Profile image
By Jeffery Pritchett
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

How Did The Smithsonian Institution Steal So Many Giant Skeletons From People & From Other Museums?

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Land of the Lost

This giant skull from Peru is (allegedly) quite similar to skulls found in hundreds of graves across North America from the 1700s through the early to mid-20th Century (read about full story of the Paracas Skulls here).
The Smithsonian Institution aggressively acquired the remains of a vast preponderance of giants’ remains unearthed in North America. Newspaper articles from the period tell the tale. Many of these, thankfully, are published in a book by Richard Dewhurst called The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America.
The technique that Smithsonian curators used to coax people to ship the evidence to them was quite ingenious. First, the museum established itself as the anthropological authority bar none. Often, this was enough to attract flies to the “bug zapper.” And if it wasn’t, then requests were mailed by the museum, which asked to see the evidence.
After bones and artifcacts were shipped from another museum, or from a private party, the Smithsonian then proceeded to “sit on them” for a long, long time. In retrospect, it’s obvious that the material was simply put into a top secret warehouse somewhere. Inquiries from the parties involved would produce stalling. Years typically became one or two decades. 
Yes, the Smithsonian’s modus operandi tended to use passive aggressive means to confiscate evidence. This time-honored tradition worked like a charm. Museum staff (from other institutions) tended to give up the easiest. Private parties that had personally discovered or bought the remains were more persistent.
Eventually, though, the person would die, as folks tend to do. When another generation of family members deigned to keep up the fight of getting back their property, the Smithsonian would then shift into second gear: refusing to even acknowledge that it had ever received the skeletons and artifacts.
Most times, the next generation of family members did not keep badgering the Smithsonian. Why? Well, primarily because they were busy with the travails of earning a living and raising a family. Of course, public perceptions about such things might also have been a contributing factor. The sciences had not only brushed off the evidence; they had also taken a firm stand against the possibility that a giant race of hominids once lived in North America, long before the native Americans arrived (assumedly after the giants were no longer).
So, by the 1950′s, children and grandchildren of the original owners of said artifacts, which were stolen by the Smithsonian, could have started to doubt “grandpa’s stories” about a giant skull, copper jewelry, etc. Plausible deniability worked like a charm when new staff and new scientists at the Smithsonian replaced the older generations, which originally accepted the remains. How’s that for sneaky? It’s why I call the Smithsonian “Land of the Lost.”
Notice the red hair on this skull (above), which also has a much heavier cranium and jaw than a human skull, as well as an elongated shape. Most skulls from the Midwest and South of the US were no oblong, but quite a few from the Southwest and West did tend to have an oblong shape. This gives rise to the question: was there more than one species of giant?
I have never tended to think that sasquatches were the same race as the giants that built elaborate structures, massive in size, pyramid, fortifications, and also possessed technology, which, in some cases, was more advanced than ours today. For example, metallurgists cannot duplicate the amazingly strong and light weight copper found in jewelry and equipment used by the giants.
These men all met strange and tragically premature deaths according to Richard Dewhurst, author of The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America. If this giant skull is real, then it belonged to a giant of truly titanic proportions. The picture pushes the bounds of credulity, even for me. Could it be a fabricated tall tale to cast a shadow of doubt over the other evidence by association?


This technique is called “disinformation,” and it tends to work on the general public like a charm. 



Report abuse


    Your Comments
    Question Razz Sad Evil Exclaim Smile Redface Biggrin Surprised Eek Confused Cool LOL Mad Twisted Rolleyes Wink Idea Arrow Neutral Cry Mr. Green




    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.