Deluge of Atlantis

Deluge of Atlantis
Deluge of Atlantis

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Giant Ancestors of the Atlanteans

This is from Kakha Margiani and I believe the basic premise is supported by other facts not known to the experts in the Caucasus mountains area. In France and Spain, contemporaneous with these remains in question referred to in the video, were other peoples nearly as large, centered around the Pyrennies mountains area and although their stone tools are made differently, the are of a related type. I believe these wre part of the populations that crossed the Atlantic during the Solutrean period and could have settled in Atlantis along the way: they certainly seem to have continued on in America into a later date Archaeologically.

Published on May 28, 2012 by Kakha Margiani


Sensational finding was made between the Great and Little Caucasus Mountain Ranges. In the Georgia are discovered remains of the very mysterious giants. For centuries here was spread legend about the mysterious giants. Now the legend became reality. What a mystery is hidden here? Reports our correspondent - Robaqidze.


The bones belong to the people, the giants. They lived 25,000 years ago in the mountains of the Borjomi. Scientists argue that the growth of human giant could be from 2.5 to 3 meters. Academic Abesalom Vekua believes that the finding could be a sensation, as in the scientific community has long debated topic related to the giants who inhabited certain areas of Eurasia thousands of years ago. Abesalom Vekua, Academician of Georgian Academy of Sciences says: "Pay attention to thigh-bone, it differs from the bones of modern man of his size and thickness. The skull is also much larger. These people have lived and evolved in isolation from the rest of civilization, and therefore different growth. In literature they are referred to as giants, but documentary evidence of this hypothesis did not exist still. Thus, we stand on the threshold of sensation. But this will be preceded by hard work."

Category:Science & Technology

Tags: Atlantis

License: Standard YouTube License

Cro-magnon_giant_humans of western europe. The one shown at right is 2.5 meters tall.


And once again I must apologize to Kakha Margiani because I feel very strongly that our communications have been tampered with. This is the first one of his communications that I have seen in a long time.

24 comments:

  1. what rubbish. By the way the oldest aboriginal remains ever found were around 7 feet tall

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry you're wrong.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/78709115@N03/7289569596/in/photostream

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/78709115@N03/

      Delete
    2. Oh, my apologies, I misinterpreted your comment. That is interesting about the Aborigines tall stature. I think I remember hearing of the pre-contact Aborigines encountered were tall, 6 to 6 1/2 feet commonly, so 7 feet sounds believable. How old were the bones found you mention? I recall the continent of Australia was inhabited 40,000 or 50,000 years ago. Some alternative historians such as Rex Gilroy proposes a much older date, going back 2 or 3 million years, even suggesting meganthropus types 3 and 4 meters inhabited the continent leaving behind 60 cm footprints and stone tools weighing up to 30 lbs which he claims to have recovered.

      Delete
  2. On the contrary, several museums house human skeletons of individuals 8 feet to 8 feet 6 inches tall. You are full of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dale, your statements here are 100% accurate. "Anonymous" has an opinion equivalent in value to his or her identity: less than zero.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A museum would house a skeleton of an 8-foot human, and no one would want to become famous by publishing a peer-reviewed item on it? This isn't like the case where someone might hesitate to publish on anomalous dating or disputed cultural interactions. If you have the skeleton actually there, everyone can see you're not lying. There is a difference between old reports of such skeletons sent to museums and the fact of them being actually there today.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rephaim in comment #2, I believe the fellow is saying "Aboriginals" to mean "American Aborigines", ie, "Indians". Whichever he meant, the statement is incorrect, since the remains of the "Oldest Aboriginals" of either America or Australia were not seven feet tall. Starting out a sentence with "What Rubbish" is a sure way to get off on the wrong foot. I believe he was intending to say "Largest Aboriginals" from his context, at which point your first responce would have been quite correct. At this point we have a hopelessly garbled string going on here and I probably would have done better to delete the first comment. At this point the skeletal remains of the "Oldest Aboriginals" is a matter of some controversy, but as a matter of fact in either North America or Australia, the ones assumed to be the oldest are much like the later Australian Aboriginals, of a fairly ordinary size. They have been alleged to range up to 30000 years old in several sites in South America (disputed, as mentioned) and possibly 50000 years old in Australia (ditto)I can cite you the individual finds if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Anonymous" does not even realise he has made a glaring typo of "Oldest" for "Largest" and Wm Michael Mott is correct. Anonymous statements in general are next to useless. Since the same person has posted again, it is clear that they are trying to debunk the entire Giant Skeletons matter and to do so, they are denying the validity of Rephaim's printed references. Which once again carries no weight whatsoever. I believe one of Rephaim's photos is from the Guiness book of World's records? Perhaps Mr Anonymous should like to look at the Guiness Book before making his next statement. There are living human beings over eight feet tal and nobody doubts that they have skeletons inside them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, I think Anonymous is just trolling so he can extract valuable information regarding giants. He's probably really interested in giants, just can't accept it as reality.

