101 Pics That Prove Nephilim Giants Existed - Hidden History - Part 2

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: lambros56

I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit through a radio interview of over an hour and a half in length. Is there any chance you can break it down a little? You say you found it "amazing." What about it, in particular, did you find amazing?

Perhaps he wants to sell you something?

There is also a facebook page (of course) with the following:

There are giants among us, passing largely unnoticed, intent on carrying out a secret plan to enslave all humanity. They may not look like giants today, but their bloodlines extend all the way back to the Nephilim—the offspring of angels who mated with human women—described in Genesis 6 when giants roamed the land. Gary Wayne, author of The Genesis 6 Conspiracy: How Secret Societies and the Descendants of Giants Plan to Enslave Humankind, details the role of modern-day Nephilim in Satan’s plan to install the Antichrist at the End of Days.

When God cast the angel Lucifer and his followers out of heaven, Lucifer set into motion a scheme to ensure the Nephilim survived. Why? Because from the bloodlines of these Nephilim the Antichrist will come. To keep his plan alive, Satan has enlisted the loyalty of secret societies such as the Freemasons, the Templars, and the Rosicrucians to conspire in teaching a theology and a history of the world that is contrary to the biblical one.

This Genesis 6 Conspiracy marches toward the Great Tribulation, when the loyalty of the Terminal Generation—this generation—will be tested. The Bible, along with many other ancient sources, clearly records the existence of giants. Wayne provides copious citations from many society insiders, along with extensive Bible references, other religious references, and historical material to bolster his contention. What he uncovers will astonish you—and it will challenge you to prepare for the fulfilling of God’s promises.

Sounds like the usual nonsense, already dealt with in this thread.

I`m sorry for upsetting you by adding something i find interesting to the thread.
If you don`t want to spend time listening to the interview ........DON`T

a reply to: lambros56

You didn't upset me. I just thought you might be able to provide a bit more information, particularly as you mentioned you were amazed.
Any chance of addressing my questions?

a reply to: aorAki

No, not really.
I think you made it clear you`re not interested in the content of the video.
Plus you feel " this nonsense " has already been dealt with in this thread. So no point in conversing with you.

a reply to: lambros56

So you're not even going to attempt to change my mind, even though you found that interview amazing? Must be some really robust evidence for you to stand by it so strongly.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: lambros56

So you're not even going to attempt to change my mind, even though you found that interview amazing? Must be some really robust evidence for you to stand by it so strongly.

Matthew 7:6

a reply to: cooperton


Nice. That's such a wonderful comeback.
Perhaps if you took the plank out of your eye you might see that the premise of the OP is built upon the sand.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: cooperton


Nice. That's such a wonderful comeback.
Perhaps if you took the plank out of your eye you might see that the premise of the OP is built upon the sand.

You're using a bible passage to justify your lack of biblical belief? Textbook hypocrisy.

a reply to: cooperton

I'm sorry, I thought we were plucking random bible passages out and playing 'find the fantasy'.
The bible is not proof, and your using a bible passage as a thinly-veiled insult is pretty hypocritical as well.

Show me the proof, robust and scientific; not some mumbojumbo hoodwink'd by faerie fantasy.

a reply to: aorAki

When it comes to conspiracies, since WHEN has there ever been proof?

Do not ask for proof, you will never get it, ever.

Don't expect others to show you something you cannot comprehend yet as that is impossible.

Proof must be experienced PERSONALLY.

But it's not something that can just be passed on in a few seconds.

The problem isn't with a lack of proof.

Here is the problem:

“Nothing is as it appears to be.” ~ Robert Booth Nichols

The majority of what most of us believe is a LIE.

We have been "programmed" to believe LIES our entire lives...

Until you come face to face with REALITY and understand that everything you know is a lie, you will NEVER be entirely convinced of the truth.

The proof is right in front of your face.

You just haven't learned to recognize it yet.

The key is in learning to discern between truth and lies. Until you do that, you are wasting your time.

