Conspiracy skeleton

Published on July 31st, 2013 | by Micah Hanks


Big Buried Secrets: Giant Skeletons and the Smithsonian

The debate over whether The Smithsonian has hidden evidence of “giants” in American prehistory continues to be torn apart by proponents from both “believer” and “skeptic” camps. Yet sadly, there is a question underlying the debate that is far bigger than even the largest giant skeleton. 

The question has long been asked: have giant skeletons been discovered throughout the Americas, and if so, is the Smithsonian Institute in Washington actively seeking to cover up those discoveries?

Admittedly, while there is actually some legitimate historical information that may have to do with discoveries of this kind (which we will examine shortly), in modern times we would be hard pressed to explain why there are so few–if any–credible specimens that appear to depict humanoids of large enough proportions to qualify for being actual giants, let alone those which are kept from public view for clandestine reasons. The obvious skeptical assumption would be that this is simply because no such specimens exist. However, this lack of evidence, in the mind of the more conspiracy-minded among us, has more to do with a vast coverup than the actual non-existence of giants in ancient times.

A number of researchers have argued that evidence for this can be found within a minority of “credible” cases that exist mostly in nineteenth century newspaper articles. Herein, of course, lies a big part of the problem: obviously, while we cannot rule out as hoaxes every instance where a newspaper reported the discovery of large, seemingly human remains prior to the 1930s, we must acknowledge nonetheless that journalists took much greater liberties with the facts in those days. Newspaper hoaxes were actually very common in the nineteenth century, with renowned writers the likes of Mark Twain even admitting to the use of journalism hoaxes for politically-driven satire. If anything, even the “good” reports of anomalous remains that turn up in old newspaper accounts should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

Mysteries of the ancient past… explored with the understanding of today. Feeling lucky? Go ahead… take a ride, and click here

This point was brought up in a recent blog by skeptical researcher Jason Colavito, who took a shot at tackling the mystery of giant skeleton conspiracies and the Smithsonian Institute by exposing what he sees as the faulty logic of the conspiracy argument:

The “reports”—from old newspapers—are assumed true [by conspiracy theorists], so the fact that no such remains exist (or ever existed) at the Smithsonian is now proof of a cover-up. The claim that the Smithsonian had the skeletons of giants, incidentally, does not appear in the literature of the nineteenth century, when these giant bones were allegedly consigned to the museum; presumably, the Biblical literalists of the day would have made as much of them as they did of the Cardiff Giant, and yet it was not so. In fact, as early as 1865 the Smithsonian published a document by Ducrotay de Blainville, following Cuvier, attributing “giant” humanoid bones to mastodons.

Colavito goes on to note that there “should be some record in the Smithsonian materials of these alleged bones,” particularly during a period in history like the mid-to-late nineteenth century, when belief in the existence of giants might have been taken for granted. “I find it interesting that I can track down no claim of missing giant bones from the Smithsonian,” Covalito concludes, “until the rise of the modern creationist and alternative history movements in the middle twentieth century, when suddenly Victorian yellow journalism became proof of biblical truths.”

Colavito is correct in asserting that there are no indications in the historic record where large “anomalous skeletons” have gone missing from the Smithsonian. However, as we shall soon see, this does not mean that such gigantic remains were never found at all.

In contrast, one commenter on Covalito’s post, Eric Johns, offered an example from 1911, where researchers named Pugh and Hart had found the remains of large, red haired humans at Sunset Cave close to Lovelock, Nevada. The remains found there were said to be between 6.5 and just over seven feet tall, and some of the remains were shipped to the Smithsonian Institute by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist with the University of California, one year later.”These notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology,” Johns shared, “listed under reference number 544, An Anthropological Expedition of 1913.”  But interestingly, Pugh and Hart, while releasing the majority of the remains to the Smithsonian, also managed to keep a number of the strange artifacts and bones they found, including several skulls, which Johns says remain today at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, Nevada. The boxes obtained by the Smithsonian, however, cannot be accounted for so easily:

[The University of California] seems to have misplaced the skeletons, yet the other material is still there and on display in their exhibits. The same can be said of the Smithsonian, who still use some of Loud’s artifacts for their Southwest exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian. Again, no giant skeletons to be found in their exhibits or catalog. 