      The pictures I put on my flickr were taken from old books and newspapers, and science journals. I have hundreds more.

      Delete
  7. Dale, I am the anon who made the comment about museums publishing papers. (Matt Bille - I was too hurried to log in. The first poster was not me). Of course museums have skeletons of anomalous modern humans like the Irish giant. What is not proven is that they are hiding away gigantic skeletons from antiquity. Old newspaper clippings from the "widespread hoax days" of the American press and undated or unscaled "giant" photos are not impressive. This is not like a dispute such as the dating of the Meadowcroft rock shelter, where there can be arguments about displacement or interpretation of burned carbon and so on. Either a museum has giant antique skeletons or it does not: and if it does, it would be published on, because no one could dispute/ridicule/blackball the author if the bones were there for everyone to see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, you would have been safer to keep your mouth shut. The fact of the matter is that prehistoric skeletons are regularly reported in the 7 to 8 foot tall category and several taller. Both the CroMagnons and the Canary Islanders who are much like them have frequently been stated to be such. I assume you have NOT gone to the bother to actually search the old records before making such a premature overgeneralization? You have basically said that Watusis do not exist, among other things!

      Delete
    2. I should also mention to readers that Matt Billie is a published author and a researcher, and a friend of mine. Unfortunately he has had this ongoing problem of going by "The way things are supposed to be" without ever bothering to check out the records first. He has done this consistently the whole time I have known him and on occasion this has led him to call me a liar to my face, something which I have never appreciated when anybody has ever done it to me.Invariably I ask him if he has actually done any research into the question and invariably he states he is only quoting the opinions of others. That is never good enough.

      Delete
    3. Hi Matt Bille. I respect your skepticism. Certainly many tabloids and frontier newspapers during the heyday of the 1880's and early 1900's were full of hoaxes and exaggerated stories of lost treasures and ancient giants buried in mounds, and many of these can be explained away. But not all were. Some do have scientific references behind them and cannot so easily be overlooked. I would argue some of the evidence is quite impressive, that published reports exist for bones up to double the normal size, and that giants 8 - 9 feet tall such as the Irish giant from the 1700's are valuable to science. In 2011 the New England Journal of Medicine published a paper linking Ireland's famous giants to a mutant gene which goes back 1,500 to 3,000 years http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1344566/1-500-year-old-mutant-giant-gene-causing-excessive-growth-Northern-Ireland.html. Many of these 7 to 8+ foot tall giants were cousins. This might explain the sort of genetic giantism one would expect in ancient giants, so I would argue that collecting old and long forgotten news papers and science reports are in the interest of science. Ultimately giants may be of little value to human origins, or they may be of great value. It's hard to say.

      Delete
  8. Mr. Anonymous, you do realize there are well authenticated records of giant humans up to about 9 feet tall in the last 100 years alone don't you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people

    Even more shocking some height estimates up to 11 ft 6 inches exist in the scientific literature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnau

    No one became famous for documenting these finds. Quite to the contrary, most of these discoveries were printed in major news papers and magazines and were forgotten over the past centuries, explained away as anomalies, or freaks of nature, and not important to human origins.

