying to tell us a different
story of human history, a more diverse and fantastical one
than what we've been traditionally taught.
Speaker 1: And to add to the mystery, laboratory dating suggested an
age of six five hundred years for these artifacts, but
the Smithsonian dismissed them as a hoax, claiming they were
only thirty years old.
Speaker 2: It's interesting how quickly they dismissed such a large collection
of artifacts, especially when you consider the dating.
Speaker 1: Evidence and it gets even more intriguing. John Tierney, who
authenticated the artifacts file at a freedom of information request for
the Smithsonians files on the Acambero find and guess what
the files were missing?
Speaker 2: Missing files inaccessible warehouses, vague responses. It's a pattern that
keeps repeating itself.
Speaker 1: It certainly raises questions about transparency and potential suppression of evidence,
especially considering the Smithsonian's exemption from the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act of nineteen ninety.
Speaker 2: This act mandates the return of Native American cultural items
and remains to tribes. However, the Smithsonian isn't obligated to comply.
It raises concerns about accountability and control over artifacts with
immense cultural and historical value. It's almost as if knowledge
is being guarded instead of shared.
Speaker 1: Makes you wonder what else might be hidden away in
the Smithsonian's vast collections, doesn't it. But let's shift gears
for a moment and examine this from a scientific perspective.
Is it even possible for giant humans to have existed?
Speaker 2: That's where the square cube law comes in. It states
that as an object increases in size, its volume grows
faster than its surface area.
Speaker 1: Think about it this way. If you were to double
a human's height, their weight would increase eightfold. Wow, their
bones simply wouldn't be able to support that. So from
a purely biomechanical standpoint, giant humans seem improbable exactly.
Speaker 2: However, some reports describe the bones of giant skeletons as
thicker and denser than those of modern humans, suggesting a
possible adaptation to support their massive size. Of course, we
need to be cautious with these accounts, as many could
be exaggerated or fabricated.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, we can't take every report at face value. There
have been documented hoaxes, like the stage discovery of a
giant skeleton near Cincinnati in eighteen eighty two.
Speaker 2: Hoaxes certainly muddy the waters, making it even more challenging
to separate fact from fiction. And when we delve into
alternative theories, we often encounter resistance.
Speaker 1: It's like there's a playbook for suppressing information. The challenge
is conventional thinking. It starts with criticizing opposing views, labeling
them as preposterous, dangerous, or even racist. Then comes marginalization,
dismissing those who entertain these ideas as conspiracy theorists, and
if that doesn't work, they resort to attacking individuals, accusing
them of promoting harmful ideologies without evidence. Finally, we reach
the stage of censorship, suppressing discussion and preventing the dissemination
of alternative perspectives.
Speaker 2: We have seen this play out recently with documentaries presenting
theories about lost civilizations. Despite thoughtful arguments, they often face
backlash from mainstream media and some scientists. It's a reminder
that challenging long held beliefs, even with evidence, can be
met with resistance.
Speaker 1: It seems some would rather cling to familiar narratives than
explore new possibilities, even if those possibilities might hold the
key to a more accurate understanding of our past. It
highlights the importance of critical thinking, questioning assumptions, and being
open to alternative perspectives. But sometimes even something as seemingly
unrelated as a sweet potato can challenge long held beliefs.
Speaker 2: A sweet potato, how does that fit into the Giant's
skeleton mystery?
Speaker 1: Well, it perfectly illustrates how new evidence is challenging the
Smithsonian's long held belief in isolationism. Ancient sweet potatoes found
in the Cook Islands pre date Columbus, suggesting trans Pacific
travel by Native Americans or Polynesians.
Speaker 2: That's fascinating. It suggests a more interconnected ancient world than
previously thought.
Speaker 1: Exactly, and there's more linguistic similarities between Polynesian and South
American words for sweet potato. Further support this possibility of
pre Columbian contact, and the most compelling evidence comes from
DNA analysis. Polynesian chickens were found in Chile and South
American chickens have genetic links to Easter Island.
Speaker 2: That's pretty conclusive evidence of pre Colombian contact. It seems
the humble sweet potato has become a symbol of a
more interconnected ancient world, one that directly challenges the isolationist narrative.
And if we were wrong about that, what else might
we be wrong about?
Speaker 1: That's the question that keeps lingering, isn't it? And it
brings us back to the giants. If the isolationist narrative
is crumbling, could the possibility of giants be re examined
with a fresh perspective. We'll delve deeper into this and
other intriguing aspects of the Giant's skeleton. Myistry in part
two of our Deep Dive