Responding to John’s comment, Colavito wrote:

If 6.5 feet is a “giant,” that makes my grandfather, at 6’6″, Goliath. While unusual for their era, these sizes are not unheard of for human beings and are therefore neither shocking nor supernatural.

The skeptic in me would agree with Covalito that, indeed, it is not impossible (or even all that unordinary) in modern times to find a person of similar stature to the “giants” discussed by Johns in his commentary. Maybe this wouldn’t necessarily constitute an “anomaly” to assume such persons existed in America several hundreds of years or more ago.

However, debating whether the size of these specimens fits the criteria for being “giants” or not is an exercise that misses the greater point entirely: that an independent museum managed to maintain record of the remains discovered at Sunset Cave, while the Smithsonian and University of California apparently did not. Had the folks on the receiving end of this odd shipment to the Smithsonian simply been exercising extreme incompetence, or was there some other reason for the “loss” of certain parts of the shipment? This case wouldn’t have to involve human remains of large stature in order call into question why the Smithsonian would misplace portions of the batch shipment, while maintaining others for display. In other words, the mystery has as much to do with the misplacement of a discovery as it does the claims of “giant” bodies being what were actually uncovered.

Also, most modern skeptics would likely look at the rather unimpressive estimated height of 6’6″ skeletons in the Pugh and Hart case, and use this as an argument against the existence of giants in American prehistory altogether. At very least, they might use it to bolster the assertion that conspiracy theorists, creationists, and the downright gullible simply exaggerate the details of “giant” discoveries, so as to cater better to the fantastic stories that such “researchers” would seek to promote.

Colavito is right to assert that a 6’6″ individual is “neither shocking nor supernatural.”  He is probably right again when he states that he could find no mention of missing giant bones in the nineteenth century, thus suggesting that the conspiracy assertions are a more recent phenomenon.

What cannot be denied, however, are the historical discoveries of giant skeletons much larger than those discovered at Sunset Cave in 1911. Records for these discoveries still exist today, and are available in the public record, along with detailed descriptions. But these accounts won’t be found in any questionable newspaper accounts from more than a century ago, or even in the hearsay and speculation of the finest alternative history buffs. Instead, what may be the very best evidence of curiously large skeletons from America’s past were published more than a century ago by the very target of the so-called conspiracies: The Smithsonian Institute.

In the Twelfth Annual Report from the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian, published in 1894, Cyrus Thomas and Thomas Powell of the Bureau of Ethnology wrote of several discoveries where large, seemingly human skeletal remains were found. The first we’ll examine here was discovered in Roane County, Tennessee:

“Underneath [a] layer of shells the earth was very dark and appeared to be mixed with vegetable mold to the depth of 1 foot. At the bottom of this, resting on the original surface of the ground, was a very large skeleton lying horizontally at full length. Although very soft, the bones were sufficiently distinct to allow of careful measurement before attempting to remove them. The length from the base of the skull to the bones of the toes was found to be 7 feet 3 inches. It is probable, therefore, that this individual when living was fully 7½ feet high.”

Often, such accounts end up being fabrications or portions of text that are taken grossly out of context. Hence, I decided to see if any scans of the original published report could be found online for download. Indeed, the entire Twelfth Annual Report from the Smithsonian’s Bureau of Ethnology can be found online at, with a PDF version here that can be viewed freely in its entirety. The relevant portion from the excerpt above can be found on page 362, and is pictured below:


Another instance occurs in the same report, this time at presumed Indian burial mounds at Dunlieth, Illinois:

“Near the original surface, 10 or 12 feet from the center, on the lower side, lying at full length on its back, was one of the largest skeletons discovered by the Bureau agents, the length as proved by actual measurement being between 7 and 8 feet. It was clearly traceable, but crumbled to pieces immediately after removal from the hard earth in which it was encased….”

