First off, this topic is not something relegated to the dark corners of the internet, or solely tackled by religious zealots. Nor is it only researched by TikTokers or wrote about only in the form of memes. So, out of hand dismissals akin to that of Gavin McInnes, really do not come off as intelligent in the least. If one isn't inclined to read the literature and take the time required to give it due diligence, by looking at all sides and digging into primary sources, then it's probably best to just stay silent publicly and leave the shit talking for the barstool. I'm not saying that I'm even as up on all the things that this topic delves into to be running my mouth, but I'm not a rube in the land of giants like McInnes and many others.
So, fair warning, I'm going largely from memory here, but I just looked into (not the first time) all the material I'm discussing here, so this is a pretty close approximation IMHO of what was conveyed by those individuals I'm discussing. Please do confirm all of this for yourself! However, keep in mind that "debunking" material on this issue is given major preferential treatment by big tech so make sure to also use a type of archaic physical media known as a book, as well as alt tech sites and search engines while researching, such as:
Yandex.com,
DuckDuckGo.com,
Bitchute.com,
Rumble.com,
Gab.com,
Minds.com, etc.
In this first clip below, Gavin McInnes (who I mostly like) talks about how two of his friends thought he was the silly one for not believing that ancient giants were a thing and he essentially chalks up the idea to being only a dogmatic religious view. It isn't, but more on that in a little bit.
The first thing I think is noteworthy, is that Gavin says nobody offers potential reasons for the alleged cover up. This is simply false, but more importantly
lack of motive isn't a valid reason to dismiss the evidence that there is a crime or cover up.
As I've pointed out regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, motives by themselves don't prove anything. Getting into the mind of a potential conspirator is a hard task, especially if it's based on knowledge we don't have as investigators and any
evil motives are perhaps even a harder hypothetical for good natured investigators to wrap their head around. Figuring out
why someone likely did something wrong is certainly helpful to an investigator of wrongdoing, but not necessary at all to proving a case. In fact,
there are plenty of examples where the true motive for a crime is never known even after the case has been solved.
Second thing of note to me, is that pretty much all the comments on the video from Gavin also agree that he is wrong on this issue. Among these comments are people pointing out that gigantism and giant humans in general are a thing. Two examples I recall, are Andre the Giant as well as NBA players in general. Here is a real picture of Andre the Giant holding a beer can...
Now,
I highly recommend the Joe Rogan interview with wrestler Jake the Snake and especially the parts regarding just how giant of a man Andre was and the problems that created for him in our comparatively tiny world. It's truly shocking and unbelievable on its face. This picture alone is unbelievable enough that the
dopes at Snopes had to tackle it and
they correctly (for a change) labeled it as true. Broken clocks and the
dupes at Snoops have a similar record of getting things right from what I have seen. :p
This very fact, that gigantism and more generally speaking giant modern humans exists, is an argument made in support of even seemingly crazier ideas about ancient giants. The reason this is used as supporting evidence, is that the human genepool contains this latent thing that pops up from time to time in different ways. At the very least, it can simply be asked why an ancient variety of gigantism (or just really tall ancient people) is such an odd thing to think existed long ago, since we still see this reality today. Or, as some researchers ask, is there an ancient genetic influence from these historic giants that plays a role in some cases of giant humans today. The same is also asked of dwarfism. The finding of bones proving that ancient hobbits were real provides some basis for the idea that these two conditions of super tall and super small have an ancient genetic connection after all...
New research based on dental morphology suggests that the skeletons of an early human-like creature known as Homo floresiensis represent a distinct species of human after all. The skeletons, which were discovered in a cave on Flores Island, Indonesia in 2003, belong to so-called “hobbits” that stood roughly between 3.5 and 4.5 feet tall.
If nothing else, this much is certain, before this finding, oral traditions about such beings and any theories that entertained such ideas were almost universally pooh-poohed, but yet again the so-called fringe theorists turned out to be correct.
Mysteries of Ancient America
https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2023-01-08-show/Josh Reeves is a Dallas, Texas-based researcher, filmmaker, and radio talk show host who first learned of government crimes in the 1990′s by reading Jim Marrs' "Crossfire," which lead him to start investigating black operations and secret societies.
