[hoax] Smithsonian Admits Destroying Thousands Of Giant Human Skeletons In Early 1900′s

[sigma6]

The same covert deception behind the Piltdown man, that created a false missing link that doesn't exist, that never existed, the fraud itself being the proof of their knowledge of this fact, is still alive and well today... The agenda is still the same, this is the storyline is right out of Planet of the Apes (except we are the ones doing it to our own kind...) Deception on deception, covert premeditated and planned deception to support false scientific theories... People who are supposed to be in the highest positions of responsibility, taking priceless artifacts and in this case large human skeletons, appropriating them under the guise of a Government authority, then secreting them away and having them destroyed behind the public's back in order to propagate what they know is a false doctrine that can't be proven scientifically, the implications of the depth of the fraud haven't even been fully articulated here... Would love to Michael Cremo's take on this judgement... A vindication for his lifelong fight to bring the truth to the masses. He should sue these stinking Freemason bastards...

Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s

http://vortexcourage.me/2014/12/05/s...900%E2%80%B2s/


A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

The allegations stemming from the American Institution of Alternative Archeology (AIAA) that the Smithsonian Institution had destroyed thousands of giant human remains during the early 1900′s was not taken lightly by the Smithsonian who responded by suing the organization for defamation and trying to damage the reputation of the 168-year old institution.

During the court case, new elements were brought to light as several Smithsonian whistle blowers admitted to the existence of documents that allegedly proved the destruction of tens of thousands of human skeletons reaching between 6 feet and 12 feet in height, a reality mainstream archeology can not admit to for different reasons, claims AIAA spokesman, James Churward.

«

There has been a major cover up by western archaeological institutions since the early 1900′s to make us believe that America was first colonized by Asian peoples migrating through the Bering Strait 15,000 years ago, when in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of burial mounds all over America which the Natives claim were there a long time before them, and that show traces of a highly developed civilization, complex use of metal alloys and where giant human skeleton remains are frequently found but still go unreported in the media and news outlets

» he explains.



A turning point of the court case was when a 1.3 meter long human femur bone was shown as evidence in court of the existence of such giant human bones. The evidence came as a blow to the Smithsonian’s lawyers as the bone had been stolen from the Smithsonian by one of their high level curators in the mid 1930′s who had kept the bone all his life and which had admitted on his deathbed in writing of the undercover operations of the Smithsonian.

«

It is a terrible thing that is being done to the American people

» he wrote in the letter. «

We are hiding the truth about the forefathers of humanity, our ancestors, the giants who roamed the earth as recalled in the Bible and ancient texts of the world

».

The US Supreme Court has since forced the Smithsonian Institution to publicly release classified information about anything related to the “destruction of evidence pertaining to the mound builder culture” and to elements “relative to human skeletons of greater height than usual”, a ruling the AIAA is extremely enthused about.

«

The public release of these documents will help archaeologists and historians to reevaluate current theories about human evolution and help us greater our understanding of the mound builder culture in America and around the world

» explains AIAA director, Hans Guttenberg. «

Finally, after over a century of lies, the truth about our giant ancestors shall be revealed to the world

» he acknowledges, visibly satisfied by the court ruling.


We know better, look the finding itself is not being mentioned on any mainstream news channel, what reparations did they make. He blew it there... did the winner make any specific demands, did the court? Nope... That's how they play, this story will just get buried and a media vacuum will suck out all the air around it, unless we spread this story amongst ourselves and our various networks...

[David Ansible]

Sorry but until someone can cite the Supreme Court case, I am very
skeptical of this. Seems an unusual ruling for that court.

Someone in the comments section of the article made this point as well, and
the writer or editor came back with a youtube link. I watched part of the video
and sort of scrolled through the rest.

I do not believe that video references any Supreme Court case. So this is sloppy at
best.

[sigma6]

Posted by David Ansible (here)
Sorry but until someone can cite the Supreme Court case, I am very
skeptical of this. Seems an unusual ruling for that court.

Someone in the comments section of the article made this point as well, and
the writer or editor came back with a youtube link. I watched part of the video
and sort of scrolled through the rest.

I do not believe that video references any Supreme Court case. So this is sloppy at
best.

go do some research...

[Pam]

I don't know why the author chose this photo for the article,it discredits what he is writing about. The bone was taken from the Smithonian in the mid thirties and kept hidden until the man that stole the femur died. Why do we have a hokey picture of a guy with a regular shovel and a perfectly clean bone standing there, obviously not taken in the 1930's? Anyway, I think it is important for folks writing about this kind of thing to try to hold up to scrutiny and provide accurate info and photos.