Page 115 of the printed report features the relevant text:

skeleton II

Indeed, it seems that the Smithsonian at one time did discover and document what could only be called “giants,” during the same period that many of the American newspapers were reporting similar stories. Whether this bolsters the legitimacy of those reports may still be questionable; however, few would argue that trained scientists the likes of Powell and Thomas–despite the allegations of coverups and conspiracies–likely knew what they were talking about when they took these measurements, and reported on the existence of humans that, when alive, would easily have stood taller than seven feet.

Also, it should be noted that in the latter of the two cases, it states that the skeleton “crumbled to pieces” when attempts were made to remove portions of the body. Hence, the reason in this instance for why the Smithsonian would possess no remains in their record seems clear: they weren’t able to retrieve a skeleton at all, since the discovery was too fragile to remove from the site. In other words, while the Smithsonian has actually acknowledged finding such large skeletons, there may be legitimate reasons as to why no bones were ever recovered in some instances.

That isn’t to say that this scenario is always the case, however. Further complicating the mystery of missing giant bones is the following excerpt from an article I wrote several years ago, which included the inquiries of the late zoologist Ivan T. Sanderson, along with his frustrations with what appeared to include more allegations of evasive attitudes by the Smithsonian:

Sometime in the 1960s, Sanderson wrote about an odd letter he received regarding an engineer who, during World War II, had been stationed on the Aleutian island of Shemya. While building an airstrip, the bulldozing of a group of hills in the area led the engineer and his crew to unearth several sedimentary layers of human remains. They noted the extraordinary length of the crania and leg bones at the site, having apparently belonged to people of gigantic proportions. The skulls were said to have measured up to 24 inches from base to crown, far greater than the length of an average human skull. Also of interest was that each was said to have been trepanned, the strange process of drilling or cutting a hole and removing a top center portion of the skull, thought by some ancient cultures to enable a variety of alleged “benefits”, including psychicabilities, etc. Sanderson actively began to search for more proof of this incident, and later was able to contact another member of the unit who he said confirmed the bizarre story. By all accounts, the remains were said to have been gathered by the Smithsonian Institution, but no record of where they were taken was ever issued. Sanderson seemed convinced that the institute did indeed retrieve them however, going so far as to ask ‘is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?’ “

Of course, when it comes to good science, few would argue the difference between hard evidence, and a really good story. The 1894 Bureau of Ethnology report provides us with historical documentation by agents with the Smithsonian for the discovery of large, anomalous bones that appeared to be human, and on at least two instances. Stories like that of Sanderson and the Sunset Cave discovery of 1911 suggest the discovery, as well as the potential mishandling, of otherwise precious bits of information about ancient America. And yet, none of these “stories,” whether told by independent researchers, or agents like Dr. Cyrus Thomas, really provide us with a complete specimen: if one good, complete giant skeleton were known to exist in its entirety, which scientists today could openly study and discuss with the public, there would be little need for discussion of a conspiracy.

Of course, the knowledge that such skeletons may indeed have been found at times, paired with the Smithsonian’s apparent inability to keep very good records about their discovery, no doubt helps to fuel the conspiratorial speculation. With all the unknown quantities present here (and whether they are largely fact, or merely fiction), at times it does become difficult to know whether the entire truth is really being told.

Regardless, do such discoveries of giant bones that are known to have existed, as the 1894 report seems to indicate, further lend to the claims of the conspiracy theorists? Or do they merely point to a deeper level of the mystery that has yet to be explored… and something which may contain new keys to life in ancient America?

