Normal Giants of Yesterday?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,800

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,322
Was just looking at those. I mean why? Why make those statues like that, to fit the buildings....

I am with KD on this one.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,800
And your opinion?
I don’t think it’s relevant for the height interpretation. My take on all of this is fairly simple - somebody had to make all of that. If our size humans were slaves/servants to the Roman giants, our kind would still be the one to make stuff. Theirs was the brain, ours was the labor, imo.

They clearly do not show us all the available equipment similar to that 1867 steam roller. Occasionally some steam crane would flash here and there, but that’s about it.

With that in mind, I’m with @Timeshifter on the photography timing.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
682
Reactions
2,345
I don’t think it’s relevant for the height interpretation. My take on all of this us fairly simple - somebody had to make all of that. If our size humans were slaves/servants to the Roman giants, our kind would still be the one to make stuff. Theirs was the brain, ours was the labor, imo.

They clearly do not show us all the available equipment similar to that 1867 steam roller. Occasionally some steam crane would flash here and there, but that’s about it.

With that in mind, I’m with @Timeshifter on the photography timing.
Ok, so I'll phrase the question differently... when were these statues made, in your opinion?
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,800
Ok, so I'll phrase the question differently... when were these statues made, in your opinion?
My answer is not gonna be that simple. I think the 19th century lasted much longer than 100 years. I don’t know the exact numbers or dates but to illustrate what I mean here is how it could be done. For example:
  • 1850-1871 is 21 years on paper only. In reality it could be 80, or 180. For us it’s 21 years. From there we have our staged Civil War photography, Industrial Revolution where in 1860-1970 everyone and his brother was patenting everything we know, ironclad ships which came from nowhere and without any R&D, those bizarre tourists visiting the remnants of the after fire cities, no photos of governments in session, no US flags where we would expect to see them, no social ball photographs, as well as bizarre empty streets we are trying to explain with exposure reasons and other such nonsense.
  • And additionally those 80, or 180 could be broken into spread out increments.
Now, to answer your question, I will say this. These objects could be built in 1893, or in 1830.

I believe our main goal is to understand why they were building a Disney Land once a year to simply turn around and destroy it.

And this thing about plaster stuff. How, based on the photographs would we see the difference between plaster and composite, artificially produced marble?
  • Everything we have left from those Expos today is in stone. Being told smth like “they liked this building so much, they decided to remake it into a permanent one” is plausible at best.
I think this plaster thing is a bunch of baloney, and we are dealing with artificially produced composites. What would be a visual difference between a soft plaster, and soft marble? I did a small article on Artificial Marble before:
Here is a pure white marble statue of a girl located at the Vorontsov Palace, in Ukraine. Even the existence of the white marble of this purity is highly questionable. Even the whitest of the white natural marbles available today are not that pure.

girl_vorontsov.jpg

The above statue was officially made out of natural marble. There are multiple reasons to question that, with purity of the stone, and lack of aging signs being some of those.

Anyways, if the above statue ended up in the Chicago Fair pictures, and was allegedly made out of plaster, how would we know the difference? How do we know that the below statues are plaster, and not marble, or artificial marble?

plaster4.jpeg


Plaster or Artificial Marble?
plast_1_1.jpg

Of course if our "Chicago and co" plaster was indeed some artificially produced stone, that could make a much bigger can of worms available for getting opened. As in, what do we really have for Antiquity? Some "plaster" aka artificial marble statues produced recently?

