Welcome to Watcher Forum
HomeCalendarFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down 


Posts : 10194
Reputation : 359
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   Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:28 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 Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:11 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down


Posts : 10194
Reputation : 359
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 9:06 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


Posts : 10194
Reputation : 359
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 8:05 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


Posts : 10194
Reputation : 359
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 9:09 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
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: PART 4: 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 4: UNEARTHING The Lost World Of The CLOUDEATERS: Compelling Evidence of the Incursions of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and IMMINENT RETURN
View previous topic View next topic 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

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