I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD (without any meaningful event that could have done so), and then official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the name "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" (Catalina, Patagonia, etc.) that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire "race" of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "really tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD (without any meaningful event that could have done so), and then official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the name "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" (Catalina, Patagonia, etc.) that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire "race" of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the name "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" (Catalina, Patagonia, etc.) that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire "race" of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the name "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire "race" of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire "race" of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was intentionally removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz (starts on page 31, relevant section on page 39). It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 10). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz. It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 15). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz. It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But evidence that "isn't that good" doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 15). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz. It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to purposefully separate the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained, wiping out their history from themselves.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But "not as good" evidence doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
"Official" history says the Scythians were wiped out in 200AD, even though official history calls Attila the Hun a Scythian 300 years later. It's quite the pickle. As far as I can tell, the "Tartarians" came about with Ghengis Khan ~1160AD, but who gave them that name I am not sure. Every single shred of evidence suggests that they were just the Scythians, and that the Scythians never went away at any point in between, on the contrary, there are numerous other historical events and leaders that mark them clearly.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 15). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz. It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to remove their language from existence, separating the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But "not as good" evidence doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.
I probably should have included some links in the above post.
Here is evidence that the Tartarians are just the Scythians given a new name:
Thomas Lanquet, 1549 (page 558, year 1395)
Sir Walter Raleigh, 1560 (page 758)
There are many others. In fact, in order to believe that the Tartarians were not the Scythians, you must ignore every single historian prior to the 20th century.
Here is evidence that the USSR purposefully hid the existence of the Tartarians/Scythians:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP78-02771R000200090002-6.pdf (page 15). (Note: you may have to copy/paste the pdf name into the search bar on that page, as direct links don't always work.)
Here is the reference that paper above uses, written by historian and Soviet expert Walter Kolartz. It shows that the Tartarian language was purposefully removed from existence through the First and Second Alphabet Revolution conducted by the USSR to remove their language from existence, separating the past and the present from those Tartarians that remained.
As for Giants, I've seen many things, but I haven't written up anything on them formally, so my evidence is not as well compiled. It also really depends on what you mean by "giants." There is quite a bit of evidence of "Indians" that were in the 7-8 foot range, but are those really "giants?" We have otherwise perfectly normal and healthy people that are in that range today, if not an entire group of such. How tall does a group of people need to be to be called "giant" and not just "really tall?"
There is evidence for taller, in the 9 to 10 foot range. Those might be legitimately "giants," but to a 7-8 foot tall person, they are merely "really tall." I've seen evidence of 12, 16, 20 feet tall, but how good is that evidence? It gets a lot worse the taller you go. But "not as good" evidence doesn't mean bad evidence. I really need to dig in deeper into those pieces of evidence, and that is something I just haven't had the time for.
There is substantial evidence that "tall people" and "advanced people" has been hidden though, so who knows what the truth is.