Laocoön and His Sons - Laocoön Group
  • Official claim: created in 2nd century BC
  • Discovered: 1863

Laocoon_and_His_Sons.jpg

And what do we get in real life, when ISIS smashes “ancient” statues in Syria, and rebar pop out?

isi_statue_1.jpgisi_statue_2.jpg

  • Thank you God, it, somehow, was a copy. It must’ve gotten switched by some unknown thieves some time in the past, and nobody noticed.​
  • I sure would not expect them historians to admit that the statue was real but it somehow had iron rods inside.​
  • Heck, based on the discovery time of the ancient statues they could have been made by the same “plaster” masters who were producing statues for our Expos.​
 

milhaus

Well-known member
Messages
201
Reactions
825
My answer is not gonna be that simple. I think the 19th century lasted much longer than 100 years. I don’t know the exact numbers or dates but to illustrate what I mean here is how it could be done. For example:
  • 1850-1871 is 21 years on paper only. In reality it could be 80, or 180. For us it’s 21 years. From there we have our staged Civil War photography, Industrial Revolution where in 1860-1970 everyone and his brother was patenting everything we know, ironclad ships which came from nowhere and without any R&D, those bizarre tourists visiting the remnants of the after fire cities, no photos of governments in session, no US flags where we would expect to see them, no social ball photographs, as well as bizarre empty streets we are trying to explain with exposure reasons and other such nonsense.
  • And additionally those 80, or 180 could be broken into spread out increments.
What is your explanation for people whose family tree goes back to the 1600s in America? Public records match private records.
Wars were attended when they were said to have happened.
Wouldn't there have to be family members removed from the timeline if it was 80 to 180 years within 21? Or are you saying that the dates were the same but the things you listed happened over a longer period of time?

The first industrial revolution is said to have been "from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. the Second Industrial Revolution is generally dated between 1870 and 1914".
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,800
You guys are not asking any easy questions today. Especially when I’m stuck with nothing but my phone. There will be no supportive links from me at the moment. I will try to add those later. For right now will be writing from memory.

I’m simply trying to figure this stuff out just like everyone else on here. If we thought that our history was straight and square all the way around, none of us would be here.

Speaking of tracing someone’s American lineage to the 1600s, which is basically the Mayflower times. Any family history can go any distance back, with supportive documentation and all that stuff.

Instances like that have to be studied not on a case by case, but rather on a document by document basis.

Obviously it’s hard to dispute when presented with some paper dated to allegedly whatever date. At the same time, things do not exist in a vacuum, and can be tested against the totality of circumstances.

What do I mean by this totality of circumstances? Well, just about anything which does not add up historically.

In this case we are talking about the Roanoke Colony and the Mayflower Pilgrims time frames.

Somewhere in there we have this story about 100 semi sick settlers including women and children wiping out a 20,000 (smth like that) strong Indian tribe (mentioned somewhere on this forum). This fact is documented in history, but I do not believe that this disposition mismatch would allow for this historical “fact” to actually take place. What proof do I have to support my belief? Nada, besides some common sense.

Then, we need to move into the cemetery issue. I believe it is one of the key issues to consider, when establishing the true date of the mudflood, civilization killing event, manmade or not. Would love this to be a thread of its own, but have to answer the questions asked.

We have this “oldest” cemetery in the US called Myles Standish Burial Ground. Recommend reading the wiki narrative. Once again, we conveniently do not care until after 1871. Nobody knows jack, but whoever wanted to make those bodies belong to the pilgrims, sure got their goal accomplished. The narrative ended up being properly supported, so was the American pilgrimage history. They even dragged the 1889 exhumation into the picture.

That would be the same 1889 after which Seattle was able to build 5,500 brick buildings within 18 months (there is a thread on this here on SH). Both facts are supported by proper narrative compliant records, which chose not to vanish in the 19th century fires, or what not. The needed records always survive, therefore we do know how many times Julius Caesar farted before breakfast on June 18th 2,000 years ago, but have no clue what heavy equipment dated 1908 (thread on SH) we are presented with.

Back to the cemeteries issue. The oldest city in the US is St. Augustine, Florida. Allegedly was established in 1565. The oldest grave in the state of Florida is from 1798. Where are 230 years of dead people?

