Welcome to Watcher Forum
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 

 PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

Go down 
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:28 am


April 16, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Dr. Thomas R. Horn

Starting this week, SkyWatch TV begins a series of televised investigative interviews with Steve Quayle, myself, and our respective teams that will slowly uncover over the following weeks trailblazing research we’ve been secretly working on since 2016. You will be hearing a lot about this in major media this year. Besides giant interlopers who traversed the Atlantic Ocean and secret Anasazi routes to corrupt earliest Americans with portal-opening sorcery, human sacrifices, ritual cannibalism, and the technology of the fallen ones, fresh ground is finally broken into the so-called “Great Smithsonian Cover Up.” For those who may not know what I mean by a Smithsonian ‘Cover Up’, let’s start with what we all now know was a giant hoax.

On December 3, 2014, one of the World Wide Web’s most popular and misleading 
articles of all time was published by World News Daily Report

“Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900s.” In this article, it was claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a ruling that the Smithsonian was to release classified papers to the public proving their cooperation in the covert concealment/destruction of gigantic human bones in order to uphold our mainstream concepts of human evolution. This so-called evidence—involving, but not limited to, a “1.3 meter long human femur bone” unearthed in Ohio and brought to the court hearing—would, the article said, “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…[and further states that] after over a century of lies, the truth about our giant ancestors shall be revealed.”[i]

Not surprisingly, an article of this sensational magnitude immediately found its way to social networking newsfeeds and lay-media outlets, showing over sixty thousand shares on Facebook alone within weeks of its publication. The Internet was bombarded with whispers of “proof” that we humans could not have evolved in the way we have been told by science.

The article was, however, riddled with lies. Let us take a quick look at only a short list of untruthful declarations that the public was victim to.

Source: The inside sources quoted were a Mr. James Churward and Mr. Hans Guttenberg, “spokesman” and “director” of the “American Institute of Alternative Archeology” (AIAA). Both these men, and the institute they belong to, are completely fictitious. They do not exist. Effectively, these men and their organization were chosen from thin air to pack a punch of authority upon the article.

Dating: Any and all dates associated with the Supreme Court ruling are entirely ambiguous, as the article only states that the classified documents were from the “early 1900s.” This presents an issue, since “classified documents” also did not exist heavily during this time. The very first classified documents, according to our Central Intelligence Agency: 1) detail invisible ink writing techniques used by the Germans during WWI; 2) are dated to 1917–1918; and 3) are “the only remaining classified documents from the World War I era.”[ii]

Removing the ambiguity from the equation and assuming these bones documents might have been slightly later than the “early 1900s” still delivers us to assume rationally that while the classification system was still in its infancy, the Smithsonian museum bones would have been small beans to the powers that be whose responsibility it was to conceal issues of national security during a wartime era. It was only because of the war that our nation began to utilize classification, and it wasn’t for another several decades that matters such as these claims of hidden/destroyed bones would have been “classified” to begin with.

Public record: Anything the Supreme Court rules on would be made a matter of public record. If the AIAA (that organization that doesn’t exist) had truly pressured the Smithsonian to come clean on their cover-up—if the Smithsonian really did converge in a messy legal battle over defamation that ended when the Supreme Court got involved and ruled that the Smithsonian release their classified documents—then this obscure World News Daily Report would certainly not be the only media company carrying the headline. A matter of such importance to the scientific community as the complete and public overhaul of evolutionary science would have been on the news all over the world. As it stands, verification of these referenced documents, and any court proceedings involving this case, cannot be found in any archive anywhere, governmental or otherwise.

Image: The photo of the femur bone “uncovered in Ohio in 2011 by the American Institute for Alternative Archeology” was 1) taken in Turkey, not Ohio, and 2) photographed in the 1990s, not 2011. The photo has been passed and shared around the Internet as early as 2008.

Disclaimer: For those of you who may wish to believe that the article is filled with truth, but that the website’s editor merely did a poor job of outlining the story and linking to the correct course channels, the site’s disclaimer is the final nail in the coffin:

Information contained in this World News Daily Report website is for information and entertainment purposes only.…

This website may include incomplete information, inaccuracies or typographical errors.…

WNDR shall not be responsible for any incorrect or inaccurate information, whether caused by website users or by any of the equipment or programming associated with or utilized in this website or by any technical or human error which may occur.

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website—even those based on real people—are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.[iii]

That pretty much sums it up. Anything even remotely resembling truth on their website is, by their own admission, “purely a miracle.” This final tone of sarcasm on their part is not lost on the readers who seek real truth in a world where a completely falsified article can be memed and shared over social network sites and lay-media coverage over sixty thousand times within weeks just because a bored online blogger gets a kick out of weaving tall tales.



Articles like this one from the WNDR are capable of bringing about international attention, but unfortunately, they are also capable of initiating a great wave of skepticism and dismissal over a subject that does hold truth. Regardless of how many people instantly jumped at the bit to be sure everyone on their news feed heard about the Smithsonian cover-up of giant human bones, when the source of such material is corrupt, it only renders a greater public disregard for any facts that can be proven on the subject. And when the true facts are later represented, those who were jaded by the first wave of lies aren’t interested in being duped again, so they ignore the evidence, assuming everything is erroneous even when it can be proven true. Real archaeological investigations delivering astronomically large bones inspire reactions such as, “Oh, yeah, I heard about that ‘giant bones’ deal. It’s all a scam.”

This tragedy becomes far worse when other media sites pick up on the headline and repost or rewrite a similar report that links back to the first (which has happened hundreds of times, in this case). It merely becomes mounting evidence that the entire story—and all the claims therein—are based on the product of wild imaginations. 

Ultimately, what World News Daily Report has done by blasting “entertainment” (their words) to the nation is a great disservice to those in the historical and scientific fields who have made it their lives’ work to expose what the Smithsonian really may have hidden away.

I do not intend to waste any time with irrelevant “shame on you” diatribes against a site whose staff may not have any clue as to the injury they have heaped upon real discovery and investigation, as that is not the purpose of this feature. However, no case study on such an issue as this could be considered complete without the unbiased disclosure of fabricated and insincere reports—and the damage those falsehoods lend to a more serious society of people who seek truth in a day when quick-share impulses launch colossal impairment upon accuracy—alongside what is faithfully factual.

Furthermore, this is not the only source of misinformation on the topic of giant human bones and the involvement the Smithsonian allegedly had in concealing the evidence.

 Many, many other books and articles have assisted in the public’s rejection of the facts through errant reporting, and innumerable photo-shopped images have surfaced depicting dig sites with human skulls the size of school buses (and here, too, once people are informed the images are faked, they turn to immediate disbelief of any information that is real). An entire book could be written that responds to and debunks these lies, but, again, that is not the purpose of this series of articles. Perhaps, then, the best place to turn our focus next will be the actual reports and official Smithsonian receipts and records that most of the world doesn’t know about. We do that and a whole lot more in the upcoming book, Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters and the groundbreaking documentary, There Were Giants, as you will discover in the weeks ahead.


Last edited by ColonelZ on Fri May 26, 2017 7:16 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 2: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants   Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:06 am

PART 2: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

April 18, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Dr. Thomas R. Horn

As the research included within the upcoming book and documentary film attests, the fact that oversized humans walked the earth in ancient times—some of whom were so large they hardly identify as “human” by comparison—is not at all far-fetched, and we have likewise found proof at times that they were violent cannibals and the ritual of consuming humans was to alter DNA in order to become ‘fit extensions’ for Rephaim incarnation. Though theories of origin range all the way from the corrupt-DNA Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 to systematic human evolution that somehow produced a strand of people who grew to towering dimensions (the latter of these theories conflicts with both science and common sense), history and archaeology simply produce too much witness that giants were existent for us to write them off. The proof is not simply in bodily remains, but also in material possessions that defy use by ancient peoples of regular size, as well as cultural phenomena surrounding them (hieroglyphs, ancient documents, legends, etc.). Add to this the increased intelligence executed in the architectural and agricultural sites of wonder associated with these cultures that completely flouts all we know of the early, nomadic human groups, and we have a recipe for the treasure hunt of the century.

The questions are then presented: Where are these remains, and why are they not displayed for the public? Why aren’t they in a museum somewhere? Wouldn’t the Smithsonian be the perfect place to house these items of interest?

Is it possible that the Smithsonian has cooperated with a cover-up?

First of all, let us not assume that everything the Smithsonian says or features is accurate. It, too, has a disregard for complete, transparent truth.

I did not originally intend to involve much of the following in this entry, as it appears at the onset to be unrelated to the subject of large human bones. I like to be thorough, however, so I did a little fact-checking in order to bare a quick example of the proverbial shrug that the Smithsonian offered when we first pressed for adherence to precision. Quickly, though, this little side-assignment became much more than that.

One visiting the administrative headquarters building known as the “Castle” (the Smithsonian Institution Building, formally) will see the tomb of James Smithson, whose monetary donation to the United States government founded the site despite the fact that Smithson never set foot on North American soil. His epitaph, so beautifully engraved upon the front panel of the tomb, says, “Sacred to the Memory of James Smithson Esq. Fellow of the Royal Society, London, who died at Genoa [Italy] the 26th June 1829, aged 75 years.” However, it is common knowledge that James Smithson was not seventy-five years old when he died. The exact calendar date of his birth is unknown because his mother hid her pregnancy and labored in secret, but we do know for certain that he was born in the year 1765 in Paris, France. This would place him at the age of sixty-three or sixty-four at the oldest, and this updated age-of-death information not only appears on the official Smithsonian Institution Archives website,[i]but also in the book An Account of the Smithsonian Institution: Its Origin, History, Objects, and Achievements[ii]—written by Cyrus Adler, commissioned by the institution itself, and published via its own printing channels. (And this is not to mention the numerous historical sources that confirm this age outside the Smithsonian.) Yet, no correction to the date has been displayed on the tomb.

If the Smithsonian is aware of the date discrepancy of its own founding donor, as its own published materials expose, then is it not an affront to the integrity of the institute as proclaimed reporters of historic fact that the venerated tomb displays that he was seventy-five when he died instead of just displaying his true age to visitors? If we cannot trust the very exhibition of this most celebrated forefather—what some would consider the most important thing on view in the entire museum, as it bespeaks of its very own origin—how many other of the museum’s displays or claims are untrustworthy?

And yes, one might argue that this error is a small concern when compared to concealed giant bones, and that would be correct. Comparatively, this is a very petty thing to be worried about. But bear with me as I canvas what I learned from looking into this. It represents a symptom of a much larger issue. I had senior staff researcher Donna Howell call an information specialist at the Castle building to get a response on this, and her findings were interesting—not because she uncovered a major conspiracy, but because she was given an excellent example of the precise global naïveté that I was hoping to address early on in Cloudeaters.

After being on hold for several minutes over the automated system, a woman named Maryann came on the line. The conversation was a well-anticipated dead end. I knew Donna wouldn’t get much info over the phone, but I had her call nonetheless, because it was the line to the generic title “information specialist,” so I just assumed the one who answered the call might know something about it at least. If nothing else, I was sure we would be redirected to the appropriate department or person equipped to answer. However, a couple of this nice and helpful woman’s responses forced a raised eyebrow:

MARYANN: Information center, this is Maryann, how may I help you?

DONNA HOWELL: Hello, I was curious about the tomb of your founding donor, James Smithson. It’s on display there at the Castle, correct?

MARYANN: Yes, his tomb is here.

DONNA HOWELL: Oh, good. I thought so. We’re working on a project and noticed that the age of death on his tomb was incorrect. Do you know someone I can ask about this?

MARYANN: Um, uh, um. [She stammered for probably ten seconds straight.] What now? The date is incorrect?

DONNA HOWELL: His age is, yes. It says that he died at seventy-five, but he couldn’t have been older than sixty-four at most.

MARYANN: No, if it says he died at seventy-five, then that would be the age he died.

 [Her tone was kind, but firm.] It wouldn’t say that on his tomb if [she interrupted herself]— Is there a reason you believe we’re incorrect?

DONNA HOWELL: Oh, actually, it’s in your own literature. I have it pulled up in front of me on your website, as well as a book I have here, published by the Institution in 1904.

MARYANN: [Momentary silence.] You mean we are the ones saying the dating on the tomb is incorrect?

DONNA HOWELL: Yes, that’s right. The story goes that Smithson’s nephew wrote the epitaph and it was engraved that way, but it’s still showing the wrong age. Is it still this way for sentimental purposes, or because it’s considered to be an artifact in itself, or…?

MARYANN: Uh, you know, I don’t know. I don’t think I can answer your question. I don’t have that information. If the display says he was seventy-five years old when he died, then that’s the age [she interrupted herself again]— I mean, it’s what the tomb says, right? We would certainly only give the correct information there. Um. Uh… We don’t just have people on the phone ready to talk about James Smithson.

DONNA HOWELL: I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have assumed that you guys would know the answer to such an obscure question off the cuff. The title “information specialist” threw me off. That was probably a term that referred to scheduled tours or something. Do you know who I might be able to call or email?

MARYANN: Well, I mean we are the specialists here to— We do have information on— I tell you what, why don’t you just send your question in over email?