The truth IS out there but it's deliberately hidden under a mountain of lies.

originally posted by: crankyoldman
The word "proof" is a major problem. What you mean by proof is a way to show you in ways that are agreed upon as proof. Currently this written, science, or first hand. There is plenty of that, an inordinate amount of it, some found on the web, most not. So proof isn't what you are after, as there is more then enough of that to be easily had.

There are no conspiracies, none, there are only plans, that, when they are all put together can equal what we call a conspiracy, but that thread that connects the plans is weak as the plans are sadly seen in parts, rather then a whole.

The key to understanding what is really happening is to look at the great symbol. The all seeing eye. It stands for the unseen, not the bilderberg or any such stuff, but the unseen folks who control this reality - they see all. They also control all. At the top of the NWO as you describe are beings largely beyond your comprehension, in fact they programmed you not to comprehend them, so they may remain hidden. Their agenda is something beyond those of the stooges they employ. The NWO, CFF, Trilateral etc. are all made up of employees of these unseen. Most have zero idea about that they have gotten themselves into, and most will never know, but they are simply doing the bidding of the unseen, and, were the unseen to ever return to physical reality (something unlikely at this point) they would all be killed first as they sold out their own people for money and the unseen do not trust them.

To grasp what I have said you need to be able to comprehend the entire picture, not the way it has been presented to you, but the way it is. You have to be able to use senses beyond your standard system, and you have to be able to understand symbols that you have no programming for and this is not easy as there is so much going against it.

Do not ask for proof, you will never get it - ever. Ask to "know," as to "understand," ask to "feel," but don't expect another to show you something you cannot comprehend yet as that is impossible - you need to understand the language first, before you can see what is happening on the levels you question.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: aorAki
The proof is right in front of your face.

You just haven't learned to recognize it yet.

The key is in learning to discern between truth and lies. Until you do that, you are wasting your time.

The truth IS out there but it's deliberately hidden under a mountain of lies.

Yeah, aorAki, just squint real hard while crossing one eye.

Be sure to hold your mouth right.

Harte

Typical pseudoskeptic obfuscation techniques

If you can't contribute something sensible to a discussion, just throw in some dismissive pseudoskeptical humor...

Works great when ever one wants to distract and avoid the core issues.

Can't dispute the obvious truth?

Just attack the person instead in order to discredit and mislead others.

Not humorous or entertaining in the slightest ....

The good news is that the pseudoskeptics seem to be rapidly losing their credibility.

"Pseudoskeptics attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. Pseudoskeptics are in a state of perpetual denial and cognitive dissonance. They deny and filter out anything that doesn't fit into their materialistic reductionistic view of reality, especially anything that has to do with paranormal or conspiracies, no matter what evidence is presented, even if its documented and scientific."

LINK

PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics

• Immediately judges as false and debunks anything that contradicts their paradigm.

• Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their views.

• Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but sees their paradigms as fixed and constant.

• Are willing to lie and deceive to discredit their opponents.

• Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.

• Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective analysis and examination.

• When faced with evidence or facts they can't refute, uses semantics, word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue.

LINK

originally posted by: rich23
The problem with pseudoskeptics is they get too attached to theories, and to authority. Reasonable skeptics understand that you can't get too attached to a theory, or ignore evidence that weakens it. This notion was perhaps first fully adumbrated in Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery back in the sixties, I think. it's been fairly well accepted since then.

originally posted by: rich23
YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY!

I'll say that again for the hard of thinking: YOU CAN'T PROVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY!

All you can do is disprove a theory. No mountain of evidence ever proves a theory, it just defers the day that that theory just gets junked for a better one in light of new evidence.

So people who ask for "proof" are really and truly talking out of their behinds. All you can do is marshal evidence.

a reply to: Murgatroid

You're so far off topic right now.

The fact remains that you cannot provide robust, scientifically-verifiable evidence, so you take a detour. This seems to be a common tactic of yours.

a reply to: Murgatroid
So (according to you) because the truth is being hidden from us in general, does that means any conspiracy theory claim is equally valid? In that case, then nothing is real -- maybe even the OP claims that Giants once walked among us. Using your reasoning, the OP's claims could be a lie.