The oldest cemetery in Alabama is like 1820, or something like that. Mobile was established in 1702. Where are the dead?
  • The speed of settlement is an entire separate issue to investigate. With Alabama being right next to Florida, this 150 year difference is satisfactory only on paper. Washington state was able to map their entire territory (thread on SH) between 1850s and 1880s, with no airplanes. They just humped every square foot of the state and mapped it. Well at least that is what we are supposed to believe. Yet Florida settlers did not cross into Alabama territory for 150 years to set up a town?

The exact same picture is in all the other states. Now and then they will sprinkle the picture with an older grave or two from something like 1675 and call it good. The bases are covered. Yet, the main question of where 200-300 years of dead bodies are, remains unanswered. And why wouldn’t it stay unanswered? Nobody really cares about things like that.

Meanwhile, when you stumble upon some bones while digging in your back forty, or at a construction site, please notify the authorities. If it’s a human bone older than 100 years old, it will always be some sacred Indian burial grounds. “They” will move in and relocate the remains, or may be seal and pave over the area. Put some memorial stone over it, and make sure that noone digs there for eternity.

Where are the real cemeteries? Well, in my opinion they are beneath our fit. We simply do not dig deep enough. How deep? Mud flood depth, plus additional six feet. Some people of various sizes were probably buried there alive during the event which added feet of mud, and made the survivors enter their surviving buildings through the second story windows.

Where can we see the dead I’m talking about? Look for the SH thread about 6 mln dead skeletons in the catacombs of Paris.

Then we have this “on paper” Industrial Revolution when priests invented submarines. First Industrial, second Industrial - some of that ingenuity is there on paper for us to see. Check out them engineering magazines from 1860s. Of the top of my head, the easiest link to one of those is in the steam roller thread from a few days back. That periodical is full with thousands of patents of the stuff we never see in the photographs associated with the same time period. Did everyone suddenly become an engineer inventor spitting out fully operational products with no education, no history and no research and development?

Yet, what do we officially know? Most of the people were illiterate, and most died early due to poor medicine.

In our contemporary society, with all the tech and brains we have, we would struggle to produce their locomotive model line alone. For those who never bothered, look it up. Just the variety will blow an attentive person’s mind away. It’s like if Ford had 50 makes, and 500 models but in the 19th century.

Then we have the 1890 US Census destruction in 1921. Out of 60 mln records barely several thousands survived. The previous one took place in 1880. The next one will happen in 1900.

What’s the significance there? Hypothetically of course, for I have no proof.
  • Along with 1890 census, it would be possible to get rid of the (for example) 1900 through 2180 censuses, and call 2190 year 1900 as a result. The only requirement would be a comparable number of people. That number could have been given by some global “city destroying, population killing event” during which 3000 buildings would burn, but only 1 person wood die. What if millions died in those fires?
  • Today it results in our bewilderment. How did they build all those buildings with horses? How come we have no blueprints for these amazing structures?
Some things are hard to put a finger on, at the same time it was quite a long time ago when I started a thread on this forum about what could have happened between 1915 and 1930 to alter certain things enough for us to notice. Well, may be it was the 1921 burning of the 1890 census. May be, not the burning itself, but the time scale adjustment events.

A more down to earth significance of the 1890 census destruction would be a simple 10 year break in data, which by itself can put a significant dent into any family history tracking.

Finally, why was I talking about all of the above as far as records of lineage go? Because none of those can be trusted without a thorough examination of every single one of those records, year by year.

We are small people on the chart of the importance. What about Royal families? They are damn well documented, and those documents are impeccable at first glance. Yet questions do exist.
My short answer for the history traceable to 1600s:
  • Highly questionable
Short statement in reference to the industrial revolutions 1, and 2:
  • By invention volumes, these revolutions happened between 1850 and 1871, with minor inventional spillovers outside of those dates.
  • When they needed an additional revolution, they simply gave us Tesla, for this way it was much easier to manage. Yet the common traits were still there. All the R&D done in his head, no docs, and only ready to use solutions were patented.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
628
Reactions
2,966
Then, we need to move into the cemetery issue. I believe it is one of the key issues to consider, when establishing the true date of the mudflood, civilization killing event, manmade or not. Would love this to be a thread of its own, but have to answer the questions asked.
We have a fly in amber here. New Haven Green - dating the mudflood
The church basement graves date from 1687 to 1812. And then we have thousands buried in shallow graves of two foot mud flood.