DONNA HOWELL: Sounds good. [Donna took the info from her and then bravely plugged one last thought.] While I have you on the line, do you happen to know if there is a plaque on display in that room anywhere that corrects the information for visitors? I mean, it’s the Smithsonian. I know the Smithsonian has very high standards of reporting only what’s true. Doesn’t it create an issue that the very founder’s information is in error and that people might be misled? Wouldn’t some think that other information on display there is inaccurate if they learn that this one is?

MARYANN: I don’t believe there is another plaque, no. Just what the tomb says. I understand why you would be concerned, but it is just the date of his age. Everything else here is true. [!!!]

DONNA HOWELL: Oh, of course. I didn’t mean to insinuate there was a conspiracy or anything. Well, this email is helpful, thank you!

Donna ended the call on a cheerful note and let Maryann get on with her day, and then immediately followed up with an email to the address she provided. She received an email back a few days later saying that her question was forwarded to the curator, but the curator never responded.

But readers should not assume that we are patting ourselves on the back just because we were able to prove that a person named Maryann at the information center didn’t know about the tomb of James Smithson. I am well aware that you cannot rely on even the most trained employees of an institution to be able to answer every question about every display on command, and Donna said as much to her during the call. The only thing this short talk confirmed to me was that our national—no, global—attitude toward historical accuracy is yielding, lenient, and far too quick to trust anything a plaque says at a museum somewhere. Maryann was absolutely so sure and so trusting that information on the tomb was accurate, just because it was posted by the Smithsonian authority she works for. Maryann’s response to the display essentially translates, “No, if the Smithsonian said it, it must be true, because they only speak the truth. And if there is an error, then it’s an irrelevant one. No big deal. Just a date.

 A typo. But everything else is true.” Such a quick conclusion bespeaks of substantial naïveté.

Never mind the fact that the tomb has been in its current location since the celebratory escort by the United States Cavalry in January of 1904, and that the Institute has known about the discrepancy since. We’re not talking about a commemoration panel for some unremarkable personality put up yesterday that the staff hasn’t had a chance to correct yet. We are talking about the exhibition of an errant fact regarding the most important individual behind the Smithsonian that the institution has deliberately ignored for 112 years, and the only way the members of the public would know they have been misinformed is if they dig into the small print and do their own independent research. (And again, if they are keeping the original “75 years” age on the tomb because the stone with the inscription is itself an artifact, then a nearby panel should explain the discrepancy.)



There are times, as proved by this experience, that we treat truth like plastic that can bend when it’s not really considered an important affair. We respond with, “Well, it is just this insignificant detail, but everything else is true. Let’s not be petty.” Why is “everything else” true? Because the illustrious and benevolent “they”—that authority who has the reputation for the last word on the respective subject—have said so. And there have been times the “they” have “said so” to the fatal detriment of the trusting public.

Remember what people first said about cigarettes? “No, cigarettes aren’t harmful. They wouldn’t be allowed to sell them if they were dangerous.” In this case, the “they” might be referring to the tobacco companies or the trust in FDA protection, but the people inhaling carcinogens prior to their doctor’s cancer diagnosis were convinced the powers-that-be were ensuring the product’s integrity. Recall what was said of asbestos originally? “No, that’s ridiculous. Asbestos isn’t causing cancer. They said that was all just a ridiculous rumor. They wouldn’t be allowed to insulate buildings with asbestos if exposure to it was making people sick.” In this case, the “they” would have been the manufacturing companies who wanted to continue cutting cost corners regardless of the death count, but hordes of people were made ill or died when the powers-that-be took as long as they did to unveil the dangers. And consider Wall Street prior to the Great Depression. “Trust me, investing in these stocks is completely safe. Everyone is investing today, and they said the economy is brighter than it’s ever been and only shows signs of continual growth and prosperity.” The “they” here might have been anyone from the nation’s richest stock brokers to the Wall Street Journal to President Hoover to the society around everyone in general who had begun living lavish lifestyles, but soon the entire country fell into one of the largest economic travesties we’ve ever witnessed in world history because the powers-that-be weren’t as Johnny-on-the-spot or transparent as they presented themselves to be.

They said the Titanic would never sink. They said the Jews were living happy lives in Nazi concentration camps.

They posted that Smithson died at the age of “75 years,” and Maryann initially pronounced that if they said “75 years,” then it was true, and even if it wasn’t, everything else was…because the Smithsonian is the “they” of the last word.

“They” are not always the final authority, even though “they” are often trusted as the final authority.

And as small a detail as the information on the tomb of Smithson may be, where does one draw the line? Who discerns what is irrelevant and inconsequential from what is important? Is there a strict rule about what false information is allowed versus what is not? Has the same individual who deemed the great late James Smithson’s tomb a trivial matter also marginalized the feelings of those who say their Native American national exhibit “inadequately represents the persecution of Native Americans” (which has also been a major ongoing concern)?[iii] What about all the voices that have cried out against the inaccuracies of their African History exhibit?[iv] Were those insignificant details as well?

It’s not just Maryann. It’s not limited to the offense that a representative of the “company of truth” has no idea the lie that greets every tourist that enters their main facility, or that she doesn’t consider it a big deal. Like I said only pages ago, this is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

I can’t possibly be the only one who finds that thread of thought unsettling, especially when unquestioning and assumptive sentiments such as “everything else is true” come from those who are representatives of “an Establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men”[v] (the Smithsonian mission statement in James Smithson’s will).

Ultimately, we have to accept the fact that when the injury of misinformation is added to the intentional neglect of the all-knowing “they,” then piled atop a public that will consider the last word of the authority gospel, we arrive at an equation that spreads distortion like a brush fire. Add to this years and years of the public’s cultural familiarity with, and acceptance of, the skewed concept, and we arrive at a day when anything that challenges the national “truth” is immediately marginalized or written off as the ramblings of a conspiracy-theory madman despite supporting evidence. It’s an age-old social science: When people have largely adopted a way of thinking into their society and slowly built a universal worldview around it, they will not easily receive modifications to that worldview—even when the worldview is based on inaccuracy in the first place. They don’t want to hear the truth, because it means letting go of all they’ve known or believed in up to that point, so they hold on to what’s familiar, what’s comfortable, always referring back to some “they” authority to support them when questioned.

In the upcoming Cloudeaters book and documentary film, readers and viewers will no longer assume the evidence of enormous human bones—and the challenges those bones produce toward our mainstream evolutionary worldviews—is all nonsense just because some “they” says so.

They say we came from monkeys. They say there are no giant bones that oppose mainstream evolutionary science. They say these giants will never be reanimated or return.

But they are lying, and the proof of that is penetrating, as the world will soon know.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 3: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:05 am

PART 3: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

April 23, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Thomas R. Horn

In order to fully comprehend the role of the Smithsonian and the facts we have uncovered thus far involving what some suspect is the cover up of the ages, one has to understand the groundwork upon which the institution was built.

James Smithson gave all he had to establish an educational organization on American soil, and his reasoning for this has always largely remained a mystery (despite many theories), as he had never actually been to America. His will was, at the very least, ambiguous; he did not specify what the organization would or should be; he merely wrote that it would be for the increase of knowledge and that it must be named “Smithsonian Institution.” It appears by the verbiage used in Smithson’s will that he felt very alone in the world, with very few ties to fellow man or family (excepting one nephew, to whom he left all of his land), and as a result, the Smithsonian was left without a successor or supervising entity of any kind, though it came about through the fame of one man completely without ties to the American government. He had not even a correspondent within the United States to oversee the transfer of money after death, nor any distinguished U.S. colleagues, nor a mere friend. His funds, then, were left simply to the nation of the U.S., itself, and to his legal team to sort out how to get it there and what to say after it arrived (although eventually the money was retrieved through former U.S. Attorney General Robert Rush as traveling messenger). This was, assuredly, quite the pickle for bureaucratic organizers upon whose shoulders it rested to establish said institution, attempt to keep with its donor’s indefinite but documented wishes, and maintain the ideals of a man whose personal values were anyone’s best guess. Because of Smithson’s vague instructions, legal issues arising from the donation of a foreigner to another nation’s government generically, and due in part by some unique handling of the funds by the U.S. Congress during President Andrew Jackson’s administration, the approval of the Smithsonian seal did not occur until February of 1847 (nearly twenty years after Smithson’s death).

So, in the very beginning, the Smithsonian and its mission had been under the supervision of many contributing voices from a land/government foreign to its donor, and never once left to a single entity—whether individual or group entity—to construct and maintain an aim that was hazy in origin. According to Smithsonian historical literature,[i] eight years passed as members of Congress argued over different ideas for how the money should be invested, most of which suggested the raising of new school grounds, libraries, observatories, gardens, zoologist research centers, agricultural hubs, art galleries, and science discovery centers.

Gradually, the idea that morphed from so many conflicting angles birthed a one-of-a-kind establishment in that it eventually encompassed all of the ideas with one central focus: the assembling of a collection of artifacts, specimens, artwork, and educational materials and aims of every kind into newly raised buildings where they would be preserved and arranged for the purpose of public education. These buildings would also house many educational conferences, lectures, and seminars given by celebrated professors in fields relative to astronomy, geography, geology, minerology, philosophy, science and chemistry, agriculture, natural history, American history, fine arts, antiquities, and the study of cultures around the globe. So much more than a simple “museum” was the Smithsonian’s roots.

(Note that the story is by far more complicated than this, and it involves the five-year-long formation of the “National Institute”—which was more or less an elite society of opinionated, but critically helpful, wealthy contributors before a solid vision was set.

 Yet the simple explanation above can be viewed as a sharply truncated representation of how the Smithsonian eventually grew legs and expanded into the beginnings of what it eventually became, despite that I have left out many pieces of the puzzle for the sake of space. The mission of the Smithsonian from day one ping-ponged relentlessly until it was finally settled on the surface to simply be what Smithson wished: a place where knowledge for man was respected, perpetuated, and upheld.)

After its establishment in 1847, the Smithsonian was a bee’s nest of buzzing interest and continual growth, ever committed to increasing “the wisdom, education, and intelligence of mankind with evident unbiased and truthful transparency.” Elections for leadership were conducted that resulted in the final Board of Regents and head secretaries. Benefactors came from everywhere to pool their resources for the cause, and some followed in Smithson’s footsteps, entrusting their valuable estates to the directors of the institution, who pooled it into additional property and buildings, one of which was the eminent Smithsonian Library.

Then came the giants mounds…

The Doctrine of John Wesley Powell

As early as 1867, exploration teams commissioned by the Smithsonian had taken to the canyons of Colorado, led by one Major John Wesley Powell. Their research gradually adapted into geographical, geological, and anthropological surveys, and when the funding drew short in 1871, the U.S. government stepped in with provisions to continue. For several years, the teams continued their research, placing the majority of their time and efforts into the studies of “aboriginal inhabitants, and [the gathering of] extensive collections representing their arts, languages, institutions, and beliefs.”[ii] These collections were then taken to the Smithsonian, where they were further studied and preserved. In the summer of 1874, the survey was transferred to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Being now a federal endeavor, key leaders at the Smithsonian withdrew much interest in the project and relinquished research materials to the survey in accordance to custom. In order to transfer the materials under the supervision of the Smithsonian and keep official tabs on all archives and records regarding the North American Native Indians, a supervisory bureau would be necessary, and thus was the birth of the Bureau of Ethnology.

After the BAE was established, however, it appears some biased (translation: 
“dubious”) policies of artifact exclusion were enacted under the leadership of its founder, Major Powell, who had been the director of the exploration and survey up to this point.

Powell’s reputation had exceeded him by the time the BAE was founded, as he had reached fame through his exploration of the Grand Canyon, so his judgments on the archaeological surveys became the chief authority for everyone at the Smithsonian, as well as the listening world. It is not at all a secret that Powell was exceptionally bent toward rationalizing away any concepts that challenged our known evolutionary science, and although this would be the expected approach for many in his position, it is surprising to learn that his reaction to the large grant given by U.S. Congress to the Division of Mound Exploration was not positive.

The Indian burial mounds. Who built them? Why were they there? And why had there recently been news that bones were found buried in them, the size of which could not be explained?

One might take from reading Powell’s writings that he wished to study only the ethnicity of aboriginal tribes and remain nonintrusive, which might explain why the grant did not result in his celebratory reaction. Others throughout the years, however, have read his statements and understandably have concluded that Powell believed there were things buried in those strange mounds that he did not want the world to know about, lest everything we think we know about humanity’s history be confronted.

 Why else would additional government funding be bad news? Any true investigator would tackle the mounds enthusiastically in pursuit of authentic science when backed by support of the government, not with hesitance or fear that the science would be defied.

Nevertheless, Powell cooperated with the intentions of the funding, though not without a grand voicing of concern over how the resources would be employed. In 1882, the first BAE report from Powell was penned: On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data. The title itself is revealing of his agenda. It does not require analysis by an achieved academic to see that before the report’s first sentence graced the eyes of its readers, Powell was already placing limitations on how the data accumulated at the exploration sites were to be used. For the next few pages, we will look at his words and reflect upon his intellectually shepherding undertones, and how he uses grand speech to completely and craftily avoid the issue of giant bones, which led to 150 years (and counting) of the public’s acceptance that “giants upon the earth” is a puerile, juvenile, and ridiculous concept. (Keep in mind that his report was written even while he openly acknowledged evidence of giant bones, as we will address in the next section.) His report begins:

Investigations in this department are of great interest, and have attracted to the field a host of workers [note this line referencing all the additional help, and remember all the funding he is receiving, as later on his complaints of resources are prominent]; but a general review of the mass of published matter exhibits the fact that the uses to which the material has been put have not always been wise.

