• Mr. Varga

Hiding History: The Breakdown of Methodology in Academia

Updated: Jan 11, 2019

What we are learning at academic institutions regarding our human origins is not the truth. The truth is far more complex and undeciphered than we are led to believe. The facts surrounding our origins have been eclipsed by the machinations of our educational system. The stated purposes of this system--the pursuit and dissemination of evidence based knowledge and free exchange of information—will never be achieved by its actual methods.

This presentation centers on the idea that there is a breakdown in basic scientific methodology in the fields of Archeology and History at these coveted institutions. Given this, the fundamental question we need to ask is: Why would institutions whose sole purpose is the pursuit of truth and knowledge, diligently practice methods which directly thwart this pursuit.

To answer this we would ask: what are the characteristics of those archeological finds which academia has difficulty accepting and seemingly , as we will see, actively rejects? Let’s look at two distinct cases in hominid archeological evidence, and ask ourselves what would compel academia to treat the fossil records so differently. First we will take a look at the case of the large ape-like creature Gigantipithicus Blacki. Then we will look at the differential treatment given to the specimens of uncategorized non-Homo Sapiens humanoids of extraordinary size that have been found.

According to Wikipedia, Gigantipithicus (of which there are 3 subtypes) “ is an extinct genus of ape”. The largest of these subtypes, gigantipithicus Blacki, were “the largest known primates that ever lived” (at almost 10 feet tall).Interestingly, for our present topic, very incomplete evidence was needed by mainstream academia to propose the existence of this large Ape. In fact no complete skeleton was ever found! We are surprised to learn that all that was found are four partial lower jawbones along with numerous teeth.

One could argue that there are huge leaps of guesswork involved here. Those leaps, however, were taken by leading experts in specialized fields of Forensic Archeology. The teeth of Apes are different than those of humans. Given this, and the shape of the jawbone, it was acceptable for those experts to propose the existence of this great ape with no actual skeleton found. Other facts about this extinct animal, such as how it walked, or its appearance, have fallen, admittedly, within the realm of speculation.

But this is where the methodological breakdown and differential treatment becomes so apparent in other cases. It would seem that there are certain types of remains that, no matter how plentiful, or no matter what their condition, will never receive this same objective scientific consideration and creative forensic reconstruction to verify their existence.

For centuries and throughout the world we have been unearthing very large humanoid remains. Although these remains naturally have some heterogeneity, there is enough similarity to them—distinct, that is, from there large stature—for us to consider them as a sub-group of humanoid. In this instance it would be appropriate for Science to bestow a name on this humanoid much like it did to the large ape and it’s subtypes we have just considered.

The discoveries of remains of these large humanoids are too plentiful to recount here but I will mention two groups of finds to drive home our point. In South America, and particularly in Peru, one could see a group of skulls on display in private museums that are called the “Paracas Skulls”. There were originally 300 of them discovered in the 1920’s. These skulls have certain characteristics, which distinguish them from Homo Sapiens:

1) DNA tests reveal mutations that did not match any known human samples

2) Large Orbital bones

3)Cranial Volume is approximately one third larger than average human skulls

4) These skulls weigh about 60% more than human skulls

5) These skulls contain one parietal plate (as opposed to two for humans) and a missing sagittal suture

6) The Foramen magnum is situated more to the rear of the skull in comparison to Homo sapiens

7) Elevated Nasal roots (long noses that start way up on their foreheads)

8)Large Teeth with irregular characteristics

9) Often red-haired

10) Unusual skull shape of extreme length ( not the product of cranial deformation).

To put it plainly, this should be enough for acknowledgement by the scientific community. A quick review of the qualifications for obtaining a scientific name reveals that they are easily met, but no name has been bestowed. As we saw, it took a lot less evidence in the case of Gigantipithicus. So what’s going on here?

To make this even more perplexing, let’s look at another group of finds in the U.S.. These finds are documented by Fritz Zimmerman and others and often involve complete skeletons.

Fritz Zimmerman is an academically unaffiliated and self-published historian who took about 15 years locating the long forgotten articles that one finds compiled in his “Encyclopedia of Ancient Giants in North America”. His methods are worthy of note. He has poured over tens of thousands of microfilmed historical documents to obtain newspaper articles detailing incredible finds. The Encyclopedia itself is an organized presentation of these documents which span over a hundred years. It includes findings on almost 900 humanoids of unusual proportions. It is worthy of note that the articles are from local papers as well as national publications including the New York Times. To put this in perspective, there was a time when these finds were commonplace knowledge.

This would seem to be another acknowledgement, but it was not. Indeed times have changed. Zimmerman’s considerable efforts in obtaining these documents indicate how effectively the evidence has been hidden from the public. In fact, not one of these skeletons found were available to view in public museums in the U.S.. These difficult to obtain records are seemingly all that remain. With no skeletons to evaluate, mainstream Scientists have shown little interest in the subject. No scientific name has been given to these specimens,(as they were given to the jaw bones and teeth likely belonging to the alleged Gigantipithicus),and historians like Fritz Peterson are labeled as “fringe” or Alternative.

Two final points of fact here: 1) These newspaper articles often state that the Smithsonian was the last possessor of the remains; 2) Scientific acknowledgement almost certainly requires the body. Specimens should, generally, be kept in Museums.

But this leads us back to the Paracas skulls. Although they are not complete skeletons, they are available in private museums. Time will tell as to whether there will be mainstream scientists that will step forward and acknowledge this humanoid.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All