For synchronicity sake, I have been visiting these places recently. As they mark the veteran graves for memorial day.
The earliest I have seen in person so far is 1739, and the pre revolution ones are fairly rare. The stone types and art style really change in the early 1800's, and the obelisks start appearing. Almost like there is a change in culture, even though the family names are the the same.

Speaking of tracing someone’s American lineage to the 1600s, which is basically the Mayflower times. Any family history can go any distance back, with supportive documentation and all that stuff.
Trusting a family tree is giving in to ego. All it takes is one orphan lie to break that chain.
 

Maxine

Well-known member
Messages
145
Reactions
353
My answer is not gonna be that simple. I think the 19th century lasted much longer than 100 years. I don’t know the exact numbers or dates but to illustrate what I mean here is how it could be done. For example:
  • 1850-1871 is 21 years on paper only. In reality it could be 80, or 180. For us it’s 21 years. From there we have our staged Civil War photography, Industrial Revolution where in 1860-1970 everyone and his brother was patenting everything we know, ironclad ships which came from nowhere and without any R&D, those bizarre tourists visiting the remnants of the after fire cities, no photos of governments in session, no US flags where we would expect to see them, no social ball photographs, as well as bizarre empty streets we are trying to explain with exposure reasons and other such nonsense.
  • And additionally those 80, or 180 could be broken into spread out increments.
Now, to answer your question, I will say this. These objects could be built in 1893, or in 1830.

I believe our main goal is to understand why they were building a Disney Land once a year to simply turn around and destroy it.

And this thing about plaster stuff. How, based on the photographs would we see the difference between plaster and composite, artificially produced marble?
  • Everything we have left from those Expos today is in stone. Being told smth like “they liked this building so much, they decided to remake it into a permanent one” is plausible at best.
I think this plaster thing is a bunch of baloney, and we are dealing with artificially produced composites. What would be a visual difference between a soft plaster, and soft marble? I did a small article on Artificial Marble before:
Here is a pure white marble statue of a girl located at the Vorontsov Palace, in Ukraine. Even the existence of the white marble of this purity is highly questionable. Even the whitest of the white natural marbles available today are not that pure.

The above statue was officially made out of natural marble. There are multiple reasons to question that, with purity of the stone, and lack of aging signs being some of those.

Anyways, if the above statue ended up in the Chicago Fair pictures, and was allegedly made out of plaster, how would we know the difference? How do we know that the below statues are plaster, and not marble, or artificial marble?

Of course if our "Chicago and co" plaster was indeed some artificially produced stone, that could make a much bigger can of worms available for getting opened. As in, what do we really have for Antiquity? Some "plaster" aka artificial marble statues produced recently?

Laocoön and His Sons - Laocoön Group
  • Official claim: created in 2nd century BC
  • Discovered: 1863
And what do we get in real life, when ISIS smashes “ancient” statues in Syria, and rebar pop out?


  • Thank you God, it, somehow, was a copy. It must’ve gotten switched by some unknown thieves some time in the past, and nobody noticed.​
  • I sure would not expect them historians to admit that the statue was real but it somehow had iron rods inside.​
  • Heck, based on the discovery time of the ancient statues they could have been made by the same “plaster” masters who were producing statues for our Expos.​
All these statues looks like they were 3D printed imho, especially the girl one, it's just insane amount of details!
 