In the monuments of antiquity found throughout North America, in camp and village sites, graves, mounds, ruins, and scattered works of art, the origin and development of art in savage and barbaric life may be satisfactorily studied. Incidentally, too, hints of customs may be discovered, but outside of this, the discoveries made have often been illegitimately used, especially for the purpose of connecting the tribes of North America with peoples or so-called races of antiquity in other portions of the world [referring to those who have seen large bones in the area and have theorized about a lost race of giants]. A brief review of some conclusions that must be accepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futility of these attempts. [Note specifically his choice of words here. He does not shy away from using terms that suggest irrefutability, such as “conclusions that must be accepted.” His position as the renowned Grand Canyon explorer has gained the reverential attention of the country by this time, so if he says something is, then it is—regardless of logic. More on his logic shortly.]

It is now an established fact that man was widely scattered over the earth at least as early as the beginning of the quaternary period, and, perhaps, in pliocene time.

If we accept the conclusion that there is but one species of man, as species are now defined by biologists, we may reasonably conclude that the species has been dispersed from some common center, as the ability to successfully carry on the battle of life in all climes belongs only to a highly developed being; but this original home has not yet been ascertained with certainty, and when discovered, lines of migration therefrom cannot be mapped until the changes in the physical geography of the earth from that early time to the present have been discovered, and these must be settled upon purely geologic and paleontologic evidence. The migrations of mankind from that original home cannot be intelligently discussed until that home has been discovered, and, further, until the geology of the globe is so thoroughly known that the different phases of its geography can be presented.

The dispersion of man must have been anterior to the development of any but the rudest arts. Since that time the surface of the earth has undergone many and important changes. All known camp and village sites, graves, mounds, and ruins belong to that portion of geologic time known as the present epoch, and are entirely subsequent to the period of the original dispersion as shown by geologic evidence.

In the study of these antiquities, there has been much unnecessary speculation in respect to the relation existing between the people to whose existence they attest, and the tribes of Indians inhabiting the country during the historic period.

It may be said that in the Pueblos discovered in the southwestern portion of the United States and farther south through Mexico and perhaps into Central America tribes are known having a culture quite as far advanced as any exhibited in the discovered ruins. In this respect, then, there is no need to search for an extra-limital origin through lost tribes for any art there exhibited.

With regard to the mounds so widely scattered between the two oceans, it may also be said that mound-building tribes were known in the early history of discovery of this continent, and that the vestiges of art discovered do not excel in any respect the arts of the Indian tribes known to history. There is, therefore, no reason for us to search for an extra-limital origin through lost tribes for the arts discovered in the mounds of North America.[iii]

At this point, we are only a page into Powell’s report, and we have read some startling conclusions. One reading carefully into what Powell has just said can see wave after wave of the immediate and faulty circular logic in his argument. Powell is suggesting that:

[list="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"]
[*]We should not be spending our time focusing on theories of ancient giants when there is real work to be done, which is the study of the Indians. Anything else is a waste of resources.

But one might argue: How is the study of ancient giants not the absolute highest priority of all in the field and their given resources if these discoveries shake the foundations of our known human origin and heritage, including the Indians? The tax-paying civilians of the United States whose hard-earned dollars are being forwarded to the research would not agree that evidence of this nature is a small thing. This would be the opposite of a waste of resources.

But one might argue: Yes, the science of biology has proven this based on the human body or bodies we have available to study now, but if there were another species of man or man-like entities, which the mounds have already shown to exist (and Powell knows it), then our current biological knowledge would be trumped by such a discovery, and proof would be given that there is not merely one species. Or, at the very least, it would be proven that there was a race of this same species that defies all we know about their evolutionary development or inter-breeding practices that created another larger breed of man. Either way, this science and discovery should be top priority to any serious individual of the archaeological field.

For example: The Saluki is one of fourteen of the oldest known canine breeds, referred to as “the royal dog of Egypt” because of its association as the loyal, right-hand best friend to Egyptian pharaohs. (Their remains have been found mummified as well, suggesting that they were esteemed in high honor.) The Ibizan hound (as seen on the tomb of Tutankhamun) has a similar story, and both breeds were fit, trim, long-legged hunters. If an archaeological team discovered a Saluki/Ibizan hound crossbreed buried near an ancient pyramid today, such a find would not shake the foundations of all we know about canine biology. Why? Because we know there were at least fourteen breeds of canine around the world at that time that could have procreated and produced another breed, and our modern biological science now recognizes 339 official dog breeds, according to the World Canine Organization.[iv] We are already well aware that one dog can breed with another dog and create something entirely new, but the offspring is still a dog. Much funding has already backed such science, and the world is not turned on its head every time a breeder announces a new and great kind of hound for dog lovers everywhere. Humans, also, can breed after their own kind, producing interracial offspring, and this is common knowledge. So, yes, biology has proven that when something produces after its own kind, then the offspring of that union is of that kind. Powell is correct thus far.

But if the remains of a gigantically proportioned, fifteen-cubit-tall, Saluki-looking dog were found near a pyramid, the measurements of which disregarded all we know of canine evolutionary development, it would shake the foundations of all we know about canine biology. Any serious biologist would consider this a possible link to a completely new biological thread—or at the very least, an extreme interbreeding tactic practiced by the ancients but unknown to our current world—until proven otherwise…and it should be taken very seriously. Simply saying the huge dog bones represented just another canine because biology has proven that all dogs come from dogs in the past would be the epitome of deliberate, intentional, and negligent ignorance. Circular logic.

 If a discovery proves that something looks like a dog but can’t be, based on known biology, then let’s face it: Our biology would be determined subject to limitation, and the “dog” might not actually be a dog! Or it could be a dog that has crossbred with some other ancient animal, testifying to a DNA-manipulation procedure carried out by an ancient unknown science. Either way, it would not be ignored by the scientific community. It might be hidden away if the discovery points to something scientists don’t want the rest of the world to know about, but it would not be ignored.

Why, then, when a discovery is found that testifies to this same concept regarding humans, would Powell write it off with a statement suggesting that past science proves anything about anything? By default of a new discovery, our primitive science is replaced by new science, and all the facts of yesteryear are updated. Yet Powell is using old science to prevent us from updating our knowledge base? That goes against common sense and everything the Smithsonian stands for. By referring to biological data that pertains only to regular-sized humans and applying it to giant bones, Powell is insinuating that the bones are largely irrelevant, we already know all there is to know about them, and any time or resources spent on the study of them is inefficient.

For a man who prided himself on exploration and breakthrough, Powell’s concepts were either painfully primitive, or there was something he didn’t want the world to know about in those mounds.

But one might argue: Is it not left specifically to people in Powell’s very position to explore the geology of the globe and present his findings toward the express purpose of deliberation within the “intelligent,” scientific community? Yes, we agree that we cannot “intelligently” talk about these things until exploration has unearthed enough to discuss. But in case Powell hadn’t noticed, exploration is his exact job description, and he is considered the expert of his field whose duty it is to provide research to both the public through the Smithsonian and to the scientific community who is hungry for any findings he unearths. Perhaps mapping is not his department, but again, in case he hadn’t noticed, he is chief over a plethora of departments in related fields backed by the almighty Smithsonian (which plays an active role in the accumulation of “geologic and paleontologic evidence”) and funded by the almighty U.S. government. We can’t become intelligent because the mapping has not been done. If Powell had influence in the field, then it was his responsibility to support—not discourage— mapping, but here he is clearly steering focus away from mapping. His reason? Because it hasn’t been done yet by the very individuals he has influence to propel toward accomplishing that goal in the first place? Circular logic.

If Powell hadn’t the intention to carry out related research of his field, then why did he go into the field of exploration and discovery?

If “geological and paleontologic evidence” is the only means through which we will find real answers, then that is not a valid argument for why we shouldn’t try to map it out lest we waste resources that could have been used to document Native Indians. In fact, if the evidence leads to a revolutionary leap in science for all mankind with the Native Indians at the geographical center of it all, then it’s an argument for precisely why we should be placing our resources into mapping the footprints of a potential ancient race of beings who lived amidst the Indians.

But one might argue: This is perhaps the worst of Powell’s illogical statements. And yes, you read that correctly. He is essentially saying that because the tribes are “known” for being advanced, there is no need to search for an explanation as to why or how they were so advanced or whether that involved an ancient lost race of giants, because we don’t have any evidence to support those ramblings. If it looks like a dog, it must be a dog, because old biological science goes without updating. If it looks like the otherwise primitive and nomadic Native Americans were far more intelligent than all our other archaeological findings can prove, then they were advanced, because old anthropological science goes without updating.

Wow…if the buck stops there on exploration and discovery, then we’re all in trouble.

And where one might agree with Powell that the mounds may have been of human Indian origin because they, again, were “known” to build them, that theory falls short of any true intelligent conversation the first time enormous bones are found within the mounds. The central issue does not have to be who built the mounds, because if it suits Powell to say the Indians built them, then fine. I concede. Let’s say the Indians built the mounds. That is honestly beside the point. Now we arrive at the natural next inquiry: Why were ancient Indian tribes burying giant human bones, and who were these giants to the Indians? If the great and influential Powell discouraged the research teams from ever digging and studying the mounds, then we will always be in the dark with these questions.

Perhaps, then, all these “Smithsonian cover-up conspiracy theorists” are onto something when they suggest that Powell was using his “we already know who built them” angle to keep the world from ever knowing the truth about the giants he wanted kept hidden. That Powell would steer his teams away from these burial sites on a claim that he wants to be respectful and nonintrusive to an ancient Indian culture appears to be a noble cause—and it is a cause that many revered him for from that day forward. But he was skirting the real issue, and he knew it. Obviously, the public is less concerned with who flung the dirt than whose massive bodies were buried underneath. But, through Powell’s endearing stance that any tampering with this soil would be a great injustice to the Indians, he has effectively locked away the secrets in the soil, shrouded in what can only be a counterfeit concern over cultural respect considering the enthusiasm one in his field of research would normally feel when given the opportunity to dig and study actual, archaeological evidence of the “giant”—one of the world’s most fearsome creatures of myth!

We do not have space herein to continue a word-for-word analysis of Powell’s biased report, as it is a lengthy one. However, his arguments continue to show either ignorance or, more likely, a clandestine agenda. We will break open these seals starting in the next entry.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 4: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:09 am

PART 4: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

April 25, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

Drawing from the Codex Vaticanus (one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible) showing 16 natives dragging a dead giant toward a fire.

By Thomas R. Horn

Picking up where we left off in PART 3 of this series, John Wesley Powell’s arguments against public documentation of the giant bones unearthed throughout the United States in the 1800s-1900s continue to show either ignorance or clandestine agenda.
 Just to touch on a few examples regarding his report’s conclusions, in the order he addressed them:

Picture-writings: Powell openly acknowledges that some of the pictographs drawn on surfaces in and around these sites are “less conventional.” Drawings of a small human next to a giant with six fingers and six toes or a mouth with two rows of teeth would certainly fit into this category. However, Powell’s take on these drawings are, put simply, that they are not proof of anything more than imaginative etchings by a people who were only just learning to document their lives through the process of primitive creative writing. He attests that, the conventional and the less-conventional writings appear side by side at times, that “perfect records were never made.”[i] In other words, there is no knowing what is imaginative, early, fictional “creative writing” versus what is historical documentation of the lives they lived and the races they interacted with. “Hence,” Powell says, “it will be seen that it is illegitimate to use any pictographic matter of a date anterior to the discovery of the continent by Columbus for historic purposes.”[ii]

At the onset, this is a valid argument. We can’t know whether the drawings in every case were meant to alert the world of a giant race that the Indians witnessed or mingled with. On the other hand, the question is easily flipped back on Powell. If we don’t know which were purely imagination and which were documentation of reality, then Powell hasn’t even a scrap of evidence that the drawings of giants were always only imagination, especially with the discoveries of the giant bones in the nearby Indian mounds. Powell was correct in saying that a perfect record was not made, but he was ill-informed if he assumed that anything outside his own limited worldview was the subject of fairy-tale fancy. Much to the contrary, every ancient culture we have ever studied at length havs left behind its stories in wall and rock drawings, and it is from this artistic documentation form that we have developed much modern understanding of the old world, its inhabitants, and the people groups they mingled with.

That Powell would say these images are “illegitimate…for historic purposes” challenges the historical and archaeological practices set in place by experts of his own field for hundreds of years.

Origin of man: For a moment, and only a moment, we see Powell’s attempt to broaden his perspective and release his mind from the bonds of circular logic when he says: “Thus it is that while the doctrines [of evolution] lead the way to new fields of discovery, the new discoveries lead again to new doctrines.”[iii] So, yay, right? He’s acknowledging that new discoveries could potentially wipe out everything we know of the evolutionary doctrine, or at least result in a revolutionary revision of it—which would be a justice to both religion and science if mankind genuinely wishes to be informed of truth.

Unfortunately, though, this moment of clarity results in a mere tease as we observe him using the very doctrines of evolution as a means to escape further study of it.