[sigma6]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by David Ansible (here)
Sorry but until someone can cite the Supreme Court case, I am very
skeptical of this. Seems an unusual ruling for that court.

Someone in the comments section of the article made this point as well, and
the writer or editor came back with a youtube link. I watched part of the video
and sort of scrolled through the rest.

I do not believe that video references any Supreme Court case. So this is sloppy at
best.

go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory. (How they can twist their minds inside out in this fashion is still a mystery to me...other than the psychological repression explanations) But it stands to reason on common sense alone, otherwise...

And are you denying the giant bones exist? or that the court case never happened? O.o?

[sigma6]

Posted by peterpam (here)
I don't know why the author chose this photo for the article,it discredits what he is writing about. The bone was taken from the Smithonian in the mid thirties and kept hidden until the man that stole the femur died. Why do we have a hokey picture of a guy with a regular shovel and a perfectly clean bone standing there, obviously not taken in the 1930's? Anyway, I think it is important for folks writing about this kind of thing to try to hold up to scrutiny and provide accurate info and photos.

There's a thousand photos out there about these giant bones, what is with all this bizarre commentary, like you all arrived on the planet yesterday?... has no one heard of this before?... I thought this was old news...

The important message is that the truth is being exposed, in the very halls of the people who created the lie in the first place... the liars are being caught and exposed. Just like the Piltdown man, the jig is up, it's ok to pull your head out of the sand, for all the people too afraid to think, that need to see the "proof"

First off this was all self evident logic... but I thought for all the people who perceive "fake courts full of Freemason's as the holy gospel" crowd, this would help them, but cognitive dissonance is obviously alive and well... what other explanation for these bizarre responses???

You should be rejoicing... or are you just looking at this from a creationist point of view? If that is the case your mind is really muddled... and you're going to have to do even more research on that... lol...

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory.

Please show us some evidence, or at least explain how far you got youself in looking for the evidence, instead of insulting us. Some of us are -not- invested in the missing link theory, quite the contrary. However some of us are invested in sharing our research, and expect the same of others.

How do you know that there is such a Supreme Court ruling?

[David Ansible]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by David Ansible (here)
Sorry but until someone can cite the Supreme Court case, I am very
skeptical of this. Seems an unusual ruling for that court.

Someone in the comments section of the article made this point as well, and
the writer or editor came back with a youtube link. I watched part of the video
and sort of scrolled through the rest.

I do not believe that video references any Supreme Court case. So this is sloppy at
best.

go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory. (How they can twist their minds inside out in this fashion is still a mystery to me...other than the psychological repression explanations) But it stands to reason on common sense alone, otherwise...

And are you denying the giant bones exist? or that the court case never happened? O.o?

There's no cognitive dissonance. Do you even know what that means? Anyway, I am not "denying" that the SC case happened. I am saying if it did, it should have been cited. More so, the person who responded in the comments should have cited the case. Why
don't YOU tell me the case?

[cloud9]

As I see it, the problem is not the validity of the stories about the giants but the court case. Did it really happen? Where? When?

[sigma6]

Anyway, I am not "denying" that the SC case happened. I am saying if it did, it should have been cited. More so, the person who responded in the comments should have cited the case. Why don't YOU tell me the case?

Cause I didn't write the article?

Cognitive Dissonance: definition:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

[Matt P]

I find this very interesting. Some strange things going on. This may be an effort to actually discredit the truth of giants. Why I don't know. But, the article above is a link to a blog post in vortexcourage.me. But that's not where it was originally published. It seems to have appeared a day earlier at World News Daily Report but vortexcourage does not give credit that I noticed. That's a little strange. If you're not familiar with World News Daily Report, at the bottom of their website, they claim to be a part of the "New World Order News" and this is printed on their About Us web page:

"World News Daily Report is an American Jewish Zionist newspaper based in Tel Aviv and dedicated on covering biblical archeology news and other mysteries around the Globe. Our News Team is composed of award winning christian, muslim and jewish journalists, retired Mossad agents and veterans of the Israeli Armed Forces."

Some simple searches provided me no evidence of a supreme court decision related to the Smithsonian about this recently but I didn't spend a whole heck of a lot of time and I would love to hear if anyone else is able to find this. I find it telling that the author did not provide a link to this crucial information. That would be either a very glaring oversight or it doesn't exist.

