 Did ancient giants once exist? This question, I predict, will get one of the most varied reactions of all the questions in which I pose on my channel. The reason for this, a reason of the equally varied religious and scientific theories permitted to exist and survive within our modern societies. This variation in mindsets, although appearing to many as opposing, allow for volumes of debates, often hosted by opportunistic deviance, which I often like to call the book-pushers. Are the theories which are the backbone of the status quo? As explained within my specials, the connecting piece of the puzzle, which unites all these supposed, opposed ideologies, and thus the resulting variations in opinion to the question I have just presented, is there a tested timeline of human development, all of which being either of a similar chronology or illogical claim. We are all aware of the theory of evolution, a theory I also expose within my special, a mere convoluted explanation for lifeform's adaptations to environmental changes. Yet what many are not aware of, a reality of the true theory of evolution, a consequence of life conveniently overlooked and massed, experiencing minimal financial promotion. This I feel, due to it presumably perceived as an unimportance in the processes of concealment by these funders of the status quo, is the parallel theory, also a result of environmental change, devolution. I have personally claimed that although there seemingly exist millions of species, this definition species is merely attributed to that which I would myself perceive as breeds. My reasoning for this opinion is the lack of any demonstrative evidence of evolution theory actually being fact and naming breeds as different species, a successful muddying of the waters surrounding the Darwinian theory. There are many forms of what one could call evidence, for evidence is not proof in all its forms, a fact many may not be aware of. And within science, these many forms, especially within scientific fallacies, are often the weapon of choice when it comes to funded constructs, with an intention of concealing a truth from the masses. Firstly, there is circumstantial evidence, which could best be described as coincidental. For example, if there were to be a crime taken place, and the culprit of said crime was witnessed who have been wearing a red hat, if an individual, even one who could have committed a similar crime in their own past, have been in the same area at the same time, also wearing a red hat. This is not evidence of guilt, it is merely circumstantial evidence. Secondly, supportive evidence. This is usually used within a presentation of a hypothesis, especially evolution theory. For example, Richard Dorkins and his primate skulls, which he often parades around displaying their gradual adaptations to environmental developments, constantly noting our own skeletal similarities with said ancient apes, DNA similarity, along with anything that could support a specific claim, yet lack the power to crucially prove such ideology as fact, is correctly defined as supportive evidence. It supports such claims, but does not prove such claims. They are just more compelling in argument than circumstantial evidences. Yet thirdly, demonstrative evidence. This is, in essence, true evidence. The most powerful as it displays the claim as fact, a reliable form of evidence in which to base one's premise, as this could be defined as proof of concept, a visual, chemical, or any other form of physical display of that specific theory's function and indeed functioning. Demonstrative evidence is a demonstration of such. It is the only thing which one can rely on as proof beyond doubt and within honest scientific study, demonstrative evidence is often used to display reliable, repeated results, thus proving that the claim of said science be true. Yet this most crucial form of evidence is lacking, absent from evolution theory. What many call species are merely breeds, breeds created through adaptation, the true definition of evolution in our modern world. Evidence to environmental changes or reproductive preferences, which has allowed for the successful continuation of its existence. Vertebrates are the true species, with phyla being the first set of true species ever found on Earth. Phyla just appeared, mysteriously, and rapidly turning up during the explosion of life on Earth known as the Cambrian Explosion, an evident which occurred around 600 million years ago. But these groups have never seen any additions or indeed so-called leaps as Darwin once postulated. A postulation, I believe, he himself later realized that due to his eagerness as a young undoubtedly intelligent man, along with encouraged, well-funded pursuits of proof of his opinion, may have been overzealous in his claims, later relinquishing many of them in cryptic quotations. He most probably realized he had been pawned in a game to conceal what I am about to expose to you all. Would you find it ironic that demonstrative evidence concerning my questions of giants once existing here on Earth has been systematically concealed from the world for the exact reason that those who have funded evolution know that such physical remains of such enormous beings is demonstrative evidence of their past existence? Would you find it ironic or predictable? Yet although the physical remains of these enormous beings may have been hidden and continue to be at tremendous costs and efforts, there are many other proofs that although circumstantial or merely supportive can still be found all over the world. Maybe I am no better than an evolutionist, pushing a theory I cannot prove. I feel my conveyance of things as they truly are, and my open and willing acceptance to this, my honest exclamation that I do not pursue to promote anything I do not know as fact for profit, that I do not attempt to conceal anything from my viewers, and that I merely pose questions with no deceptive convictions, especially an intention of pushing of books, books which often decrease one's perception of self-value, not only vindicates me of the same crime, but relinquishes me of any similarity with such profiteering cretins who possess intentions of such deviance. Still preserved in literature all over the world, historical newsreels, newspaper articles, witness testimonies, and a one-man mission on an island, clues to a past existence of giant humans does indeed still exist. In a previous video, I delved into the story of Ralph Glidden. While digging on Catalina Island in the Gulf of California between 1919 and 1928, he found, according to him, and numerous newspapers which were covering the story at the time, a total of 3,000 giant-sized six-fingered skeletons with an average height of around 7 to 9 feet. Intriguingly and supportive of their past existence, this six-finger characteristic is not isolated to Glidden's claims. Six-fingered giant skeletons have been reported worldwide. Additionally, many others' claims of giant remains discovered have been said to have been buried sitting up, and also to have two sets of teeth top and bottom and often had red hair. Furthermore, along with the reams of individual testimonies, the newspaper articles and the repeated accusations made against large historical institutions, most particularly the Smithsonian, there has been countless ancient footprints found by vigilant explorers all over the globe with some of gigantic size. Going back to my digression regarding devolution, could we have possibly been these giant beings? That, after catastrophe, possibly one of such magnitude it gave us the seasons caused us as a species to shrink? It is now well known after intensive study of well-preserved dinosaur brains that birds are in fact their distant relations. Could birds have experienced a similar fate? Answering the long-asked question, what happened to the dinosaurs? Could their size also be the result of the same catastrophic event? That due to environmental changes were demanded to change to survive, both shrinking to the scales we now are. It would indeed offer an explanation as to how such enormous megalithic ruins exist all over Earth, relics that if looked at as the work of the modern man are simply baffling and evade explanation, yet if looked at as the work of humans of 10, 20, maybe even 30 feet in height, could be easily explainable. It is certainly an interesting conspiracy, for if the Smithsonian, for example, had no secrets, then firstly, why are they so often mentioned within old newsreels as taking such remains for, quote, further study? And additionally, why would they require such a large vault beneath the main institution, which the general population is prohibited to explore? Whether these bones finally made it into private collections is unknown. However, in March 2012, an unlabeled box was discovered resting deep within the Catalina Island Museum Archives. In this box was Glidden's collection of secret records, among which was, most importantly, a series of unique photographs showing Ralph Glidden indeed excavating one of his authentic, giant, and very ancient skeletons. We find all these suspicious factors highly compelling. If you enjoy our content, if you think our battle worthy, please help us to continue our voyage of discovery in unraveling the mysteries of history. Links to donate can be found within the description. Without you, we cannot survive. Thank you.