UPDATE: Over the last few days, feedback from most readers indicates that they have interpreted, correctly, that the assertions made in the article above point to there being less likelihood that any actual “conspiracy” is afoot regarding Smithsonian acquisition of various skeletal remains, particularly those of large stature that were recovered in the late 1800s. This, I feel, remains true, despite the evidence of genuine discoveries of interest in the Smithsonian records (and whether or not one chooses to label these as actual “giants” or not, as even a 7-8 foot tall human, while uncommon, is hardly impossible). However, one of the bloggers mentioned in the piece above, Jason Colavito, misinterpreted this premise (albeit honestly, I feel), and has expounded on the piece with his own article that alleges I have contributed to the conspiracy mythos. This is not the viewpoint I have intended to express here, instead gravitating toward skeptical neutrality on the issue; however, I recommend that folks take a fair look at his article nonetheless, as it may provide a useful alternative perspective on the discussion, as well as its ideological components:

Jason Colavito on “Micah Hanks and the Smithsonian Anti-Giant Conspiracy”

Image by Bin im Garten via Wikimedia Commonsfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Tags: , , , , ,

About the Author

is a writer, researcher, and host of The Micah Hanks Program. He is the author of several books, and is a frequent guest on a number of different programs dealing with conspiracies and strange subjects. Along with his radio program, he produces a weekly podcast, The Gralien Report, which is available on iTunes.

22 Responses to Big Buried Secrets: Giant Skeletons and the Smithsonian

  1. Alan Meyer says:

    When I was around 11 years old, in the late fifties, my family visited the Lovelock museum and I saw the giant skulls and the giant mummy from the Lovelock Cave. The skulls were huge, although they had been seriously burned. The over 8 foot mummy was very well preserved, including roughly woven clothing. The shaggy hair was a faded brownish red. The face was hideous and looked as if it may have been smashed in by a club. Most well preserved were the huge hands. I clearly remember the perfectly formed nails, small hairs in the pores and dried skin.
    I’d seen Native American mummies in other museums, but one look like at this giant and I understood why the Shoshone said they wiped them out.

  2. daniel guy lurie says:

    I too whould like to know why nothing about these discoveries was never publicly published

    • Thetruthisoutthere says:

      Because there are organizations that are Extremely powerful and wealthy that keep all of this knowledge to themselves. Were not supposed to know!

  3. John says:

    This is a VERY interesting article! Uncultured and backward as I am, I have never really given any thought to the idea of ‘giants’ having actually existed, save for perhaps isolated groups whose average stature was 5-6″ greater than usual for a population (short-lived genetic or environmental anomalies).

    The idea of a Smithsonian cover-up never occurred to me, although it seems plausible – scientific culture has a way of squashing alternative viewpoints before they can gain acceptance, probably for the sakes of ego and funding.

    One thing I’d like to mention, however, is the error in assuming that the title ‘scientist’ automatically means that one cannot tell a lie, or even mis-interpret.

    My dad has degrees in both archaeology and anthropology, capped by a less human-centric focus on soils and natural systems. I trust him to tell the truth (aside from the occasional exaggeration for a good story), but I do not necessarily trust all of his sources, because researchers, same as newspaper columnists, live by their word and need to maintain an audience in order to get paid, whether that audience is internal (as with dry, behind-the-scenes academic research), industry-focused (e.g. supporting the interests of an oil firm whose donation might mean a brand new super-fancy million dollar piece of research equipment), or external (the general public).

    Moreover, science is typically more about proving than simply observing, because humans always have their beliefs and it is natural, even inevitable, that we seek to validate them. Even in observation, we must be looking for something to find it – patterns don’t pop out to us unless we can imagine them in the first place. We tweak the data around, adjust the ranges of our sensors, speculate and brainstorm, until a pattern begins to emerge in our minds. Then we’re on to something, and we tweak some more, homing in, crafting facts with imagination as fuel. But who is to say that a little more data manipulation might not lead us to different patterns? The scientific community? Industry? The general public? Ourselves?

    Next summer I would love to go out and see for myself some of the remains!!!

    • susan says:

      Interesting article. How do we know if perhaps these so called giants might not have been the remains of sasquatch? I realize that it might be far fetched, but, bear with me for a moment. Large human remains being discovered might just fit into the bigfoot model. The long standing complaint that no bones have ever been found might just be untrue. If Sasquatch are hominids as has been purported of late is it not a possibility that large human remains of these giants were overlooked in 1880’s?