I am a firm believer in the evidence for giants but if someone is trying to push the story without evidence or with bogus evidence, that sounds to me like one of their typical discrediting operations (you DO see who is behind this place right?). I also believe the evidence can stand on it's own, without the supreme court or smithsonian destruction of evidence angle so I'd not want to share this new info without being certain.
Interesting but a little fishy...

Matt

[edit: I forgot something. In response to one of those comments asking about the link for supreme court evidence, this youtube link was provided. It's not the evidence that was asked for but it IS a very wonderful video link:]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ezG1lPFUMI4

[sigma6]

It does appear this article may have been faked... or at least they are posting articles on both sides (which is not atypical... )

NOT TRUE: SMITHSONIAN ADMITS TO DESTROYING GIANT SKELETONS
http://badsatiretoday.com/smithsonia...eletons-1900s/

I am not basing my belief on it, only that it would vindicate the many decades of research and reports by people like Michael Creme and the late Richard Thompson etc... so it is possible this may have been faked... : (

Point is the facts of reality remain... whether a faked court made a decision or not... i.e. it didn't impress me that they did, but only it's value for others who can't see past the limitations of existing mainstream media... I guess we'll just have to wait... although I have read various reports of observations of destruction of these bones, that I never kept track of at the time, (should have kept track of them...)

update: ditto on mpennery (looks like we were thinking similar at the same time...
I guess I just have to go back to bashing the F-35 .... lol... until the "real" evidence shows up, but then that means we have to go back to the Smithsonian to get it... O.o?

[sigma6]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory.

Please show us some evidence, or at least explain how far you got youself in looking for the evidence, instead of insulting us. Some of us are -not- invested in the missing link theory, quite the contrary. However some of us are invested in sharing our research, and expect the same of others.

How do you know that there is such a Supreme Court ruling?

like I'm going to give a serious response to this... don't we have a history Paul? trying to fake up some insinuation of "insulting" who??? doesn't this ever get old for you? and of course the next back up routine will be "I made you feel stupid" this is getting a little masochistic no?

[David Ansible]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Anyway, I am not "denying" that the SC case happened. I am saying if it did, it should have been cited. More so, the person who responded in the comments should have cited the case. Why don't YOU tell me the case?

Cause I didn't write the article?

Cognitive Dissonance: definition:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

I should have been clearer. Your rather snotty reply got me angry and I responded in some haste. You may have understood what cognitive dissonance is. You however made faulty assumptions about me. I am not suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have nothing invested in the missing link theory. It is a funny assumption for you to have made - quite a leap. Here's what I want: Evidence to back up claims. Okay, you understand now? The article said there is a Supreme Court case. It does not cite it. Someone notices that and makes a comment in the comment section under the article. The response does not cite a case. Why is this article using (apparently) bogus information? That's what I want to know.

[David Ansible]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory.

Please show us some evidence, or at least explain how far you got youself in looking for the evidence, instead of insulting us. Some of us are -not- invested in the missing link theory, quite the contrary. However some of us are invested in sharing our research, and expect the same of others.

How do you know that there is such a Supreme Court ruling?

like I'm going to give a serious response to this... don't we have a history Paul? trying to fake up some insinuation of "insulting" who??? doesn't this ever get old for you? and of course the next back up routine will be "I made you feel stupid" this is getting a little masochistic no?

Wow, you are an interesting fellow. You don't see how you were insulting? You were definitely insulting me. And your "tone" is awful. Moreover, you seem rather irrational. To accuse me of "cognitive dissonance" for simply pointing out that the Supreme Court case may not actually exist?

[sigma6]

Posted by David Ansible (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Anyway, I am not "denying" that the SC case happened. I am saying if it did, it should have been cited. More so, the person who responded in the comments should have cited the case. Why don't YOU tell me the case?

Cause I didn't write the article?

Cognitive Dissonance: definition:
In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

I should have been clearer. Your rather snotty reply got me angry and I responded in some haste. You may have understood what cognitive dissonance is. You however made faulty assumptions about me. I am not suffering from cognitive dissonance. I have nothing invested in the missing link theory. It is a funny assumption for you to have made - quite a leap. Here's what I want: Evidence to back up claims. Okay, you understand now? The article said there is a Supreme Court case. It does not cite it. Someone notices that and makes a comment in the comment section under the article. The response does not cite a case. Why is this article using (apparently) bogus information? That's what I want to know.