    To become famous off giant skeletons would be academic suicide, because giants aren't supposed to exist. You would be a P.T. Barnum, a thorn in the side of conventional origins if you were to announce you found the bones of a tribe of eight to ten foot giants -- Please prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I suspect these 7 to 10 foot giants who inhabited the Caucasus mountains and into the Pyrenees mountains of Spain and south France are related to the megalithic culture of the Mediterranean, but probably even older. Miguel Aracil wrote about 9 -10 ft giants found in Spain at Purllans and the dolmens of Oren, he says a Dr. Campilo studied some of these remains which were sent to the musem of Catalonia and Barcelona, where they disappeared. I'm trying to find a copy of the report. Supposedly some femurs were nearly 3 feet long. At this point it is hearsay, but given the close proximity of Pyrenees to Castelnau and Montpellier, I believe its possible. Atlantean giants...? Amorites, Nephilim? who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Getting back to the ACTUAL Video this is interesting in the greater context of confirming that the mountain valleys of Georgia may be our European Ouldvai gorge?

    Whoever those giant bones came from the discovery is certainly worth following up on since the cave site may have even more fossils in lower strata.

    As for Atlantean giants and Nephilim please remember when citing 19th century and older reports of bones of giants that a lot of those fossils turned out to be dinosaur or mammal bones.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As for the supposition these reports of bones in the 19th Century MUST have been animal bones, please remember that the majority of these reports were from actual burials with associated artifacts and that they were frequently illustrated and photographed. The illustrations in turn show recognisable human types.

    The drawing in the posting above camne from a book about Atlantis, originally in German, and the book was assuming the CroMagnons were Atlanteans, surviving in the Canary Islanders. We DO have fossil men in the seven-foot range in Ice Age Africa, comparable to Watusi and other taller types, and even the lake Turkana boy would have been pushing seven feet tall as an adult. The tall strain in the Caucasus undoubtedly came Out of Africa and now it looks like the reason why the European Cromagnons (their descendants) were so tall (In marked contrast to the cold-adapted Neanderthals)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Matt again... point taken, guys, but it's important to base science off remains that someone can actually see and touch. I respect all the research you both have done, but it's pretty hard to know what's real, what's hoaxed or exaggerated, and what are remains of anomalous individuals. (I am guessing - tell me what you think - that an exceptional tribesman, like a giant, has a better chance of a more elaborate and protective burial than the average person, and that might skew evaluation of past human groups. ) Best of luck!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi again Matt,
      Those are excellent points. Many of the reported giant bones and skeletons found in mounds were usually the exception, and not the rule. Most were measured in-situ in a lengthened state, so some good inches can probably be subtracted. Some reports do mention mas burials of large people, bone measurements, for example femurs over 20 inches up to over 30 inches long, and or bone sizes much too large for normal sized men i.e. skulls 25 to 35 inches circumference. The question of whether these are anomalous individuals or racial variants is a lingering one. Prof. G. Vacher de Lapouge of Montpellier University wrote about this question in his paper "Le Geant Fossile de Castelnau" in the journal La Nature, 1890 issue 888 vol. 18. The bones he found which were confirmed to be human but double the normal breadth and length he speculated belonged to a man 11 ft tall, but was unsure if it was a disease which produced the massive growth. Others who studied the bones (Dr. Paul Kiener in 1892) found them to be abnormal growth but apparently from a "very tall race" as the New York Times quoted him. In 1894 news reports again alluded to giant bones from that same region of similar size found in prehistoric mounds, so I think the anomaly card could be essentially correct but with a genetic foundation? It's hard to say, more scientific literature needs to be looked at.

      The Homo Heidelbergensis in Africa were huge men commonly 7 feet and taller, according to Dr. Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand. Some early estimates place "Meganthropus" at 7 to 8 feet tall, although this size estimate is sketchy and based on a simple jaw fragment.