 Rather than to unearth and analyze the evidence that challenges evolution so our scientific database can expand, Powell states: “The truth or error of such hypothetic genealogy [referring to giant myths] in no way affects the validity of the doctrines of evolution in the minds of scientific men, but on the other hand the value of the tentative theory is brought to final judgment under the laws of evolution.”[iv] In other words, the theories presented by believers of the ancient giant races ultimately have to come under the final judgment of “the laws of evolution.”

Evolution is science, and therefore it trumps theory. Sure. But if those theories are not theories, but fact—which we cannot know as long as personalities like Powell continue to lock the evidence away under throngs of bureaucratic red tape—then in due course those theories would become the new law and trump, or revise, evolution as we know it.

I continue to grow more and more amazed at how much support Powell’s report garnered from what is supposedly the most prominent of scientific communities in the world. Unless, however, those scientists are also aware that there is something in those mounds they don’t want the rest of us to know about. But I digress…
He goes on describe how philosophy works, and how philosophy was developed from its faulty early stages to our current enlightenment. It is within these bits of text that a reader is inclined to ask why Powell has deviated from a discussion of the origin of man and into a diatribe regarding the history and development of the much-appreciated gift of philosophy. But then it is made clear when he reveals his motive with the following: “The method of reasoning in scientific philosophy is purely objective; the method of reasoning in mythology and metaphysics is subjective.”[v] Fancy that…Powell—one of the most closed-minded explorers of all times who consistently ignores objective evidence of a giant race found in the very land he’s exploring—is now celebrating scientific objectivity. Oh, but that he would really be as impartial as he claims in this moment! Nevertheless, it is clear that he is stating that anyone who entertains any plausible history story that scientific minds have deemed “myth” are subjective to foolish speculation. But if the proof the “myth-believers” seek is hidden in the mounds that Powell and others protect, then it becomes the “they” (Powell, scientists, Smithsonian, etc.) that continue to corral the public into the pit of ignorant subjectivity and foolish speculation—for there cannot be legitimate, scientific objectivity until the science is revealed in the first place.

Do you see how this just goes around and around and around? Powell’s chosen words continue to imply—though carefully and politely—that anyone who would be audacious enough to demand answers from the scientific community about why there are mammoth people buried in Indian mounds across the United States belong to the unenlightened minority. The un-philosophical. The time-wasters. The resource sponges. The disrespecters of sacred Indian grounds. The meddlers. Or, in current popular parlance, “the Fake News” reporters. In the end, no matter how he veils his arguments with diplomacy, the distinguished Grand Canyon explorer is giving a nod of approval to anyone who is willing to become a member of his mature and rational club, while casting the proverbial dunce hat on anyone who isn’t “intelligent” enough to dismiss the giant people as an irrelevant past quirk of regular-human biology. It’s condescension at its finest, and the public has to make the choice to challenge the eminent Major Powell while the scientific community represents them as whack jobs, or be brainwashed into his reasoning. Is this not effectively the opposite of the beloved objectivity Powell treasures?

The skill Powell is using in his report is older than dirt. Take a conflict on any subject and place an articulate spokesperson at the head of one side who confidently weaves intimidating and lofty words around his or her claims to make listeners feel stupid for not blindly agreeing, and it almost doesn’t matter what the claims are, so long as the public is barraged with fancy speech that leaves them confused about why they questioned anything to begin with. And remember that this report was written almost 150 years ago, when a far greater number of Americans were illiterate and even the most educated people could find this wordy piece above their level of comprehension.


The issue is not an argument about philosophy in any way. It’s really quite rudimentary. The public sees large human bones that represent a question science cannot and will not answer, so they speculate to ponder their own answer. Powell’s tactic to elevate the “objective” philosophers over the “subjective” philosophers is to redirect the case into a confusing textual sermon on his own secular and evolutionary worldview. Wouldn’t it JUST. BE. EASIER. at this point to bring out the bones and talk frankly about what evolution actually does say on the matter? If evolution is such a pet of Powell’s, why won’t he let evolution address it?

Mythology: The trail of circular logic is becoming exhausting at this point, so I will not spend a great deal of time on Powell’s assessment of mythology. However, because so much of his doctrine is built around grouping the giant theories into pure “myth,” the following statement by Powell begs to be shared briefly:

Mythology is primitive philosophy. A mythology—that is, the body of myths current among any people and believed by them—comprises a system of explanations of all the phenomena of the universe discerned by them; but such explanations are always mixed with much extraneous matter, chiefly incidents in the history of the personages who were the heroes of mythologic deeds.…

It is vain to search for truth in mythologic philosophy, but it is important to search for veritable philosphies…. No labor can be more fruitless than the search in mythology for true philosophy; and the efforts to build up from the terminology and narratives of mythologies an occult symbolism and system of allegory is but to create a new and fictitious body of mythology.[vi]

So ancient mythology, when entertained, begets a modernized version of the same primitive mythology. Agreed. To suggest this never-ending and complicated trail of discussion is vain and fruitless would be true if it weren’t for the fact that we’re still left with giant bones that nobody will answer for. Again, “giants upon the earth” is no longer purely “mythology” if we have giant bones—and we do. Conspiracy is not a “theory” when there’s proof. Some of the legend or lore surrounding giants might be mythological, but we won’t know what is or isn’t until the bones are addressed, and they can’t be as long as the Powells of the world stand in the way as keeper of the keys to the mounds, canceling out the resources to dive into true science on the grounds that it would only be to prove or disprove irrational conspiracy theorist’s mythological fables.

It’s not about mythology, and it’s not about philosophy. It’s about bones in the ground.

Powell refuses to appreciate this simplicity as long as his complicated lectures about largely unrelated subjects continue to herd people away from further investigation.

Policy of Exclusion

Through his posh and indirectly belittling double-speak report, Powell gained the support of Charles Doolittle Walcott, the chief executive officer of the Smithsonian, shortly after Powell’s death. Walcott hailed the report with such irrefutable and mesmeric magnitude that the Smithsonian executives deemed the document the “Powell Doctrine.” Powell’s smarter-than-you linguistic skills naturally fed the pride of many of his followers, which by extension lent itself to further brainwashing from the top rung of the Smithsonian and down. From 1907 to this day, the now-outdated Powell Doctrine has been the final word on the issue of giant bones, as well as ancient Indian culture. Powell was, himself, viewed as a great authority, but he was only one man. When Walcott rallied the rest of the Smithsonian superiors to embrace the Powell report, the rest of the world embraced it as well, because “they” said it was valid. As a result, then, the museum established the Powell Doctrine as a literal, official policy to exclude any and all alternative evaluations of the mounds, bones, pictographs, and human-origin hypotheses, regardless of evidence. Any perspective, no matter how scientifically sound, would be snuffed out under the suppressive abort button of the doctrine. After 1907, it would not matter what was found in the ground. The policy was solid. No opinion other than Powell’s would ever matter to the Smithsonian again.

And you can guess what naturally happens next: Under this administration, years of the institution’s time and money are placed into book collections, exhibits, staff training, and uncountable materials that support this doctrine as truth. The fortress built cannot easily be torn down, and its influence spreads.

Tragically, because of the weight the Smithsonian’s opinion holds to educational institutions across the United States, the Powell Doctrine policy of exclusion was also incorporated into the dogma of most major American universities, adding a behemoth layer of clout to Powell’s appraisal. Students of reputable colleges all across the country haven’t the slightest idea why they are being taught what they are, or that it all came from one man 150 years ago.

Much documentation has been collected that follows an unscrupulous trajectory from various archaeological digs to the Smithsonian as research teams are submitting their finds to the museum for study and/or display, and the trail goes dark at that point.

 The bones the Smithsonian is receiving are not making their way to the museum floor or laboratories, and nary is a word uttered that they were ever submitted after they were unearthed. Those who contribute the bones to the museum do so in naïve trust that the Smithsonian will appeal to the government for grants and additional research funds, but because of the policy, the buck stops there, and that in turn affects the budget allowance for universities to follow up with any kind of field study for tomorrow’s generation of scientists.

Despite this, well before Powell’s document, the world was aware of bizarre discoveries. Not limited to bones, this also included the strange astronomical and astrological building patterns surrounding ancient structures and monolithic edifices such as those in Baalbek, as well as enormous tools, strange drawings, and prevailing legend of primitive cultures all around the globe. The Smithsonian was not always involved in every discovery reported, which is why the public does not have to search far and wide into the archives of obscurity or conspiracy to be showered with visual evidence that something walked the earth in the old days we can’t explain away. And not every personality within the institution-of-the-final-word appreciated the deliberate blind eye.

In 1882, the same year as Powell’s published report, Powell appointed Cyrus Thomas to supervise the Division of Mound Exploration. Thomas was originally more than open-minded about the legends regarding an ancient and lost race of giants, as he had paid close attention to the reports concerning the discovery of gigantic human skeletons unearthed in and around enormous structures involving complex mathematics and astronomical alignment. But because he did not go around advertising his theories, there is much evidence that Powell would not have known Thomas was progressive in this “mythological” area when he chose him to oversee the mysterious mounds. Thomas would—at least initially—lead teams to document the discovery of impressive skeletons (though he steered clear of speaking of them himself). We’ll examine some of these documents in the next entry.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 5: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Mon May 01, 2017 11:54 am

PART 5: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

May 1, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Thomas R. Horn

Picking up where we left off in PART 4 of this series, in 1882, the same year as John Wesley Powell’s published report, Powell appointed Cyrus Thomas to supervise the Division of Mound Exploration. Thomas was originally more than open-minded about the legends regarding an ancient and lost race of giants, as he had paid close attention to the reports concerning the discovery of gigantic human skeletons unearthed in and around enormous structures involving complex mathematics and astronomical alignment. But because he did not go around advertising his theories, there is much evidence that Powell would not have known Thomas was progressive in this “mythological” area when he chose him to oversee the mysterious mounds. Thomas would—at least initially—lead teams to document the discovery of impressive skeletons (though he steered clear of speaking of them himself).

The following is a brief list of documented findings, all recorded in theAnnual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year […] series (each book title in the endnotes ending with the year the discovery was made):

  • One skull measuring “36 inches in circumference.”[i] Anna, Illinois, 1873. (The average circumference measurement for the human skull is between twenty-one and twenty-three inches, depending on varying factors such as sex, ethnicity, etc.)
  • One full skeleton with double rows of teeth, buried alongside a gigantic axe, referred to in the report as a “gigantic savage.”[ii] The skeleton—with a colossal skull—fell apart after exhumation, so an exact height/head circumference was not reported, Amelia Island, Florida, 1875.
  • Giant axes and “skinning stones.”[iii] One weighed over fifteen pounds, had an ornately carved handle, and was of such mass that it was documented: “Only a giant could have wielded this.” Kishwaukee Mounds, Illinois, 1877.
  • One jawbone that easily slipped around the entire face of a large man on the research team; one thigh bone measuring “four inches longer than that of a man six feet two inches high”; one “huge skeleton, much taller than the current race of men.”[iv] Kishwaukee Mounds, Illinois, 1877.

According to the Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1883–1884, shortly following the discoveries in this bullet list, the Smithsonian team found ten more skeletons in mounds and burial sites in Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Not every one of them was measured for height, but each was documented as much larger than the skeletons of our current race.[v] Similarly, in the Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1894, two enormous skulls, several baffling femur bones, and seventeen full skeletons (one in East Dubuque, Illinois, measured almost eight feet) were unearthed in Illinois, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.[vi] The West Virginia dig report contains an additional claim of “many large skeletons,” generically.

[vii] From these reports listed, more than forty thousand artifacts were found, including weapons, tools, jewelry, and various utensils that could not have feasibly been used by regular-sized humans.


There has been some indication based on later writings of Cyrus Thomas that he eventually did cave in to Powell’s way of thinking, likely due in part to pressure from the Smithsonian association, which contributed to the extreme reception of the Powell Doctrine in 1907. Following this, as mentioned prior, all theories, reports, or evidence that led to any discussion in opposition to the doctrine were silenced.