Possibly, but given the number of trolls and some certain mods that like to whip up political attacks I do take a pre-emptive approach, almost subconsciously, not of my choice, but as a function of the context I operate in, if I want to maintain my right to express my opinion (or so it would appear)... on this "truth forum" So I have no quelms about being "snotty", as anyone can apply any subjective interpretation of their own opinion they want, I'd rather be straight out, then crawling out from under rocks every time I smell a dung beetle fest ... (like some do around here...if you catch my meaning...) i.e. like I said, there are some here that I have a (recorded) history with, (of course I don't have any control with how they may or may not change those records, which was the original contention to begin with...) Not to worry the consensus on the internet will sort it out, just as our very real time comments are... Sorry if you felt that way... looks like we are all updating our relative positions... I continue to call it, as I see it, and have no problem with updating the record...

[fractal being]

Hi sigma6,

Perhaps you are being a bit unfair there with he criticism. As you mentioned this story needs to be distributed widely since is not reported from the MSM and to be honest to me it seems like a pretty big story. I would love to share this story with everyone I know if it has at least a minimal amount of substance. On a search all I see is the same article posted again and again copy-pasted in all sort of suspicious places on the internet without any further information. If I try to validate it myself seems impossible.

First of all, normally you would refer to a research organization as an Institute and not Institution. Furthermore if you look for the American Institution for Alternative Archeology, you won't find it anywhere in the net. I would assume that ANY institute would have a website, or at least a blog page. But for AIAA Nothing in either form. Not to mention that there is an American Institution for Aerospace and Aeronautics using the abbreviation AIAA, which means that it would be unlike that another official organization would exist with the same abbreviation.

Second, I find it difficult to believe that any court would accept the presentation of physical evidence. No matter how believable the artifact might be, they are obliged by law to have an expert report instead.

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't enough proof already around the net supporting the existence of giants or that the Smithsonian is a corrupt organization, it just means that the above article cannot support any of those claims. So unless I find somewhere the court ruling itself or the blog of a AIAA director called Hans Guttenberg (which I also couldn't find) describing his cause, I would consider this story bogus.

Thanks anyways.

[sigma6]

Posted by David Ansible (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by sigma6 (here)
go do some research... the cognitive dissonance is understandable... for people heavily invested in the non-existent missing link theory.

Please show us some evidence, or at least explain how far you got youself in looking for the evidence, instead of insulting us. Some of us are -not- invested in the missing link theory, quite the contrary. However some of us are invested in sharing our research, and expect the same of others.

How do you know that there is such a Supreme Court ruling?

like I'm going to give a serious response to this... don't we have a history Paul? trying to fake up some insinuation of "insulting" who??? doesn't this ever get old for you? and of course the next back up routine will be "I made you feel stupid" this is getting a little masochistic no?

Wow, you are an interesting fellow. You don't see how you were insulting? You were definitely insulting me. And your "tone" is awful. Moreover, you seem rather irrational. To accuse me of "cognitive dissonance" for simply pointing out that the Supreme Court case may not actually exist?

I wouldn't be so quick to take Paul's bait... unless you know the whole context of the history (and pattern) and if you do, then I would question your motivations, by definition... which is it?

[sigma6]

Posted by fractal being (here)
Hi sigma6,

Perhaps you are being a bit unfair there with he criticism.

Ah sorry, exactly which "criticism"???

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't enough proof already around the net supporting the existence of giants or that the Smithsonian is a corrupt organization, it just means that the above article cannot support any of those claims.

I'd say we are all in agreement on that one... (or I agree with you on that one... : )

So unless I find somewhere the court ruling itself or the blog of a AIAA director called Hans Guttenberg (which I also couldn't find) describing his cause, I would consider this story bogus.

Perhaps in all the real time postings you missed a few posts... maybe double check that...

[bodhii71]

I have seen a trend on this forum, a decay of fact checking or impulsive posts over the last year or two. This is unfortunate since it floods the forum with a myriad of posts which dilutes and misdirects... and also lessens the impact on true or relative information to what is currently happening and lessens the ability for members to communicate effectively.
I believe the backlash you are experiencing sigma6, has more to do with this than any kind of personal vendetta against you, but perhaps this has happened before. I do not know, only that this post is misleading. Had it gone unchecked, some people would have taken this at face value believing that this truly occurred. At any rate, this equates to bad investigation (at best).
It is easy to impulsively bite the hook, I've fallen victim to this in the past and learned from making such mistakes...to attack others who begin to question the validity of a post? I think this degenerates the entire process of the forum and likens it closer to something like FaceBook. We can and should do better.