5,000-year-old “giants” found in China
Posted On: Dec 5th, 2017 at 13:48
China
Once again the subject of giants appears in the news – ancient human beings who should not have been as tall as they were, and this is often brushed aside as a dietary issue, a conclusion I do not agree with.
I have followed the fascinating work of Jim Vieira and spoke with him several times, and his research has uncovered a similar story all over the United States. Hundreds of giant skeletons were uncovered during excavations of the great native American mounds. Once all over the newspapers in the 19th and early 20th Century, with the skeletons displayed in museums, suddenly all was removed from show and the entire subject was hushed up. Am I pointing to a conspiracy to remove the truth? Yes, I am, and the reason is that giants in North America do not fit at all into Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
This subject is a minefield and not one that is relevant to discuss here, but yet again we find an excuse from the archaeologists who use diet as the reason for the elevated height. The height of these Chinese skeletons at 6’3″ is not really in the realms of the hushed up American giants who exceeded 7 feet tall in most cases – try explaining that away with diet.
There are enough extremely tall Chinese people living today that suggest the height of these individuals is not even noteworthy in the grand scheme of things. I suspect these individuals were not such a rarity in ancient China. However, there is more than a half-foot height difference between the 5,000-year-old skeletons and the modern average. That is quite a difference. However, the North American giants were more than one-foot taller than modern native American populations.
What bothers me though is the idea that diet had a part to play in the height of these individuals. If we are seeing the average height of the local population to be more than the national average, it has taken 5,000 years of evolution for this to happen. So how long did it take those people to reach their dizzy heights in the first place? That’s why the diet argument is not applicable. It’s highly unlikely there were such rich foods available solely for these individuals that they reached these heights but other populations were not affected. We are talking here of many thousands of years of isolation from everyone else, and I do not buy the idea that these were elite people who had a better diet than their subjects. Again, the time scales do not match.
What we find are giants all over the world and where we don’t have physical evidence we do have myths. There is no doubt that this part of history has been pushed aside to allow Darwin’s theory to prevail. However, time and time again we see new evidence disproving the nonsense of 19th Century scientists. Why their ideas are still held in high regard I have no idea.