      Delete
  13. Matt you are not getting my point at all:

    You are assuming facts not in evidence
    You are assuming a situation to arise as a consequence which you have not demonstrated to follow necessarily as a consequence.
    You are attempting to make a logical construction saying "If this situation existed, then I would have heard about the publication" without actually consulting the literature in question to see whether or not it is actually documented in the literature or not.
    You maintain "There are no cover-ups" when the simplest way to stage a cover-up is simply not to draw attention to a publication or an issue. The particular thing under discussionwill ordinarily be buried under an avalanche of other papers on other matters: certain issues are darlings of the journalists who will print up stories about them endlessly (such as black holes or dark matter) and other things are not publicised mostly owing to the fact that they have no publicity men eager enough to publicise those matters. Some of the more obtuse aspects of animal classification are always under discussion but very rarely publicised. The Taxonomy which is most accessible to the general public is woefully outdated.

    Since you HAVE NOT consulted the literature in question buut you are only talking off the top of your head about the situation AS YOU BELIEVE IT TO BE, you are not actually taking a scientific position, you are instead trying to work the problem out by intuition. Now kindly allow me to repeat, you need to actually consult the literature before you begin criticizing what you believe the literature to be. You actually have to go through the old sources and read the old reports before you go around saying there are no old reports, or in order to discount them. Any writer needs to do some practical research on the subject before advancing any opinions about what they BELIEVE the situation to be. Because the belief alone doesn't matter, only what can be proven, and a mere negative assertion does not constitute proof, it can only be an opinion when it is not backed up by documentation.

    We have done this same discussion several times before. We had several years ago when the subject of melanistic pumas came up. You said there were no such reports and that nobody believed in it. That was your belief but it was only scuttlebutt. At that point I mentioned to you that there were 126 subspecies of Puma in North and South America by one accounting, and that in slightly over half of the descriptions, the subspecies are discriminated on the basis of being "darker in colour". You then said you did not believe it and asked me for specific examples. I gave you specific examples. Now the kicker is this, had I not mentioned that part and brought the matter up again, you would simply have reverted to the same mode again and said all over again "I do not believe it, I require proof"

    Matt, you ALWAYS do that. Consistently, year after year.

    BTW, the discussion about the melanistic pumas is ALSO on file at the Frontiers of Zoology Yahoo group and I am always amazed that you can go back to your original assertion on such topics in that group and still be incapable of looking the matter up in the back messages when the matter was discussed before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 19th photos of human giant bones Where?
    Photos? Dale you too need to be be more specific?

    While black and white photos were available from the mid century onwards photos did not start being used for illustrations in journals newspapers or books until much later in the century since while metal plate lithography was available of photo images onto metal plates for large scale printing took much longer to develop

    which museuems which archives which books

    are you sure you dont mean early 20th century onwards?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I mean late 19th century onwards: there are several earlier postings on the matter on this blog.

    Unfortunately you have hit upon a snag here. Currently such evidence is posted by Creationist groups and I have discovered to my dismay, they tend to be territorial about reprinting material from their sites. I have been threatened with lawsuits several times for reproducing what I took to be images in public domain, both photographs and line drawings. (Some of the remains are illustrated in both photographs and line drawings) So at this point I am loath to reproduce any more of the illustrations, link to the sites, or throw any business their way. But by all mens please avail yourself of the blog search engines both here and at the Frontiers of Zoology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's an interesting dichotomy. Most mainstreamers won't touch these old reports of seven to nine foot giant's bones, yet those who do are mostly Creationists and Ancient Alien theorists, who sometimes uncover valuable information and research but publish it in a small book or DVD seminar which they might make a few thousand sales at most. I think if they are genuinely interested in the truth behind stories of giants they should just upload all their research into a blog so everyone can access it on the net for free :) -- (Which is what most are starting to do anyways.)

      A lot of these old news reports are like 70 to 200 years old, and their copyright is probably way expired. ANyways, that's what I'm attempting to do, upload as many reports as I can find, I think I'll start another blog because my flickr only allows 200 pics. I have 1,700 files. Library of Congress, Google Books, and newspaper archives have hundreds of reports of giants in their archives, each time I search them I find ones that I hadn't seen before. God only knows what foreign papers and journals have--which are yet to be scanned and uploaded.

      Delete
  16. An exceeding well-done and thought-provoking site. Thank you for all the work you do to "get the word out there"!

    ReplyDelete

This blog does NOT allow anonymous comments. All comments are moderated to filter out abusive and vulgar language and any posts indulging in abusive and insulting language shall be deleted without any further discussion.