In the latter half, documentarian Josh Reeves talked about his work uncovering the mysteries of ancient America. He detailed the case of a town in Texas where he grew up, where rows of rock buried under the ground were discovered by settlers in the 1800s. Although many believe the structure to be a natural formation, Reeves argued that the rows clearly form a wall constructed intentionally, and despite being hundreds of thousands of years old, it indicates structural engineering far ahead of its time. High Strangeness in Rockwall, Texas: Something VERY ODD about The Rock ‘Wall’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYIfV5iB__kIn this above interview from CoastToCoast AM, some very important evidence regarding this topic is discussed at several times throughout the video. Some highlights I think are most important are as follows. First off, the comment section here was also quite happy to see this topic and the idea of a Smithsonian cover up being discussed. It is noted by Reeves, how this topic arose due to accounts from people that said they found bones of such giants on their property or during digging operations of some variety and that Smithsonian representatives were called in at some point, who upon their arrival were witnessed to examining everything and eventually carted it all off, only to completely deny it to both anyone involved or just those inquiring about the reports later. Such accounts were documented in a
great many disparate and widely geographically separated independent newspapers, including major publications like the
Washington Post and
New York Times that are harder to handwave away than some other smaller less reputable news organizations. Nowadays, these outlets are considered about as disreputable as The
World Weekly News, (
FakeNewsInvasion.blogspot.com) but that certainly was not the case until much, much closer to modern times.
NY FOOTBALL GIANTS SIGN A REAL GIANT!
https://weeklyworldnews.com/sports/182674/ny-football-giants-finally-sign-a-real-giant/
The interviewee, Josh Reeves, notes that he isn't dogmatically religious or motivated by proving a Biblical narrative or any such thing and also points out that he isn't politically motivated or biased in any way akin to that. He says he simply wants the truth, as do I. My stance is totally on par with his. In fact, he mentions that many posit the idea that the Vatican is also engaged in this cover up and backs up this claim with at least one account he received firsthand about Church officials being involved in helping shut down an (archeological?) dig of some sort where such evidence was being unearthed. Why the Catholic Church higher ups would want to do such a thing is discussed and ideas are tossed about, but if these claims are accurate then simply wanting to back up a Biblical narrative is out the window to some extent perhaps. It would seem something larger and arguably even more fantastical is at play here. Either that, or as it came to my mind, perhaps the higher echelons of that particular faith are not at all what they claim to be?
The somewhat recent pedo priest revelations and how a former Pope covered it up might very well speak to this!Now this is a very important point. Reeves also provides his own personal account of how he was set to be allowed by the Smithsonian to examine an "out of place artifact" of sorts in the form of a coin. He was told he could photograph it and pretty much test it in any way he saw fit, I'm assuming anything short of something potentially harmful to the artifact was on the table. He obviously goes into more detail, but here's the rub. On or right before the day he was scheduled to be given access to this odd coin, the Smithsonian informed him that it had mysteriously gone missing! This speaks volumes to the larger issue at hand. Only a
silly coincidence theorist would miss the obvious writing on the wall here!
This is doubly true, because this is a very current account of the type of malfeasance the Smithsonian is being accused of. There is no apparent reason to doubt this story. From what my cursory research reveals this incident in particular and even the larger topic of ancient giants, is not something he makes a huge fuss about. In the context of the interview and from everything else I have seen thus far, the issue is an ancillary issue at most for him. In either event, I've also come across nothing to indicate that he is viewed by anyone as a liar or even a bad researcher. Surely, he has critics, but there isn't any indication of a widespread dismissal of Reeves for whatever it's worth.
Finally, this last video is a lecture by researcher Hugh Newman, who was one of the two main investigators featured on the History Channel show "Search for the Lost Giants."
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Search+for+the+Lost+GiantsIt is a great presentation overall and provides a ton of evidence. The most notable things to me are as follows. Firstly, he takes on the sceptics quite a lot during his lecture. He is thoroughly familiar with the arguments of his detractors and to put it mildly, he isn't at all impressed. He takes them head on very competently and wouldn't you know it, finding this lecture online was a bit of chore!
He shows how he diligently dug into and personally uncovered many primary newspaper sources about this issue and shows just how voluminous and widespread these accounts were. We're talking about at least 400 reports from what I know. Furthermore, he demonstrates that very specific aspects of these accounts are repeated time and time again, strongly indicating a real and not fanciful phenomenon was being written about in the hard news of the day. This includes details such as the skulls having double rows of teeth.
Furthermore, he provides evidence that well-known and respected scientists of the time vouched for the authenticity of these finds including ones who worked for the Smithsonian and I think he even said there are records directly from the Smithsonian archives that support their involvement and reported findings as well. He speaks to the fact, that while these were intellectuals of the somewhat distant past where humans certainly knew less than today, they still knew
more than enough to make the assessments/judgements that the reporting says they made.
Another reoccurring detail that the duh-bunk-turds incorrectly said he made up whole cloth, is that often the bones would turn to dust after being exposed to the open air or touched. This also serves to explain, beyond a cover up, why these bones are not available for study. It's a must see...