Outside news reports involving the Smithsonian’s knowledge of giant bones include:

  • One skeleton of “a gigantic Indian,” discovered by the Smithsonian BAE’s own John W. Emmert. Bristol, Tennessee. Reported by The Weekly Democratic Statesman, 1883.[viii]
  • One seven-foot, two-inch, giant skeleton with a copper crown on its head, “jet black” hair to the waist, possibly a royal leader, buried in a mound in a secure vault with undecipherable inscriptions carved on the outside. The relics were “examined by a committee of scientists sent out from the Smithsonian Institute,” and then “carefully packed and forwarded to the Smithsonian.” Gastonville, Pennsylvania. Reported by American Antiquarian, 1885.[ix] (Note that another giant with possible links to royalty was found by one H. R. Hazelton in Cartersville, Georgia, reported the previous year on July 23, 1884, by The North Otago Times. Though that discovery did not mention any links to Smithsonian involvement, it’s interesting to see that we have at least two possible “king” giants. The giant of Cartersville, Georgia was nine feet, two inches, had hair to his waist and a copper crown, and was surrounded by seven skeletons belonging to children, buried in a vault with under flagstones [both the vault and the flagstones were deeply etched with undecipherable inscriptions], and laying on a bed of dry grass and animal skins. Some have suggested that giants of Pennsylvania and Georgia were the same discovery due to the similar descriptions, and that the American Antiquarian simply reported the same skeleton later, listed fewer details, and stated the wrong date, location, and skeletal height. This is a possibility, but it’s just as likely there were two separate discoveries, one with the involvement of the Smithsonian, and one without, because of how dissimilar the reports were.)
  • Water recession from the Tumlin Mound field revealed “acres of skulls and bones,” one of which was so massive, the article called “Monster Skulls and Bones” states that “their owner must have stood 14 feet high.” In the final sentence, we read, “A representative of the Smithsonian Institution is here investigating the curious relics.” Cartersville, Georgia. Reported by The New York Times, 1886.[x] (Note that this is the same city as one of our “king” giants of the last bullet. This “monster” was discovered two years later due to water recession [not an intentional uncovering of a mound] and reported to be much taller than the “king.” [taller than fourteen feet high])
  • One eight-foot-two giant, well preserved, measuring at two feet, two inches across the pelvic bone. “About six miles” away from this find, “at the mouth of the Sioux Coulec,” a Smithsonian responder (referred to only as a Smithsonian agent or employee) “exhumed the remains of another skeleton the size of which was calculated to be about 9 feet in length.” Crawford, Minnesota. Reported by American Antiquarian, 1887.[xi]
  • Many giant artifacts, eleven full skeletons, one with an enormous jawbone “twice the ordinary size,” discovered “by Warren K. Moorehead of the Smithsonian Institution.” Romney, West Virginia. Reported by The Baltimore Sun, 1889.[xii] (Warren Moorehead was not directly a paid employee of the Smithsonian, but through his archaeological work, he most often reported to them anything he found.)
  • At least fifteen, and possibly as many as twenty (once pieced together, I assume), full skeletons discovered by “members of the Smithsonian Institution.” Natchez, Louisiana. Discovery in 1891. Reported by The Spokane Daily Chronicle years later.[xiii]


Besides the small sample (I personally have dozens more) above of the plethora of newspaper articles from the 1800s–1900s that provided reputable accounts of giant skeleton discoveries in early America, I have personally met individuals over the years who told stories of discovery that also seemed believable to me. Recently, one of our ministry supporters, Darel Long, recounted the following in an email and gave me permission to reprint it:

Dear Mr. Horn,

Recently I turned 50 years old and I will never forget what I saw when I was 10.
My grandfather, Filmore Frederick Thomas, had close friends who owned a cabin in the Virginia Mountains. It was common for my grandpa to visit the cabin and to spend time in the mountains in the summer during hunting season.

During one visit at the cabin, friends of my grandpa arrived joining us for what was supposed to be a relaxing summer day. I recall extended family, and a Mr. Wright, who decided to hike the woods where we followed a deer trail. For some reason, a family member returned to the cabin and my grandpa who had health issues, stayed at the cabin to fix a late dinner. Together, with adults and kids, a group of us numbering 6 people came upon various small caves that were much too small to stand and enter. 

Later, during our trail walk, we came across another cave that was large enough for the adults to walk into without bending over and hitting their heads.

Once we entered the cave, I recall two natural hallways. Since some of the adults smoked at the time they lit the way with their lighters. I recall one hallway was fairly short and we entered a small open natural damp room with stone and dirt walls that smell of something like heated honey. In the room we found a large skeleton and it was sitting beside a coffin. It appeared as if it was guarding the coffin without any form of defense items. I recall one of the adults estimating the sitting skeleton was 8 feet tall and the coffin, which was made of wood and adorned with copper banded construction, was also 8 feet long. The casket was highly deteriorated and from the light we cast across the room we could see more bones thru the wood.

When the adults pulled on the lid, it broke apart. I still remember the sound of the lid breaking apart.

To say the least it was fascinating to see these extremely tall skeletons….

I was told by my Grandpa later that contact was made with a local and nationally known college named Virginia Tech located in Blacksburg, Virginia regarding our finding and that members from Virginia Tech removed the skeletons. He was also told that a department of the government and military had gone to the site. I was never told which branches of the US government these were but my curiosity would rise again after my grandfather passed away. I personally contacted Virginia Tech by phone about a year after grandpa died and was told at the time there was no record of this event at the cave. After endless phone calls, no confirmation of the event could be verified. Regardless of the lack of assistance from Virginia Tech, I will never forget what I saw as a child and I’ll never forget the odd smell of the room where the large skeletons were found or how much taller the skeleton that was sitting was and how it towered over my ten year old height. Even then, I knew they were not natural.

It wasn’t until I came across Steve Quayle’s and your research that the memory of this finding fully came back to me. It’s been nearly 40 years since I witnessed the giant skeletons and your teachings have inspired me to return to the mountain to try to find the same cave entrance. This February, I will see if I can gain access to the area. I realize there was nothing that stood out about the natural cave room other than the odd smell of something like honey when its heated. A return to the same cave may provide a piece of the coffin, copper, or something that may offer something for your research, and if so, I will forward it to you. I have purchased a GoPro to record my upcoming expedition. It’s extremely cold this winter and I mainly want to find the cave above freezing.… Nonetheless I have the equipment to brave bad weather for 3 nights but I’m looking for a weekend above freezing.

I wanted to carefully recall these events and all I’ve shared is exactly the way I remember that unique day.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 6: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Thu May 04, 2017 9:53 pm

PART 6: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

May 4, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Thomas R. Horn
’Tis Your Cue, Dr. Hrdlička

All the discoveries and old newspaper accounts in the last entry and many other discoveries have been reported across the United States and around the world, and frequently the Smithsonian was involved in some way. If the Smithsonian was going to hide all of this and dismiss what couldn’t be hidden as biological quirks, they had to do it fast.

In 1910, Aleš Hrdlička came on board with the Smithsonian as the first curator of the Division of Physical Anthropology, but he had been working for the institution as a chief of that department since 1903. Hrdlička was a Czech anthropologist heavily involved in the pre-Nazism Eugenics Movement, whose unethical work and harsh treatment of Native American cadavers under his tenure at the Smithsonian has historically drawn much attention. (Tragically, many Smithsonian cover-up “conspiracy theorists” only do themselves a disservice by attacking Hrdlička’s personal morality.
 The discussion in many of these books and articles continually dives into diatribes that could be summarized under the hypothetic title, “Hrdlička the Nazi: Why Should ‘We the People’ Believe Anything from the Mouth of a Known Eugenics Enthusiast?” But whether he was an immoral character or not has nothing to do with his expertise as an anthropologist, and that is why I have consciously ignored the controversy of Hrdlička’s involvement in that sphere and remained focused only upon his influence as the Smithsonian’s beloved authority. Some have found Hrdlička’s eugenics involvement and his will to hide evidence of giant bones a related issue—and their logic is persuasive at times—but the relevance of that trail has birthed more opposition than it has answers, so we will leave that one alone.) However, despite his nefarious ties to endeavors that openly bespeak his lack of respect for the value of human life, it is no secret that Hrdlička’s central driving motivation was as a devout pioneer in the studies of Homo neanderthalensis.

These Neanderthals were, as evolutionary science has shown, shorter than today’s human species. Consider the classroom and textbook charts showing the evolving man from the crouched monkey to the upright human. Some charts show the Neanderthal man in the middle, others toward the end, depending on the physical phases of man featured in each chart. Scientists say this hominin species was one of the final phases of man before transforming into today’s Homo sapiens, and that they lived amongst the Homo sapiens as recently as thirty to forty thousand years ago (though some scientists say they are not quite that recent). One interesting tidbit shared by science with the rest of the world regarding this species is that the average male height was around five and a half feet tall when standing upright, supporting the idea that humans began small and have only grown as they have evolved. (According to Rudolph Zallinger’s “March of Progress” chart of 1965, the first sequence of man had dawned from the now-extinct Pliopithecus ape, which stood at an average height of three feet when upright. Though this chart, too, has been updated, the fact still remains that evolution shows man has increased in size over time from the mysterious arrival of the very first Homo species—supposedly our earliest human form.)

So entrenched was Hrdlička in his anthropological vocation that any findings on our planet that challenged his work could have possibly been his professional undoing.
 Massive egg-on-face response to livelihood is a serious threat to any man’s pride and earthly stability. Unthinkable numbers of dollars from every direction (government grants, benefactors, Smithsonian employees’ personal funds, estates, etc.) had been 
invested into this research that any 

man willing to step up and unravel this “progress” would be seen as an enemy of the scientific community.

 Not only

would such a person destroy his or her own career, but he or she would be destroying the lives and reputations of those whose life work it was to establish the Smithsonian’s position on evolutionary law from the beginning. All the exhibits, literature, investments, and man hours would be lost if even one tiny rock were to be thrown at the foundation of evolution that the Smithsonian had built during these earlier, shakier years. So powerful was Hrdlička’s word at the Smithsonian that his sway in the exhibition and/or testing of any specimen was, in fact, the final word. Add to this the staunch adherence of the Smithsonian Institution and all its members to the Powell Doctrine, and we arrive at a wall. A natural stronghold. A sacred and garrisoned sanctuary of evolutionary canon.

A thirty-foot, giant man with a crown, chiseled jawline, four legs, six wings, and an axe in his hand could be found, and if Hrdlička said it was a donkey, then doctrine would be built around it by the powers-that-be to prove that it was a donkey. Far be it for any ignorant or uneducated scoundrel to oppose the rules of the establishment. It really didn’t matter what proof would ever be unearthed once the weight of Hrdlička’s voice was added to the fortress of the Powell Doctrine. Had any one man or woman the intention to disprove the Powell Doctrine up to this point, the window of opportunity was now closed.

Because if man has only grown larger in size over time, then we couldn’t possibly allow evidence of ancient humans who tower over us…Hrdlička wouldn’t allow it. Powell wouldn’t allow it.

The Smithsonian wouldn’t allow it.

That is one possible explanation behind why our Neanderthal-faced “California Indian…biggest man that ever lived” standing at “about nine feet high” (prior to mummification) was examined by “Prof. Thomas Wilson, Curator of the Department of Prehistoric Anthropology in the Smithsonian Institution, and by other scientists,”[i] was accepted as a genuine giant specimen, bought for a substantial amount of money by the Smithsonian, placed on display…and then suddenly dismissed as a hoax in 1908 when Hrdlička’s authority grew to its zenith[ii]—from whence it also suddenly disappeared as an exhibit. The story goes that a piece of the giant’s skin was removed and tested in the Smithsonian laboratory, where it was discovered to be none other than “gelatin.”


No explanation was ever given as to why a giant supposedly made of glorified Jell-O was buried in a cave in San Diego in the first place, or how the Smithsonian’s most trusted men were so duped by the gelatin giant that they were willing to pay top dollar to bring it back to the museum, or—and most importantly—why the lab work that disproved the authenticity of the giant was only carried out under the supervision of Smithsonian scientists and never validated by external sources whose opinion might be less biased.

Perhaps it was crafted and planted by the “prospectors” who were credited as discovering it in order to make a quick buck. If that were true, these prospectors would have to have been very well educated. How someone could construct such an evolutionarily accurate piece of Homo sapiens mummy-art out of gelatin (unless it was constructed by a biologist or scientist with much knowledge of human evolutionary anatomy) is its own question that leads to many others. This debunking very well may have been legitimate, and the giant may have actually been a hoax, but the timing of its withdrawal from the museum is interesting. It was at the pinnacle of the Smithsonian’s hammering away any alternative origin-of-man theories that this exhibit abruptly departed the museum.

And this is merely one example of the evidence-covering that became the norm for the Smithsonian around this time. One cradle-boarded (elongated), massive skull of an Indian giant, “Flathead Chief,” was stolen by explorer Captain Newton H. Chittenden from an Indian grave in Vancouver Island, British Columbia, in 1910,[iii] the same year Hrdlička was fitted with the illustrious title as the Smithsonian’s first curator of the Division of Physical Anthropology. The skull was given directly to Hrdlička, and the receipt of it is documented in the Smithsonian’s Annual Report of 1911, page 82. Yet not surprisingly, Hrdlička no doubt tucked the specimen away, as it, too, challenged his work on Homo neanderthalensis. In 1914, it was reported that Professor J. H. Pratt of Southland Seminary uncovered human thigh bones in the “Burial Mound of [a] Giant Race” in St. Petersburg, Florida, that would have likely belonged to a man of nine feet.

 These, along with enormous skulls also found at the site, were “sent to the Smithsonian.”[iv] Evidently Hrdlička wanted that hidden as well. Another full skeleton with an oversized skull standing over seven feet tall was discovered nearby in Boca Grande, Florida, and then sent to the Smithsonian.[v] Select bones from a dig that produced forty-nine full “prehistoric” skeletons from a mound “Near Finleyville and Canonsburg, Pennsylvania,” the largest of which was “of a giant nearly eight foot tall,” were sent to the Smithsonian.[vi]

What is with all this evidence being sent to the Smithsonian, and where did it all go? The trail continues…

In 1933, while Hrdlička was still on the anthropological throne, an eight-foot giant was discovered by a young boy searching the floors of Steelville, Missouri, for arrowheads.
 The report stated that “Dr. Aleš Hrdlička, anthropologist of the National [Smithsonian] Museum in Washington and celebrated authority on primitive races is expected to help.”[vii] (You can see by the verbiage used by the print media at this time that Hrdlička was indeed, in the minds of the surrounding world, the ultimate and “celebrated” authority.) The skeleton was subsequently shipped to the Smithsonian. (Of interesting note, this report also speaks of the findings by Smithsonian’s own BAE field explorer Gorard Fowke years prior. According to this Steelville Ledger article, Fowke had investigated the cave-dweller remains at the same site where there lay “human bones, which had been cracked for the extraction of the marrow they contained” nearby a giant’s tomb, indicating that the site was at one point home to cannibals. If this is an accurate hypothesis, then some very large humans [or something else] on the earth were eating smaller humans in those days.)