  4. Carol Abraham says:

    ResonceGiants I’ve been reading about Giants I am a Christian and in the book where the great flood tookNoah I was told by God to make an ark because God said in this van is in the book in the story of Noah is great flood that there were giants living on the earth that they were angels that had come down and made it with or women and it created Giants on any of this study of large angels they are there anybody that has seen any they are at least 7 30 or more but anyway the reason for the flood was God had to destroy the angels that had tried to reproduce with humans to reverse what God says in his word about the same s*** would’ve come I encourage anybody that is wanting to know about Giants and has a believe in God to turn to the book that reads about Noah and read this story in understand what when God said that he had to destroy the earth wind water because everybody was so sinful and it was caused from the angels that were Johnny it’s that admitted with females and that’s my reply to this I hope you enjoy the book out in the Bible as much as I have if you really pay attention to everything and not just remember that little story that we hear about Noah and the flood there’s much more great depth in what’s really going on here though so I enjoy reading what’s that out but I hope that you enjoy reading what I’m talking about this is Carol thank you

  5. Scott says:

    There is a brief collection of old newspaper articles which describe the alleged excavation of strange human skeletons.
    These articles can be found at the following blog:

  6. Thanks for taking the time to reduce this rather tumultuous subject to (at least) smaller waves. It was kind also of you to acknowledge Colavito’s opinion, although I don’t think that gentleman is interested in much more than sensationalism and, in hindsight, to the negative. He intentionally misinterpreted what you had to say because that is his modus operandi. he too-often twists the words of others to serve his own advantage. Also, you were smart to consult with Jim Vieira, Micah Ewers, and Hugh Newman: they possess to date the most thorough and comprehensive collection of accounts on the taller stature. These accounts are growing, practically daily. Another thing I wanted to say to your favor is that there truly is a much deeper mystery underlying this whole extra-large skeletons conversation. That asks the question: if these people existed as village heads, medicine workers, and combat experts, where the heck did they come from? I cover that in the book A Tradition of Giants that anyone may download for free from the website We’ll get to the bottom of this some day.

    • Micah Hanks says:


      Thanks for taking time to share this information! Great to hear from you, and of course, I try to be respectful of all people’s opinions… even if they twist my words so as to make them seem the complete opposite of what I had actually written, as Colavito did (though I don’t think he meant to, in fairness… I feel he was blinded by the fact that he’s so used to attacking “fringe theorists” that he presumptively tossed me in with others whose ideologies he was more familiar with).

      I visit his blog frequently, in truth, and often agree with his fundamental points. I disagree strongly with his tendency to be excessively harsh to the point of rudeness; nobody enjoys having to cut the snark with a half gallon of water just to be able to see through it well enough to read the rest of his post. Another issue seems to be that he reads too much into things certain researchers have said, and then alleges rather extreme viewpoints (his favorite is to call them “racists”). I think JC is capable of a better argument than that, with his obvious intellectual prowess and vast knowledge base. It’s a shame that this sort of an attack has become so standard for him… I agree that it is an accurate assessment in some cases, but in others, I think it is fair to say that this approach does little more than to highlight the fact that he could come up with no better argument against his opponents and their views than to allege something that may not be true at all, and with full knowledge that it will superficially devalue the positions of the writers he chooses to critique in the eyes of his supporters.

      Speaking of rude, I’d better wrap it up for now, and kindly address the ridiculous comment by “Dewane” posted below… thanks again, Ross!

    • Issy says:

      What I find so intsereting is you could never find this anywhere else.

  7. Dewayne Guthrie says:

    Wow, just all respect for the systematic scum bag LIAR you are, of course there has been 100 % PURPOSEFUL COVER UP.

    • Micah Hanks says:

      Dear Dewayne,

      Thanks for taking time to post… although the manner in which you’ve written this comment is confusing to me, and no doubt to other readers. I can only presume you meant this statement as

      1) a joke, or
      2) you may wrestle with an innate need to believe in conspiracies, or just maybe
      3) you are part of the coverup yourself, and thus are just having fun with me.

      I doubt, unfortunately, that it’s a joke, or that you are part of the coverup of which I don’t support the existence… Perhaps (and this is getting really speculative here), but maybe I could have traveled back into time, and forged the papers myself, knowing they would be added to a government website more than a century later.