I mean, if everything we hear could be a lie, then what possible test could we have for telling true facts from untrue lies? What makes the OP's claims of Giants pass the "truth or lie" test any better than someone's claim that Giants did not exist?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I already know the answer that Murgatroid is going to give you. The Bible. Basically if it confirms the Bible, in his eyes, then it is real. Keep in mind it's the literal interpretation of the Bible too. All that other stuff he says is just his way of dismissing all the damning evidence that would make his assertions look silly in context.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Murgatroid

I mean, if everything we hear could be a lie, then what possible test could we have for telling true facts from untrue lies?

Socrates asks the same question. He goes through a series of proofs to demonstrate that we don't ever learn truth, but rather, it is a matter of recollecting the truth that is latent in our being. This may sound silly, but a good example to demonstrate this sort of "phyletic memory" (Built-in mechanisms into our organism) would be walking. We are all born "knowing" how to walk, it is just a matter of maturing the leg strength to be able to support the body weight. Hover an infant over a treadmill, thus supporting his bodyweight, and the walking motion will be revealed (check it out on youtube). Similarly, the truth is within us, and it is a matter of purging all crappy behavior that will lift the veil from the truth, and this will lead us to the remembrance of this Truth. In my opinion.

The Fall:

"And Jehovah God saith to the woman, `What is this thou hast done?' and the woman saith, `The serpent hath caused me to forget -- and I do eat.'"

The Redemption:

"And having taken bread, having given thanks, he brake and gave to them, saying, `This is my body, that for you is being given, this do ye -- to remembrance of me.'"

Socrates:

"...if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer, and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember. " Meno
Theory of Recollection

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm familiar with this, though I also have serious suspicions about the Tedx agenda. They have removed more lectures which don't fit their paradigm. Graham Hancock's War On Consciousness being another example.
I've noticed they claim to bring us groundbreaking work, but when it's gets a little too controversial they'll find whatever reason they can to remove certain presentations.

I've stopped supporting them a very long time ago.

originally posted by: IofRa
a reply to: peter vlar

I'm familiar with this, though I also have serious suspicions about the Tedx agenda. They have removed more lectures which don't fit their paradigm. Graham Hancock's War On Consciousness being another example.

And what a terrible agenda that they have...adhering to the scientific method. Something Mr. Hancock could learn a thing or two about. Let's not move the goal posts though, your original claim was on the veracity of Jim Vieira's research. research that doesn't actually hold up when examined critically. Can you actually refute and of the claims in the TED Curator's letter to Jim Vieira? Let's actually address your claims regarding giants and the impeccable research of Jim Vieira and not move the goal posts with a Graham Hancock strawman.

I've noticed they claim to bring us groundbreaking work, but when it's gets a little too controversial they'll find whatever reason they can to remove certain presentations.

It seems to me to be about the lack of science and proof in the presentations they remove from the TED site. The videos are still there all over YouTube for people to watch. It's not like they've censored anybody as the claim seem to so often be.

I've stopped supporting them a very long time ago.

That's certainly your prerogative if you're more interested in a fluff n' buff than about actual science being presented.

If you believe science has always presented us with facts then you have a lot to learn, my friend. Just because you have your opinions about Hancock or Vieira, doesn't make it "fluff 'n buff".

originally posted by: IofRa
If you believe science has always presented us with facts then you have a lot to learn, my friend. Just because you have your opinions about Hancock or Vieira, doesn't make it "fluff 'n buff".

If you believe that you can dismiss science because con-artists have lied about science in the past then YOU have a lot to learn. Mostly about properly vetting evidence and sources.

originally posted by: IofRa
If you believe science has always presented us with facts then you have a lot to learn, my friend. Just because you have your opinions about Hancock or Vieira, doesn't make it "fluff 'n buff".

Well, that's what's great about adhering to the scientific method. It doesn't rely on the personal opinions of any single individual.

You are free to personally believe anything you want, including the works of Hancock and Vieira, but don't expect TEDx to be promoting works that do not hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific process. TEDx should not be in the habit of promoting a specific research work just because someone at TEDx has the personal opinion that they should.

Restricting their promoted talks to only those that involve research that is being/has been scrutinized by the scientific process takes specific personal opinions out of the equation.