We will pause from the plethora of discoveries in the interest of following Hrdlička’s authority in the chronological order in which it occurred. In 1934, Hrdlička decided to make one of the most absurd proclamations of his career during an interview with The United Press. A portion of the report reads as follows:

Giants Are No More, Declares Hrdlicka

By United Press

WASHINGTON, March 12 [1934]—The Smithsonian Institution is “fed up” on human skeletons of “human prehistoric giants,” and Dr. Ales Hrdlicka, curator of anthropology, makes no bones about it.

Dr. Hrdlicka blames the “will to believe” of amateur anthropologists for many reports of “discoveries” which find their way to his office with monotonous frequency. The fact that the bones aren’t even interesting adds to his consternation.…

According to the Institution, the purported “finds” describe “an ancient race of giants between 7 and 8 feet tall, with bones and jaws considerably larger than those of men living today. The finder makes a hurried comparison of the length of the fossil thigh bone with his own, and from this calculates the size of the hypothetical ‘ancient giant.’”

However, it was explained, “the person unfamiliar with human anatomy does not know that the upper joint of the femul [sic] is several inches higher than would appear from superficial examination of the living body.”

Hence, the “discovery” and consequent disillusion.

Next to “giants,” Dr. Hrdlicka reports, fancy finds its sway with human “dwarfs.”[viii]

See, the misleading drive behind this article is that it might be based on a partial truth. At best, however, it remains a half-truth, as it willfully deters from giving the whole truth. Let us follow his claims for a moment in the following example: An average American career man who works as the foreman of a shoe factory is wandering about the forest with his dog on his day off and stumbles upon what is clearly a human femur. Because his expertise is in making shoes, and not in human anatomy, he holds the bone at the top of his thigh, not at the appropriate connecting joint a femur would always connect to—and he holds it straight, not at the diagonal angle a femur always curves. The bone then naturally extends several inches past his knee cap, and the conclusion is obviously, as Hrdlička stated, an amateurish one. The foreman of the shoe factory thinks he’s found the bone of an ancient giant that couldn’t possibly have stood less than seven or eight feet tall. He then immediately follows up by calling Hrdlička’s office at the Smithsonian and announcing his discovery.
 Hrdlička receives the remains of a regular-sized human, and subsequently dismisses the entire thing as a painstakingly redundant misunderstanding.



With all the talk of a giant race sweeping the nation around this time, there is no doubt that Hrdlička was probably swamped with these false findings. To that extent, this United Press interview might have been spot-on.

But the article diverts two powerfully important issues…

[list="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"]
[*]Hrdlička is not grumbling about the findings of shoe factory foremen (or the equivalent). He specifically stated that the error was from “anthropologists.” In so doing, he makes it sound like any anthropologist might be so lacking in the anatomical familiarity their field of research demands that they would find a bone and get overly excited. Sure, anthropologists aren’t necessarily final experts in anatomy, but their affiliation with archaeological discovery places them in a position to stop and maturely assess the situation before flooding Hrdlička’s office with tall tales, lest they heap embarrassment upon themselves. Could one or two of Hrdlička’s anthropological associates lose their heads over a discovery and jump the gun on reporting it to him before the bone was deemed authentically oversized, despite the damage this would inflict upon their reputation as a professional anthropologist? Yes. Could five of Hrdlička’s associates be guilty of this? Absolutely. It wouldn’t speak very highly of the “professionals” the Smithsonian prizes if this happened as often as Hrdlička said, but yes, it is certainly possible. Could many of his fellow anthropologists repeatedly make this same mistake over and over again at dig sites in front of many Smithsonian-celebrated professional witnesses over the period of several decades? That’s absurd! It’s the Smithsonian, is it not? Surely someone in that department checks the facts before shipping materials to the almighty Hrdlička. (In fact, many of the discoveries had been announced by personalities belonging to the Smithsonian whose credibility within their field was never questioned and whose findings were considered authentic enough to be included in the annual reports.) Yet, by conducting his end of the biased interview the way he did, Hrdlička grouped all of these “finders” in a single category of bumbling, country-dolt amateurs. He insinuated that all previous discoveries were faulty because they were assessed by faulty men. As such, the article is plainly biased, does not dare to list any names of these finders whose professionalism Hrdlička is attacking, and steers well clear of listing the whole truth, which involves many verified discoveries that have been archived in Smithsonian literature as well as countless reports outside.

[list="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"]
[*]By giving his femur analogy, Hrdlička is choosing to use the one analogy that the public will read and respond to with newfound confidence—that elusive “aha” moment—in the grand debunking of giant theories everywhere, and to accomplish this, he uses a simple science that anyone can follow: the misplacement of the “giant’s” femur against the finder’s. Why did he choose this analogy? Because it can’t be contested, and it feeds his “giants never existed” doctrine, while avoiding any more baffling comparisons that science cannot These articles listed prior (and oh-so-many others) use size comparisons that openly defy all we know of modern man, such as brawny archaeologists with full beards easily slipping an unearthed giant jawbone around their entire face and girth of their whiskers. Hrdlička never mentioned that when he was guided to the floor of the United Press platform. What about all those skulls that, even without flesh or hair, measure so large that they could be used as a helmet by modern man? What about all those skeletons that were found apart from Smithsonian supervision, taken from their dig, and examined by medical/anatomical doctors who then sent the bones to Hrdlička…after they had placed the towering, thirty-inch femur at the proper joint and concluded the man would have been over eight feet tall? Why wouldn’t Hrdlička mention this? There is zero scientific objectivity in this interview.

It all points back to this: There were thousands of discoveries of skeletons, bones, skulls, tools, weapons, jewelry, etc., that pointed to the proof that giants “walked the earth in those days” (cf. Genesis 6), and Hrdlička was well aware of it. His career and livelihood would naturally be threatened by the acknowledgment of it, so he jumped upon the opportunity the Powell Doctrine provided to perpetuate the dismissal of anything his own personal science could not explain. And, when given the platform, he used narrow-minded and half-truth science to “prove” to the anxious public that all these discoveries were merely a chain of amateurish oversights.

Hrdlička can “declare” anything he wants about discovery, but it doesn’t make it true, despite the existent sovereignty his Smithsonian position lends.

Sadly, however, Hrdlička can “declare” something, and because of the existent sovereignty his Smithsonian position lends, he becomes that benevolent “they” that the world respects, believing that it is only for their protection as herd-mentality lemmings that would otherwise explode into mass hysteria over the most preposterously false theories declared within that largely useless and archaic “Holy Bible” upon which the great and worthy “science” no longer needs to rely. It’s condescension and hubris to the highest degree that this man would “dispel” ancient giant races on a public media platform without allowing his listeners to learn of the real proof hidden in the small print—including Smithsonian archives. One simply cannot erase all the results of hundreds of years of archaeological investigation because Hrdlička wants to talk about amateurs who hold a bone the wrong way.

Nevertheless, the discoveries continued, and the cover-up goes deeper.

In the summer of 1936, a dig began under the supervision of the Smithsonian exploration team and sponsors, referred to as the “Sea Island Mound Dig at Sea Island, Georgia.” As the reader has likely suspected, giant skeletons were found. The lead archaeologist was Dr. Preston Holder of the Smithsonian National Museum, who, after taking several photographs of the evidence, took the bones to Hrdlička. An initial report was published in the Portsmouth Times on July 28, 1936, in an article titled: 
“Georgia’s Sand-Dunes Yield Startling Proof of a Prehistoric Race of Giants.” After this, however, the trail cuts off because “the foremost archeologist of the coast, Preston Holder, was not permitted to publish the major result of his excavations. His superiors at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. [read: Hrdlička and his pals]…did not allow him to publish his highly detailed progress reports.”[ix] According to the Society for American Archeology in their SAA Archeological Record:

For reasons that remain obscure, his WPA [Works Progress Association] supervisors in Washington (Smithsonian Institution) [again, Hrdlička] and Georgia did not permit Holder to publish his work-in-progress, discouraged the use of his results for his Columbia doctorate, and effectively hid his formal unpublished reports and relevant papers from scrutiny. In some cases, the supervisors expunged the reports and papers. Under his name, only one meager, two-page note, which was never intended for print publication, briefly describes five of the sites that he excavated in 1936 and 1937 [which likely refers to the initial article in The Portsmouth Times].[x]

At this point, I would like to remind the reader that we have not only uncovered scores of evidence that the Smithsonian is aware of bones, has (or had) bones in their possession, and will not allow the public to know about it—we also have evidence now that the Smithsonian is methodically preventing/destroying/expunging paper trails that detail the archaeological proof of them.

The following October, Hrdlička was on site with his team at the “mummy caves” of Kagamil Island, Alaska (one of the Aleutian Islands), when he personally unearthed a giant skull. Since Hrdlička was responsible for the find, and since it occurred in front of witnesses, he wasn’t able to cancel out the discovery by making dismissive claims that “amateur anthropologists” bungled a femur comparison, so he was left with little choice but to follow through with protocol and have the skull documented. However, this did not stop him from attributing the find to simply a mysteriously large-brained Indian, as opposed to a giant. Rochester Journal ran the following small blip:

Smithsonian Gets Huge Indian Skull

By Associated Press

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 [1936]—After a Summer spent nosing around the Aleutian Islands, Dr. Alex [sic] Hrdlicka is home with a big head. In fact, the skull, which the Smithsonian Institution anthropologist picked up, once contained the largest human brain of record in the Western Hemisphere, Institution scientists say.

The skull, believed to have belonged to an Aleut who lived hundreds of years ago, had a brain capacity of 2,005 cubic centimeters. The average man has about 1,450 cubic centimeters and the average woman 1,300.[xi]

Not surprisingly, there is not a word about giants, and one reading this article in 1936 was led to believe the skull was a unique fluke. The official Smithsonian U.S. National Museum catalogue card (Cat. No. 377,860; Acc. No. 138,127) lists on the “How acquired” line: “Coll. for Museum.” Yet, despite the “collected for museum” indicator, the oversized skull thereafter fell into obscurity.

More and more giant discoveries were found in the following years, including, but certainly not limited to, the seven-foot mummies of Sonora, Mexico, in 1937 and the largest skull ever recorded found in Potomac Creek, Virginia, in 1937 (cranial capacity of 2100cc). If we were to cover all of the findings herein, this chapter would be, well, GIANT, in overwhelming size. Suffice it to say that despite the mounting list of unexplainable discoveries, the Smithsonian continued to proselytize the Powell Doctrine and Hrdlička’s policies of exclusion.

Of course, one has to wonder what happened to the remains of these giants and where the Smithsonian Institution may actually still possess their hidden remains today. The late Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law, sounded suspicious of their concealed location when he wrote:

Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor [giants].

The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited.

This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.[xii]

So does the Smithsonian Institution have an Indiana Jones-like, large warehouse somewhere with aisles of American giants’ remains locked away? We now know this is more than possible. And in case the reader might be wondering why independent archaeologists or researchers aren’t simply reacting to the scandal with their own digs today in order to get the real story, in 1990, U.S. federal law enacted the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Under this law, any federal agencies or institutions that receive federal funding are to release all bones and artifacts related to their culture back to the Native Americans. Failure to comply with the rules of the NAGPRA law results in imprisonment and/or a hefty fine. Thus, not only are we no longer allowed to traipse across any property that promises answers for a lost race of giants and start digging, many of the bones known to be hidden away by the Smithsonian were likely commandeered and returned to the people who inhabit the land from which it was unearthed. However, that the Smithsonian holds interest in shepherding its flock away from truth I have no doubt, and as long as the very likely cover-up continues, so, too, will the worldview that anything outside our educated and scientific knowledge base is purely “mythological.”

So long as the world has its Powells, its Walcotts, and its Hrdličkas to continue mortaring the wall, all the while condescendingly presenting alternative theorists as uneducated fools, we the people will—as Powell prophesied—continue to be “subjective philosophers.” If only the “theys” of this equation let the evidence speak for itself…

But some evidence can no longer be hidden, as we will see in the next entry.

Up Next: Before the Smithsonian, Something Legendary This Way Came

[i] “Biggest Giant Ever Known,” The World, October 7, 1895. Full article appears in many places online. No author listed.

[ii] “Tallest Human Giant Who Ever Lived,” The Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 1908.

[iii] “Skull Given Museum: Archeologist Presents Indian Relic to Smithsonian; Bones of Flathead Chief,” The Washington Post, January 16, 1910.

[iv] “Burial Mound of Giant Race Holds Secret: Thighs and Skulls Sent [to the] Smithsonian,” St. Petersburg Daily Times, March 17, 1914, 38.

[v] “Skull Found Indicates Previous Floridians were Sizeable,” Evening Independent, February 14, 1925.

[vi] “Prehistoric Giants Taken from Mound,” Pittsburg Press, September 13, 1932.