MustardSeed

Member
Messages
21
Reactions
63
I have a theory involving giants and fossil fuels, and the degradation of our DNA. So, bare with me... what if dinosaurs were never part of the equation? What if the bones excavated by paleontologists were actually the bones of giants? If a global flood took place wiping out all of mankind, is it reasonable to believe that the emissions we breathe from fossil fuel, are actually the DNA of everyone wiped out by the flood?
 

milhaus

Well-known member
Messages
201
Reactions
825
Trusting a family tree is giving in to ego. All it takes is one orphan lie to break that chain.
I thought the whole purpose of this forum was to find the truth.
This is a major detail that needs to be addressed at some point, beyond assumptions, if anyone wants to create an accurate picture of the past.
It is an obvious question that is going to be asked over and over, which is why I am asking it now. It isn't a "gotcha".

80 to 180 years condensed to 21 is not an insignificant amount of time and it doesn't match the "reality" of the records I have.
Just because there are a lot of things that don't add up historically, especially when looking back at it from a modern perspective, doesn't mean I am going to automatically substitute my own personal history and my family's history with someone else's revised history.

When I see staged Civil War photos I do not assume that the Civil War was fake just like I don't assume WW2 is fake despite all the faked and altered photographs. I am more likely to assume that someone was trying to make a profit by selling a narrative.

One question asked was "where are the pictures of the world's fair buildings being built?". Then someone came here and posted hundreds of slides showing them being built. What did people here say? "Those are fake. They just magically appeared."

I am not holding attachments to either the official version of events or the alternative. There are people that are getting just as attached to this new history being written on the internet as there are people who will defend the official narrative despite contrary evidence. What I am really interested in is evidence of claims no matter where that evidence leads. That isn't to say I was expecting KD to have an answer to my question because it is a difficult one. For all I know, people were assigned to a family name when they got here or some time later, but that was an idea I had and was more interested in hearing someone else's take.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,347
I have a theory involving giants and fossil fuels, and the degradation of our DNA. So, bare with me... what if dinosaurs were never part of the equation? What if the bones excavated by paleontologists were actually the bones of giants? If a global flood took place wiping out all of mankind, is it reasonable to believe that the emissions we breathe from fossil fuel, are actually the DNA of everyone wiped out by the flood?
Not to digress too far, but oil doesn't come from fossils. No one has ever describes a process by which organic matter can become petroleum, but very common and simple minerals under high heat and pressure HAVE been conclusively shown to produce petroleum.

Fossil fuels is part of the programming. This is why the US suddenly has so much oil. All the dead wells are full again. It's kind of an open secret that the oil companies are just resetting up their old wells that they said would take 100,000 years or something ridiculous to replenish.

Sorry to digress, "fossil fuels" is a pet peeve of mine.
 

MustardSeed

Member
Messages
21
Reactions
63
I thought the whole purpose of this forum was to find the truth.
This is a major detail that needs to be addressed at some point, beyond assumptions, if anyone wants to create an accurate picture of the past.
It is an obvious question that is going to be asked over and over, which is why I am asking it now. It isn't a "gotcha".

80 to 180 years condensed to 21 is not an insignificant amount of time and it doesn't match the "reality" of the records I have.
Just because there are a lot of things that don't add up historically, especially when looking back at it from a modern perspective, doesn't mean I am going to automatically substitute my own personal history and my family's history with someone else's revised history.

When I see staged Civil War photos I do not assume that the Civil War was fake just like I don't assume WW2 is fake despite all the faked and altered photographs. I am more likely to assume that someone was trying to make a profit by selling a narrative.

One question asked was "where are the pictures of the world's fair buildings being built?". Then someone came here and posted hundreds of slides showing them being built. What did people here say? "Those are fake. They just magically appeared."