      My apologies, I’m just having a little fun here. Getting serious though, I have a question for you: how have I “lied”, as you have accused me of doing? Were the pages from the Smithsonian’s own archives not good enough “evidence”? It’s a bit unsettling when anyone just comes out of the woodwork launching allegations of “scumbag” and “LIAR” as you have, while acknowledging a “100% PURPOSEFUL COVER UP” that you haven’t offered any evidence of for yourself.

      I won’t attack you or be snarky for this. But in fairness, I will issue a challenge: I’ve offered my thoughts (both here, and in other articles on this site, as well as on other sites like If you disagree, find proof of the coverup, and post it here, or perhaps on your own blog or website, and craft a fair, well-written rebuttal. I always encourage people to have opinions, and to speak them strongly… but for your opinion to have any merit, there must be facts behind it too.

      Take care Dewayne, and best of luck.


      • Danyael says:


        I tip my hat to you brother. Your response to this is a breath of fresh air. It is always nice to see someone respond to rudeness with diplomacy. I sometimes feel like there is to much eye for an eye rudeness involved in the paranormal community.


      • John Turner says:

        You should be wrestling with your innate need to believe that scientists are honest(moral) and can be trusted. The cover up of material not fitting the
        accepted paradigm continues to the present. If it were only a couple of instances of disappearance/cover up, I would be inclined to accept your premises. Its not the case. It extends into the thousands.

        I suggest that if you aren’t already familiar with it, you should seek out and read Thomas Kuhn’s book, “The Structure of
        Scientific Revolutions”. I would go so far as to say, anyone who hasn’t digested the concepts introduced by Thomas Kuhn isn’t a scientist. Anthropology is a bankrupt science. The sooner this is realized, the sooner real progress will be made in understanding our origins.

  8. chad Bolick says:

    I have reason to belIeve I have some of theses bones ans would like some one to contact me.

  9. Robert C. says:

    The double row of teeth is quite interesting to me as some Bigfoot sightings, where the witness is very close to the Bigfoot, have reported double rows of teeth and 8 – 10 feet tall. So people say if there is a Bigfoot, where are the bones? There are about 2,000 cases where giant bones have been found in the U.S. alone. Over 5,000 Bigfoot sightings in Russia alone..

  10. Ry says:

    I’m wondering could really large people or giants have existed say in the sizes from 10 feet to say 15 0r even 20 feet tall ? what would limit the growth of such people I’m talking in the 50,000 year or older range when the atmosphere was denser when even animals and insects were larger ? some legends speak of these giants and some say that there is truth to most legends I’m just asking great article BTW.

  11. granfred says:

    The Pyramid Construction is recorded by ancient egyptians.

  12. Ray says:

    I have a question, of the size of these giants that have been found what was the tallest ? and would there have been a limit to how tall they could have been as there were some pretty large animals around in the past.

  13. B. Blood says:

    Smithsonian admits to destruction of thousands of giant human skeletons in early 1900’s

    “There has been a major cover up by western archaeological institutions since the early 1900′s to make us believe that America was first colonized by Asian peoples migrating through the Bering Strait 15,000 years ago, when in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of burial mounds all over America which the Natives claim were there a long time before them, and that show traces of a highly developed civilization, complex use of metal alloys and where giant human skeleton remains are frequently found but still go unreported in the media and news outlets.”

    • Micah Hanks says:

      Hi B. Blood,

      That article you linked from the website, was originally carried by “World News Daily Report”, which is a satirical website, as stated in the disclaimer they feature at the top of their page.

      Sadly, these days we have to be extra-careful, since there are a lot of sites like this that are presenting satire like this that is rather vaguely presented as though it were real news; and when copied and re-posted at other blogs in this way, it can become easier to misunderstand that it was intended as a parody.



  14. Hiram Jacques says:

    I personally did my own research for Texas and New Mexico newspaper articles and was amazed.

    Others have also verified some of the ones I found.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Back to Top ↑