Why Are There 10-Foot Horse Skeletons in Museums --- Tartaria's Giants Needed Giant Mounts скачать в хорошем качестве

Why Are There 10-Foot Horse Skeletons in Museums --- Tartaria's Giants Needed Giant Mounts

Horse skeletons shouldn't measure ten feet at the shoulder. They shouldn't show vertebrae compression from carrying 400-600 pound riders. They shouldn't have dental wear from bits measuring twenty-four inches across. But veterinary museums have them. Equine remains cataloged in the 1880s listing shoulder heights of three to three-point-two meters—exactly double normal horse size. Not Ice Age fossils. Recent breeds with documented saddle wear on their spines proving they carried massive riders. And the cavalry equipment matches. Saddles with stirrups hanging seven feet from the seat. Bridles sized for horses with heads twice normal dimensions. Military requisition ledgers from the 1600s-1700s listing "giant breed equipment" as routine cavalry supply orders. European royal stables maintained breeding programs specifically for these mounts—stud books documenting bloodlines from 1400-1750 producing horses capable of carrying armored warriors of extraordinary size. Stable buildings still standing with fourteen-foot ceilings and eleven-foot doors built to accommodate mounts of impossible proportions. Then around 1750, the breeding records stop documenting giant offspring. By 1900, museum specimens are relabeled "extinct megafauna." The same timeline when Tartarian references vanish and giant warrior evidence is systematically suppressed. This investigation explores Tartaria's cavalry mounts—the skeletal evidence proving their extraordinary size, the breeding records documenting deliberate production, the equipment showing actual military use, and the systematic relabeling when acknowledging giant horses became impossible because it proved giant riders existed. ⚠️ DISCLAIMER:This content presents exploratory interpretations and imaginative speculation through narrative storytelling, not historical documentation. Viewpoints are dramatized to support alternative narrative exploration. Visual elements may use automated tools. This content should not be considered factual.