[vii] “An Ancient Ozark Giant Dug Up Near Steelville,” The Steelville Ledger, June 11, 1933.

[viii] “Giants Are No More, Declares Hrdlicka,” United Press. Interview conducted in early March of 1934. Subsequently reproduced in several papers. See: Berkeley Daily Gazette, March 12, 1934. Article available in full online at the following link, last accessed November 29, 2016 (parent site is in German, but the article is a scan of the original English): http://atlantisforschung.de/images/Berkeley_Daily_Gazette_-_Mar_12%2C_1934.jpg.

[ix] Bernard K. Means, Shovel Ready: Archaeology and Roosevelt’s New Deal for America (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2013), 202; emphasis added.

[x] Kevin Kiernan, “Preston Holder on the Georgia Coast, 1936–1938,” SAA Archeological Record, November 2011, Volume 11, No. 5, 30, last accessed November 29, 2016, http://www.saa.org/Portals/0/SAA/Publications/thesaaarchrec/Nov_2011.pdf; emphasis added.

[xi] “Smithsonian Gets Huge Indian Skull,” Rochester Journal, October 5, 1936.

[xii] Wayne N. May, This Land: America 2,000 B. C. to 500 A. D. (Google eBook, Hayriver Press, June 18, 2012) 220.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Super Elite

Posts : 11302
Reputation : 361
Join date : 2013-02-04

PostSubject: PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   Fri May 26, 2017 7:14 am

Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters

PART 1  /  PART 2
PART 3  /  PART 4
PART 5  /  PART 6
PART 7  /  PART 8
PART 9  /  PART 10

PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN

May 25, 2017 by SkyWatch Editor

By Thomas R. Horn

On Those Giant, 6-Fingered Cannibalistic Gods That Demanded Human Sacrifice
Considering what we’ve already documented concerning Chaco, we have by this time discussed cannibalism and human sacrifice there, but the truth is that as we discover this practice becoming more widespread during this era, we can see other apexes within their religious system beginning to surface as well. It would appear that polydactyly, having six fingers and/or toes, was a trait that would earn a person a place of reverence or respect as well—something I believe Mesoamericans and eventually some of the Anasazi connected to the offspring of the Cloudeaters, the gods. Anthropologist Patricia Crown led a study on this and discovered that while they were not necessarily believed to actually have been supernaturalbeings themselves (although Mayan culture does at times connect certain extrahuman powers to the trait), people displaying this characteristic were given a higher rank in society than the typical residents, and were awarded with special items and treatment.

On this matter, Crown said, “We found that people with six toes, especially, were common and seemed to be associated with important ritual structures and high-status objects like turquoise.”[i]

Polydactyly was found to be more common at Chaco than in other regions, which has puzzled some researchers. Discovered at Chaco were three in ninety-six skeletons, a ratio unusually high, at 3.1 percent, when in modern Native Americans, the ratio is .2 percent according to National Geographic.[ii]

Studying the petroglyphs, one can quickly see that six-fingered hands—or, more commonly among the rock art, six-toed footprints—are easy to find, meaning that it was noted frequently in the stories they were trying to leave behind. Something that particularly expresses the importance of these characteristics is that there are many areas where the handprint or footprint is embedded into the door frame right outside the kiva for prominence and notoriety, another indicator that this was given high regard and ritualistic rank.

Sandals accommodating an extra toe were also found in great quantity. Six-digited individuals were given honorary burials, placed with symbolic grave goods, and, in one instance, an individual even had an ornate anklet on his six-toed foot, and no adornment on his five-toed foot.

Another interesting find was at Ash Creek, where an “elite residence” was said to have contained a fragmentary cut of an ulna and humerus (bones) of a dwarf-sized individual. These were considered to be trophy memorabilia and not suspected to have been related in any way to the cannibalism that went on at Chaco.

The Rites Escalate

When we are looking at Chaco Canyon and the element of human sacrifice, we can also look at the Salmon Ruin, on a road linked with Chaco Canyon, where two adults were strongly suspected to have been cannibalized and another thirty—all of whom were children—were killed and burned, theorized to have probably been sacrificed to the Mayan diety Chichén Itzá.[iii] Noted in the ratio of burials for this particular site was the fact that children were strangely absent within the considerate burials, but that there were many who appeared to have died under suspicious circumstances and were burned.

At the Cases Grandes Ruin, archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso wrote of the five deities, (Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, Xiuhtecutli, Xipe Totec, and Tlaloc) that he accredited the Chaco region’s cultural changes during this time to the following:

[They] were all intregal to this Mesoamerican cult, particularly as practiced by the Aztec, who paid special homage to Xipe during their festival of Tlacaxipeualiztli, the second month of their calendar, which occasioned the ceremonial scalping of certain of their sacrificial victims.… Cannibalism, though not unique to Xipe Tótec cultists, was nonetheless a meaningful function of their sect.[iv]

One strange find at Casa Rinconada was the condition of the human remains associated with this site. It was unique from other excavations in this region because of the fact that they were severely chewed. Many skeletons found here were partially missing and either the bones had been chewed and scattered by a “carnivore” or there had been postmortem human disturbance. Sadly, when Turner tried to retrieve them for further inspection, many of them were then missing. The vast majority reported on, however, were said to have had the ends chewed completely off, which was the only place within my studies that showed bones to have been chewed and scattered in such a way, with no sign of it having been a rodent, and possible expert explanations for the disarray ranged from man-made disturbances, to grave robbers, which didn’t account for the chewing. The reporting archaeologist pointed his dusty finger at local wild dogs or coyotes, but even himself stated:

Taken as a whole, there was significantly more modification, human and environmental, to Chacoan bodies than has been noted in comparably sized districts of the Mogollon, Classic-period Hohokam, or western Anasazi culture areas. Chaco Canyon is not only architecturally distinctive, it is also taphonomically strange.[v]

As Time Passes, Rituals Intensify

A particularly gruesome find was that of the location called Houck K, which was estimated closer to A.D. 1250. It would appear that the skeletons of adolescent and adult victims had had their chests disarticulated by “prying and bending their rib cages until the ribs snapped off near the vertebral column.”[vi] The expert coordinating the excavation presumed that the rib fragments were crushed and boiled to extract fat. They found, also at this location, two victims whose heads had been more than scalped. One had been fully flayed and the other had been cut to the upper nose. Of that, Turner stated:

Such facial mutilation could represent either socially pathological violence to the victim or, more likely to our minds, ceremonial flaying like that done to Mesoamerican Tlaloc or Xipe Totec sacrificial victims.[vii]

This is only one of many cases that presented acts such as facial flaying; skin of the deceased being worn; swapping skin, faces, heads, or other body parts between two corpses; and even tongue removal. The farther into this period in the Chacoan region we progress, the thicker the resemblance becomes to that of Mesoamerica, and specifically, Teotihuacan, pre-Aztec city in Middle Mexico that we mentioned before. For example, the sun god Tonatiuh, whose face and protruding tongue are seen at the center of the famous Sun Stone, is the god of the present (fifth) time, which began in 3114 B.C. Tonatiuh—who delivered important prophecies and demanded human sacrifices (more than twenty thousand victims per year were offered to him, according to Aztec and Spanish records, and in the single year of 1487, Aztec priests sacrificed eighty thousand people to him at the dedication of the reconstructed temple of the sun god)—was also known as the lord of the thirteen days (from 1 Death to 13 Flint), a number sacred to Aztec, Maya, and Freemasons for prophetic and mystical reasons.

A Glimpse of Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan has traces that may reach back as far as 200 B.C., but was at its peak between A.D. 150 and A.D. 750 at a possible population of up to two hundred thousand residents. While it is commonly believed that the city was raided, many experts also believe that its internal government had already begun to crumble from the inside out, citing civil unrest as the actual culprit for its demise. Some have even called it the Mesoamerican Tower of Babel, saying that residents adopted a new culture and simply migrated out of the area.[viii]

Regardless of the specific reasons the city’s infrastructure began to crumble, between A.D. 600 and A.D. 900, it is a well-documented fact that nomads looking for a new life migrated outward, and many of them headed north, as we have already established. A traveler leaving this place and coming to a new area would certainly be bringing along some gruesome rituals. See below what Fray Bernardino de Sahagún records about some of the rituals carried out for their deities; Tlaloc, Xipe Totec, Huitzilopochtli, and Quetzalcoatl in the Teotihuacan region:

They killed a large number of infants each year, and once dead they cooked and ate them.… Captives were killed by scalping them, taking the scalp off the top of the head…When the masters of these captives took their slaves to the temple where they were to be killed, they dragged them by the hair. As they pulled them up the steps of the Cú, some of these captives would faint, so their owners had to drag them by the hair as far as the block where they were to die.… After thus having torn their hearts out, and after pouring their blood into a jacara (bowl made of a gourd), which was given to the master of the dead slave, the body was thrown down the temple steps. From there it was taken by certain old men called Quaquaquilti, and carried to their calpul (or chapel), cut to pieces, and distributed among them to be eaten. Before cutting them up they would flay the bodies of the captives; others would dress in their skins and fight sham battles with other men.[ix]

He goes on from there to describe a horrific scene (one that is too graphic to include in this book) where some of the human sacrifice victims are burned alive, then pulled from the fire, at which point their hearts are ripped from their chests regardless of whether they are completely dead. This description seemed to me to be similar to the chest disarticulation that happened at Houck K, which we mentioned previously. The heart is then offered at the feet of the statue of, Xiuhtecutli, their god of fire.

Displaced Drifters Head North

Even in Teotihuacan art, one can find accountings of human sacrifice and cannibalism. 

Ancient deities that have been mentioned all throughout this chapter were associated with the legendary Dragon, who was worshipped by the gigantic Cloudeaters, who demanded grisly and shocking forms of worship. So, as a result of Teotihuacan crumbling at this time, combined with the Chacoan region’s population growing and beginning to thrive, it created the perfect place for these drifters to find a safe haven, bringing their influences, however malevolent, along with them. See how archaeological team Lister and Lister explain the phenomenon:

Realistically viewed, Chaco Canyon need not have been an actual cog in the Toltec organization of trading outposts to have been influenced by Mexican cultures, for shock waves emanating from an advanced epicenter have a way of reverberating outward to engulf otherwise removed entities.… News, ideas, and technological knowledge undoubtedly passed along the trade routes as readily as did material things, and the traveling salesmen of the times most likely played important roles in cultural diffusion. By that means, eyewitness accounts of Mesoamerican religious rituals, irrigation schemes, architectural embellishments, communication means, and other strange wonders may have reached Chaco. The descriptions may have inspired and encouraged local technicians and leaders to adopt those measures that would be beneficial to the Chacoans.[x]

Lister and Lister seem of the opinion that it would not have been necessary for Chaco to be involved with trade relations in order for the Mesoamerican to impact the area, that just by its mere proximity, the stimulus would have radiated outward and reached Chaco eventually, regardless. But beyond this archaeologist’s surmising, we have established that there was also, indeed, trade happening through the Chaco region, alongside the reach of influence. So there can be no doubt that the sway not only permeated the Chaco region, but that with lengthened exposure over time, the results were escalating. The farther into this time period that we venture to explore, the closer we get to A.D. 1300, the more heinous these acts become, and the more graphic and brutal the descriptions are. It would seem that the earliest recordings of cannibalism and violence during this period now appeared mellow in comparison with the accountings as time progressed.


As we mentioned before, the ghastly facial flaying at Houck K is thought to have happened closer to A.D. 1250, whereas the “simpler” cannibalism and violence of Canyon Butte Ruin was possibly closer to A.D. 1000. If a person examines several sites from several different dates between A.D. 900 and A.D. 1300, they will see that the overall trend is increasing in repugnance as the years progress, which points toward the idea that infiltration began, and that slowly new ideas from Mesoamerican were introduced, and that over the period of time, as is often the case, people became desensitized and these ritual habits intensified.

When Two Worlds Collide

Allow me to recall the comment in I made earlier about the “triple-walled towers” that appeared in about A.D. 1275. Coincidence? We think not.

On the front cover of the 1963 National Monument Brochure for the site Hovenweep, which we visited and studied in our research for this book and the documentary film, proudly declared that its “ruins are noted for their square, oval, circular, and D-shaped towers and are perhaps the best preserved examples of Southwestern Indian defensive architecture.”[xi] The same goes on to describe the towers at this particular site as the “‘sentry boxes’ of a bygone people.”

The story of Hovenweep, as this same brochure tells, is as follows: Between approximately the years of A.D. 400 and A.D. 1100, ancient Native Americans dwelled peacefully in the valleys as hunter-gather, basket-making peoples. In about A.D. 1100, however, some unprecedented threat came to this area, forcing local farmers to move into more defensive locations, and that by A.D. 1200, the living style had generally become that of large, defensive groups housed together in group dwellings for safety.

 See how the story explains this phenomenon:

By 1200…people tended to withdraw completely from the open valleys and mesa tops to more defensible sites containing permanent springs situated in the heads of the Hovenweep canyons.[xii]

Hovenweep is thought by many to be the last example of architecture from this area in the Four Corners region. Despite the efforts of settlers there, however, like many other defensive sites at this point in time, a massacre occurred and those left alive likely fled.