I am not holding attachments to either the official version of events or the alternative. There are people that are getting just as attached to this new history being written on the internet as there are people who will defend the official narrative despite contrary evidence. What I am really interested in is evidence of claims no matter where that evidence leads. That isn't to say I was expecting KD to have an answer to my question because it is a difficult one. For all I know, people were assigned to a family name when they got here or some time later, but that was an idea I had and was more interested in hearing someone else's take.
History is in the testimony of those that lived at the time. History is not in books, but in eye-witness accounts. If I were to go off of my grandfather's account of his role in WWII, it didn't sound like much of a war at all. Rather, he and his identical twin brother were in the navy and were commissioned to play baseball to entertain the troops. My grandpa and his brother played professional baseball for the Navy league with Joe DiMaggio and PeeWee Reese. They never saw combat, and WWII sounded like more of a distraction for people than anything. My cousin's eyewitness testimony of his tour in the Gulf War isn't much different. He spent all of his time on a Navy ship in the Gulf playing poker and drinking booze. Those are the eyewitness testimonies that I've heard from within my family. The narrative I've followed in history books only talks about the casualties encountered and the honor behind the fallen heroes. If I base my interpretation of history off the firsthand accounts of my family members that served, war doesn't sound so bad. So really, I'm not sure what to believe or how to answer your question.

Screenshot_20190605-103609_Flickr.jpgScreenshot_20190605-103646_Flickr.jpg
 

MustardSeed

Member
Messages
21
Reactions
63
Not to digress too far, but oil doesn't come from fossils. No one has ever describes a process by which organic matter can become petroleum, but very common and simple minerals under high heat and pressure HAVE been conclusively shown to produce petroleum.

Fossil fuels is part of the programming. This is why the US suddenly has so much oil. All the dead wells are full again. It's kind of an open secret that the oil companies are just resetting up their old wells that they said would take 100,000 years or something ridiculous to replenish.

Sorry to digress, "fossil fuels" is a pet peeve of mine.
Good to know.
 

milhaus

Well-known member
Messages
201
Reactions
825
History is in the testimony of those that lived at the time. History is not in books, but in eye-witness accounts. If I were to go off of my grandfather's account of his role in WWII, it didn't sound like much of a war at all. Rather, he and his identical twin brother were in the navy and were commissioned to play baseball to entertain the troops. My grandpa and his brother played professional baseball for the Navy league with Joe DiMaggio and PeeWee Reese. They never saw combat, and WWII sounded like more of a distraction for people than anything. My cousin's eyewitness testimony of his tour in the Gulf War isn't much different. He spent all of his time on a Navy ship in the Gulf playing poker and drinking booze. Those are the eyewitness testimonies that I've heard from within my family. The narrative I've followed in history books only talks about the casualties encountered and the honor behind the fallen heroes. If I base my interpretation of history off the firsthand accounts of my family members that served, war doesn't sound so bad. So really, I'm not sure what to believe or how to answer your question.
The point is that WW2 still happened when we were told it happened even if it was just a TOP SECRET World Series.
Say you live through an event that you believe is fake or was staged, but you still know the actual spectacle occurred when it was said to have occurred because you were there.
I was simply asking for a possible explanation as to why or how private documentation matches the official timeline if there were 80+ years that was essentially erased.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
651
Reactions
1,347
Well both of my grandparents were in WWII. One of them was supposedly in Japan, or nearby, when the bomb, the big one hit. Story I heard was that everything and everyone looked like an xray when it hit. That was at least third hand, as he dies of cancer shortly after the war. There was supposedly some settlement set up to pay the families of those who were in the blast radius that got cancer afterwards, but no one could find the documentation necessary to claim it.

The other was in communications. Whatever he knew, he wasn't telling. At least not to me.
 

MustardSeed

Member
Messages
21
Reactions
63
Well both of my grandparents were in WWII. One of them was supposedly in Japan, or nearby, when the bomb, the big one hit. Story I heard was that everything and everyone looked like an xray when it hit. That was at least third hand, as he dies of cancer shortly after the war. There was supposedly some settlement set up to pay the families of those who were in the blast radius that got cancer afterwards, but no one could find the documentation necessary to claim it.

The other was in communications. Whatever he knew, he wasn't telling. At least not to me.
Thank you for sharing that story. I'm always curious to hear what our vets have to say. Their testimony is their legacy.
 

Top