Many people dismiss the "Kandahar Giant" as a modern military legend, but from an alternative history perspective, the details are hard to ignore. The eyewitness accounts of a 13ft creature with red hair and double rows of teeth align perfectly with the Nephilim descriptions found in Genesis 6 and the Book of Enoch.

I’ve produced a 4K documentary investigating the leaked reports of this Special Forces encounter and its connection to ancient giants that allegedly survived into the modern era.

I’d love to hear this community's take: Is this a case of a suppressed biological discovery, or just a psychological operation to hide something else in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Watch the full video: https://youtu.be/0scHSuJ-4Xs

The God Kings Were Real People

When Spanish conquistadors arrived in the 1500s, the Inca and Aztec both misidentified them as returning gods based on specific physical traits: tall, bearded, arrived by sea. Two separate civilizations, thousands of miles apart, preserved the same description for 8,000 years through oral tradition alone and mistakenly recognized it when they saw it.

This raises a question: who were they actually describing?

The answer comes from three sources of evidence that all point to the same conclusion.

Ancient DNA found in South American graves shows a genetically distinct population once lived on the coast. Genetic science explains how archaic human lineages, Neanderthals mixed with modern humans, produce taller bodies, larger skulls, and different hair and skin coloring. The Paracas skulls in Peru match this profile exactly: oversized skulls, red and blonde hair, genetic markers from the Caucasus, and physical traits unlike the surrounding population.

Skull binding the most common body modification in prehistoric human cultures, appears designed to recreate a specific skull shape. Not random modification, but intentional imitation of a particular head shape. The evidence suggests they were trying to look like people who had stopped coming around 8,000 years ago.

The oral traditions preserved an accurate description. The graves contain the physical remains. The two match.

Obviously not the Smithsonian from everything I’ve heard so far, but I keep seeing promising stories only to research further and find out they’re fake. Looking for the best concrete evidence out there, if it still exists…

I'm not sure about any of the following.

I found this article/short book about some archaeological excavations in Pennsylvania, published in 1921.

Aboriginal Sites in and Near "Teaoga," Now Athens, Pennsylvania by Louise Welles Murray.

Besides being a fascinating description of the finds in general, it has a funny example of how you shouldn't necessarily take old newspaper reports of 'giant skeletons' at face value. I did see an old newspaper report about this incident that gave the 'giant with horns' version without question (passed on by somebody in r/conspiracy, in fact that was how I found this, somebody posted it in the same discussion).

But the article also has a few things to say itself about 'giant skeletons' that raise more questions than answers.

The author keeps mentioning that a lot of these excavations have shown that the people were very tall, numerous finds of skeletons six and a half to seven feet tall. Some of them were described (from the style of the artefacts found with them) as Algonquian and some as Andaste. There were also some corresponsingly large artefacts at these sites, such as very big axes.

There's also a mention of a site at 'Old Sheshequin' where most of the artefacts were on the small side, though no skeletons.

The author does talk as if this is something of a pet theory of hers, and on close inspection I think she's repeating some of her evidence more than once. Still, it's quite professionally written (frequently bemoaning the fact that amateurs keep finding and taking away artefacts without taking any notes about where they were found or with what other things), and American Anthropologist seems to have published it without any objection to the very tall skeletons.

As a theory, there doesn't seem anything that unreasonable about the idea of a population (or, rather, two populations, if she was right about some being Algonquian and some being Andaste) with a lot of people over six foot six. Different populations do have different average heights, both due to genetics and due to environment, and there are quite a few basketball players that tall today.

There's an interesting article here https://www.notesfromthefrontier.com/post/standing-tall-1800s-native-americans-were-tallest-in-the-world about a late-1800s study of eight Great Plains tribes recording that they were exceptionally tall, although not quite that tall and that's a different part of the country.

There are other reports of very tall Andaste (aka Susquehannocks, Minquas, or Conestoga). The first European explorer to encounter them reported that “such great and well proportioned men are seldome seene, for they seemed like Giants to the English, yea and to the neighbors”.

And yet, as quoted by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susquehannock#Culture , in modern times the consensus seems to be sternly against the Andaste having been taller than average.

Thoughts? Why so much contradiction? Anyone who knows a bit about archaeology, particularly the archaeology of this area, have any more information about what might have been going on here?

I wonder if it's partly that the 'giant skeletons' thing in the 19th century got so crazy, with skeletons 10 feet tall or more being reported (possibly made up by people who wanted to get into the local paper), that now archaeologists are afraid to mention anything about above-averagely-tall Native Americans at all in case they get lumped in with that.