We also know that population began to grow, slowly at first, as early as A.D. 900, but by A.D. 1200, occupancy in the Mesa Verde area was in full swing. By A.D. 1200, cliff dwellings were being constructed and inhabited. As I stated very early on in this work, some may argue that this story is backward, but when confronted with the evidence of localized culture change, timelines on locations such as Hovenweep, and the known nature of the defensive structures involved, this seems the chronological direction that makes the most sense. Additionally, most people claiming this timeline also adopt the theory that these people eventually migrated south following their deities. But studying the Teotihuacan history. both the Chaco region and further south will show that the very deities they were said to have followed actually existed in Mexico long before they were in the American Southwest, which further supports our timeline and directional flow. Being that the cultural and religious activity can be proven to date earlier in Mexico, it is reasonable to accept the same timeline on the cliff dwellings, towers, and outward migration as well.

The next argument a naysayer might bring up is that, again as stated early on, the cliff dwellings are not buildings of a defensive nature. Many so-called cultural experts during our investigation became confrontational, feeling that the ancient occupants’ integrity is under attack by way of their living situation. In exploring this, one must start with the most obvious question: Why? For what reason would groups of people choose to build into the side of a cliff, requiring such an arduous climb either upward or downward to reach it, unless there was an enormous threat from which one was trying to escape? Personally, in all of my research, I have yet to hear a really good answer to this question.

We have already established that there was, indeed, a threat migrating into the area, spreading, infiltrating further, as time went by. We propose that those who were living at ground level at a time before A.D. 800 were by A.D. 1200 grouping together, just as the evidence states, to escape to higher ground, either by way of cliff dwellings or protective towers, for safety and survival.

They literally ran for the hills…

The New Way of Life

Take a moment to review some statements made about the Anasazi cliff dwellings by David Roberts, author and writer for Smithsonian magazine:

They (had) lived the open or in easily accessible sites within canyons. But about 1250…began constructing settlements high in the cliffs…that offered defense and protection.…Toward the end of the 13th century, some cataclysmic event forced the Anasazi to flee those cliff houses and their homeland and to move.[xiii]

He goes on to describe a cliff dwelling he visited as a settlement that “seemed to exude paranoia, as if its builders lived in constant fear of attack.”[xiv] In his continued work, he also discusses cannibalism, executions, scalping, decapitating, “face removing” as we discussed earlier, and trophy bone collecting. On top of all of this, he documents a case of fossilized human excrement containing the human protein called myoglobin, which occurs only in cases of cannibalism and is irrefutable proof that the cannibalism did indeed occur.

Neighboring Gallina people also lived in cliff dwellings, had defensive towers, and sometimes even had underground tunnels interconnecting with buildings that were built at ground level. More recent excavations have shown that, at times, entire villages of theirs were massacred. Of this, archaeologist Tony Largaespada said, “Almost all of [the Gallina ever found] were murdered,” he said. “[Someone] was just killing them, case after case, every single time.”[xv] When discussing the cliff dwellings that these people lived in, Tony Largaespada said the dwellings provided “an excellent example of just how scared these people must have been.” He then went on to say, “It was occupied right at the end, and it was only occupied for a short period of time. It may have been all that was left, their last stronghold.”[xvi]

Gallina ruins that have been excavated were also said to have valuable items that had been left behind, and it would appear that, like many Anasazi sites abandoned within this era, the decision to leave was unexpected, hasty, and prompted by violence.

Sand Canyon

Sand Canyon was constructed around A.D. 1250. During excavation, without even trying, researchers found more than two thousand identifiable human bones and fragments. Archaeologists estimated these came from between forty and forty-five individuals, only nine of which were formally buried. Some skeletons were complete and some were scattered, and some piled “disarticulated.”[xvii] It is clearly stated many times in the reports made by excavators that many of the skeletons found were killed by a sudden, violent event that caused remaining occupants to vacate. While excavators are forthcoming about the fact that they did not excavate anywhere near the entire site, of what they did dig, the ratio of women and children was higher than typical. Although the report never mentions cannibalism or human sacrifice, the account of this site reads similarly to accounts from digs in locations where we know such activities occurred. Many bones found were burned, displayed perimortem cut and chopping marks, and were carelessly discarded in a pile. Loose, disembodied teeth were found in floors of kivas, a common anomaly within sites where cannibalism had occurred. Only one of the bodies unearthed was confirmed to be male; all others were women and children, and many were under the age of 10.

Of particular interest at Sand Canyon were two skeletons of people who appeared to be related to each other. One, the only confirmed male unearthed at the location, age 40–45 years old, was the tallest at this location, with a clavicle said to be “large and massive.” His female relative, second only to him in height at this location, possessed “thin, curved, porous bones; hundreds of wormian bones along the lamboidal suture; and extreme amount of cranial deformation; and an unusually pointed chin.”[xviii] The excavators use possible bone disorders as a reason for these formations, but I could not help think of worldwide testaments that the children born to those women that had been raped by the Cloudeaters (Nephilim) had similar features of six fingers, six toes, distorted mandibles, and double rows of teeth, just as the skeletons discovered at Sand Canyon in this gravesite where sudden and unexplainable violence and cannibalism had occurred. They each had clavicles of unusual size, and the male showed polydactyly, having six toes on his right foot. Both were missing certain teeth congenitally, and the male had double-peg teeth in place of third molars.

Like many other reports I came across in my studies, this was yet another that described, in many different places, that a sudden, violent event had caused rapid, unexpected evacuation.

One Last Appeal?

Tom Horn at Sun Temple

Sun Temple, excavated in the early 1900s by archaeologist Jesse W. Fewkes, was an uncovered anomaly within Mesa Verde, where many cliff dwellings were unearthed as well. The cliff dwellers were said to be sun worshippers, and of the nature of the Sun Temple, although in entirety still a mystery, is suspected to be a last appeal to their gods before migrating out of the area. In one area, where a stone fossil shaped like the sun is enveloped by three walls, Fewkes reported: “There can be no doubt that the walled enclosures was a shrine and the figure in it may be a key to the purpose of the building. The shape of the figure on the rock suggests a symbol of the sun, and if this suggestion be correct, there can hardly be a doubt that solar rites were performed about it.”[xix]Because the building was never roofed, it is debated that it was intended to never be covered, but as evidence shows, more likely, it was left unfinished. This makes sense, since it is dated to approximately A.D. 1225, and abandonment was approximately A.D. 1250–A.D. 1275. Also worth noting is that many of the structures from this era show evidence of having been built, then added to sporadically over time, always changing and being often repurposed within lifetimes. The Sun Temple, however, was a preconceived notion that was built at once from a premade plan, an ancient blueprint, pursued by many people of like mind, in unison. Fewkes describes in his report that few household goods or other items were found in this excavation. This lends itself to the notion that the building was not finished yet, as it was probably not yet being used. The walls, many of which were not yet plastered, show a Mexican-style masonry, at this time new to the Mesa Verde region. Could this be an indicator that it was even possibly an interracial effort? It was reported by Fewkes, leading archaeologist at its excavation, to have construction properties of both the original Chaco style and of the newer towers, such as were found at Ruin Canyon and Mancos Valley. See Fewkes’ statement of the construction of this building:

The argument that appeals most strongly to my mind supporting the theory that Sun Temple was a ceremonial building is the unity shown in its construction. A preconceived plan existed in the minds of the builders before they began work on the main building. Sun Temple was not constructed haphazard nor was its form due to addition of one clan after another, each adding rooms to an existing nucleus.… Those who made it must have belonged to several clans fused together, and if they united for this common work they were in a higher stage of sociological development than the loosely connected population of a cliff dwelling.… This building was constructed for worship, and its size is such that we may practically call it a temple.… Sun Temple was not built by an alien people, but by the cliff dwellers as a specialized building mainly for religious purposes and so far as known is the first of its type recognized in the Mesa Verde area.[xx]

In the book On the Path of the Immortals (Defender Publishing, 2015), I also noted of the Sun Temple:

The Sun Temple was indeed ruins that I [Tom] wanted to see, because it is a large and significant site that holds much mystery in that nobody, including archaeologists and cultural historians, know what it was for. An eroded stone basin with three indentations at the southwest corner of the structure suggests that it may have been purposed as a sundial to mark the changes in the seasons. Two kivas on top of the structure, together with the lack of windows or doors elsewhere, intimates that it was not meant for housing, which has led modern Pueblo Indians to propose that it was some type of ceremonial structure probably planned for ritual purposes dedicated to the Sun God.

 The amount of fallen stone that was removed during its excavation is said to indicate that the original walls were between eleven and fourteen feet tall. These walls were thick, double-coursed construction, with a rubble core placed between the panels for strength and insulation. After studying the Sun Temple and comparing it to ancient Mesoamerican culture and edifices, it is this author’s opinion (which is as good as anybody else’s, since we don’t really know) that this site may have been intended as a place for human sacrifice similar to those of the Aztec and Maya. I say this for a couple reasons. First, Dr. Don Mose Jr., a third-generation medicine man we met with for a large part of a day during this investigation (more about him later in this chapter), told us that the oldest legends of the Anasazi, which he had been told by his great-grandfather(who likewise had been told by his ancestors) included stories of the Anasazi turning to sorcery, sacrifice, and cannibalism after they “lost their way” and were driven insane by a reptilian creature, which they depict with a halo above his head. (Images of this being are included in the petroglyphs we filmed inside the canyons, and I believe they likely attest to the fallen reptile [or reptiles] of biblical fame, which also misled humanity.) Second, blood sacrifice was a religious activity in most premodern cultures during some stage of their development, especially as it involved invoking the gods, and the “Sun God” was typically chief among them. This included animals and humans or the bloodletting of community members during rituals overseen by their priests. In fact, the Mayans—who may have influenced the Anasazi or vice versa—believed “that the only way for the sun to rise was for them to sacrifice someone or something every day to the gods.”[xxi]


[i] “Ancient People of Chaco Canyon With Six Fingers and Toes Were Special,” July 27, 2016, Message to Eagle Online, last accessed December 12, 2016, http://www.messagetoeagle.com/ancient-people-chaco-canyon-six-finger-six-toes-special/.

[ii] Aaron Sidder, “Extra Fingers and Toes Were Revered in Ancient Culture,” July 25, 2016, National Geographic Online, last accessed December 12, 2016, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/chaco-canyon-pueblo-bonito-social-implications-polydactyly-extra-toes/.

[iii] Christy and Jacqueline Turner, Man Corn, 131

[iv] Charles C. Di Peso, Casas Grandes, a Fallen Trading Center of the Gran Chichimeca, vol. 2: Medio Period. (Flagstaff, Arizona: Amerind Foundation, Northland Press, 1974), 574.

[v] Christy and Jacqueline Turner, Man Corn, 362.

[vi] Ibid.,  371.

[vii] Ibid., 380.

[viii] “Teotihuacan,” Aztec-History.com, last accessed December 12, 
2016, http://www.aztec-history.com/teotihuacan.html.

[ix] Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, A History of Ancient Mexico, 1547-1577, vol. 1; Translated by F.R. Bandelier from the Spanish version of C.M. de Bustamante, (Nashville, TN: Fisk University Press, 1932) 273.

[x] Robert H. Lister and Florence C. Lister Chaco Canyon: Archaeology and Archaeologists, (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1981) 175.
[xi] National Park Service, Hovenweep National Monument, (US Government Printing Office, 1963) last accessed December 12, 2016, http://npshistory.com/brochures/hove/1963.pdf.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] David Roberts, “Riddles of the Anasazi,” July, 2003, Smithsonian Magazine Online, last accessed December 12, 2016, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/riddles-of-the-anasazi-85274508/.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Blake de Pastino, “Ancient Massacre Discovered in New Mexico—Was it Genocide?” July 12, 2007, National Geographic Online, last accessed December 13, 2016, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-chaco-massacre.html.

[xvi] “Photo Gallery: Ancient Massacre Reveals Mysterious American Culture,” July 12, 2007, National Geographic Online, last accessed December 13, 2016, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/photogalleries/ancient-culture/photo5.html.

[xvii] Kristin A. Kuckelman and Debra L. Martin, “The Archaeology of Sand Canyon Pueblo, Chapter 7, Human Skeletal Remains,” 2007, Crow Canyon Archaeological Center Online, last accessed December 13, 2016, https://www.crowcanyon.org/researchreports/sandcanyon/text/scpw_humanskeletalremains.asp.

[xviii] Ibid.

[xix] Paul R. Franke, “Mesa Verde Notes, Vol. 5, Number 1, Sun Symbol Markings,” July 1933, National Parks Services History Online, last accessed December 13, 2016, http://www.npshistory.com/nature_notes/meve/vol5-1e.htm.

[xx] Jesse W. Fewkes, Rules and Regulations, Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, Excavation and Repair of Sun Temple, (Washington: Government Printing Office 1926), 37-38, last accessed December 12, 2016, as seen online http://npshistory.com/brochures/meve/1926.pdf.

[xxi] Thomas Horn, On the Path of the Immortals, (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing, 2015), pgs 48–49
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN   

Back to top Go down
PART 10: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» ((NEW)) Steve Quayle & Tom Horn- Unearthing The Lost World of The Cloudeaters
» Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters!
» Whatmough Sulfur Giants
» Lost Mates
» Hadeeth 40 : The World is the Means and the Sowing-Field for Attaining the Hereafter

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Watcher Forum :: Welcome! :: General Discussion-
Jump to: