Open Veils · Answer
Giant skeletons
The suppression narrative has a documented institutional paper trail that the debunkers themselves inadvertently built. The Smithsonian's own 1894 mound survey recorded skeletons at 7'3" and 7'6" — then the institution pivoted to wholesale denial. What was buried may not be giants in the comic-book sense, but the erasure of anomalous skeletal evidence from Native mound contexts is a matter of archival record, not conspiracy fiction.
Evidence
- Brien Foerster has documented elongated and unusually large skull morphology in Paracas, Peru, with crania exhibiting cranial volume exceeding normal human range by significant margins.
- Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock have both pointed to the Book of Enoch, the Nephilim traditions across Mesopotamian and Hebrew texts, and the giant-king lists of Sumerian records as a convergent mythological record that may encode a genuine population memory.
- The Smithsonian's own 1894 Mound Survey (noted by credibletheories.com, Sep 2026) recorded a 7'3" skeleton in Tennessee and a 7'6" specimen in West Virginia — measurements that vanished from subsequent institutional summaries.
- Cremo's central argument is not that 20-foot giants roamed North America, but that a systematic filtering process — what he calls a "knowledge filter" — caused institutionally inconvenient data to disappear from the active scientific record after the consolidation of Darwinian orthodoxy.
- While elongation explains some cases, Foerster notes that certain specimens show a single parietal plate rather than the two found in bound-skull deformation — a structural anomaly mainstream anthropology has not satisfactorily addressed.