Was prehistoric monument in Golan Heightsbuilt by the giants of the Bible?

a reply to: Leprekon

Mars gravity is only 38% of earths; what if they came from Mars once it could no longer support life? In the lower gravity of mars surely they would grow larger than homo sapiens?

I also have read that the Smithsonian has covered up evidence of giant skeletons fossils.

a reply to: Byrd

Its all relative!

I built my house out of pebbles

originally posted by: Leprekon
a reply to: thebabyseagullwhy is it so hard to believe that giants roamed the earth .

Because of a lack of credible evidence
show us some giant skeletons that aren't hoaxed
The claims made by the bible for giants only appear in the King James version, the original Jewish version doesn't even mention the word.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Leprekon

I also have read that the Smithsonian has covered up evidence of giant skeletons fossils.

Firstly, theres no evidence for that either,
secondly, the Smithsonian is not active in Israel

a reply to: Learningman

There are literally dozens of historical inaccuracies in the bible, some I could imagine as genuine mistake, and a few that are pure deception.
There are places named correctly in the bible, but with an obvious ignorance of their location, such as Mark not knowing the geography of the Palestine/Galilee/Tyre/Sidon regions, and

the historical fact that the bible places the census 10 years early, as opposed to before Herrod.

What the hell does that even mean?

Well you haven't posted any yet. So stop lying and posting disinformation
about valued ancient literature do to your unscientific hate.

a reply to: Marduk

The scientific view of the world is inhumanly limited by
it's own selfish protocols.
"
The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now"

Abraham Lincoln

This quote is indicative of what the president of the U.S. believed
at that time. And being the president I'm sure he had the opportunity
to see first hand evidence. Abe liked to know what he was talking
about.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Marduk

The scientific view of the world is inhumanly limited by
it's own selfish protocols.
"
The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now"

Abraham Lincoln

This quote is indicative of what the president of the U.S. believed
at that time. And being the president I'm sure he had the opportunity
to see first hand evidence. Abe liked to know what he was talking
about.

You don't think what he said immediately afterwards is relevant then

The Mammoth and Mastadon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara.

here is the quote in full

But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The The Mammoth and Mastadon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara.. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,

Maybe you'd like some time to go and think about it lol

originally posted by: randyvs
What the hell does that even mean?

It means that the birth of Jesus as described in the bible is fiction
This is well known, that there was no journey to Bethlehem to be counted as part of a Roman census. because there was no census.

But because 700 years earlier the prophecy of Micah states that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, so Jesus needed to be born in Bethlehem, so the entire claim is a fiction created way after the fact to fulfil Jewish prophecy.

Also consider that it took Moses 40 years to travel from Egypt to Israel, a distance of 1000 miles, so Moses was travelling 25 miles a year
do you think that is credible ?

a reply to: randyvs

How about the total lack of evidence that there were ever Hebrew slaves in Egypt?

How about the fact that most scholars and archaeologists agree Moses never even existed?

How about the complete lack of contemporary historical record for the life of Jesus?

For calling the historical accuracy of the Bible into question how about things like: A patently false creation narrative, a talking snake, a magical tree that grants knowledge, a magical tree that grants eternal life, men coming before women, women coming from magical creation out of a man's rib, childbirth being painful being due to the curse placed on humanity by an angry God, a horrible genetic bottleneck that forces human beings to commit mass incest (which probably would have collapsed us into extinction).

Some other things that call the historical accuracy of the Bible into question: Two contradictory accounts of Jesus' geneology. Two contradictory accounts of Jesus' childhood (one in which they flee to Egypt, the other in which they go straight to Nazareth). The contradiction regarding Herod vs. Quirinius which gives two totally different years that Jesus was born. Stories about talking donkeys, humans surviving for days in the digestive track of a whale/large fish. Add to the absurd fantasy elements the prophecies that scholars now know were written AFTER the events, the fact that several of the "Pauline" epistles are forgeries.

And so on, and so forth. The scientific and historical inaccuracies of the Bible are many and when coupled with absurd nonsense that looks like it came out of Lord of the Rings I think it's safe to say we're looking at works of mythology, NOT a history textbook.

The fact that the Bible occasionally names a place or person that turned out to be real is meaningless. Spider-Man is a comic book, after 9/11 they did an issue where Spider-Man honored the fire fighters and emergency workers who stepped up during and after that tragic attack. And yet Spider-Man isn't real. But New York is, the events the comic were talking about were. It's almost as if the fantasy element, the man with the powers of a spider, is the give away that we're not dealing with non-fiction... and what is the Bible full of, people with supernatural powers and a vengeful God who brings plagues, sends rain to drown people, rains down fire from the sky and his son who goes around healing the blind and lame. Even if all the surrounding details were true (and they aren't) we'd still be left with miracles, magic, stuff that cannot be REASONABLY assumed accurate.

Of course that's where faith comes in for many people. One does not need concrete evidence where there is faith involved... but I do wish that some believers would stop pretending that there is an open and shut case that proves the supernatural aspects of the Bible when there so clearly isn't. The Bible is not a science book. It's not a history book.

Gilgal Refaim was so named for the same reason here in Britain we have te Devils Dyke (large earthwork) and Waylands Smithy (exposed neolithic burial tomb) - because those who named them, not knowing their origin or purpose (and not having reference to Google or even the encyclopedia Britannica) assumed they must have been constructed by supernatural deities from old folk tales ....

Even some relatively recent - Roman - structures are given similar names.

It doesnt mean that the Devil or Wayland really built them!

a reply to: Marduk


Yeah, but he did stop for a picnic in the Sinai on the way As you do ....

One of my old bosses I considered a giant. He is a man that stands about 6'8'' is and is over 340pounds. He was only a few years older than I(both of us in our 20s me early he late)but literally twice my physical being. I stand at 5'9" and I weigh 165.

I used to refered to him as the Viking because he kept a shaved head right to the wood and a large brown beard.

We come in all sizes and if there were tribes back in ancient times that had overly large bodies on average they certainly would be giants to the average man. My old boss would be a force to be not to be reckoned with on an acient battle field that's for sure.


In conclusion I don't believe in giants in the mythical sense but I've seen some pretty massive human beings.



a reply to: thebabyseagull

a reply to: Marduk

The mammoth and mastodon buried their dead in mounds? Crazy.

If archaeology 'proves' something, I'm going to believe just the opposite.

Archaeology is just another mind control tool used for social conditioning against the masses and is lying to us about the real history of the world.

I don't believe a single WORD they say anymore.

The biggest clue regarding giants is the fact that mainstream academia says they don't exist.

If that's what the 'authorities' are telling us, I'm going with exactly the opposite.

The mainstream apparatus is no longer a credible source.

In U.S. Army Intelligence, I was trained that the truth most often lies in the exact opposite direction of the public rhetoric. You must learn this technique if you are to successfully glean the truth from news reports.

LEARNING TO THINK IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF PROPAGANDA

It's almost comical because of the absolute massive amount of evidence that just so "happens" to get lost over and over and OVER...

FACT: They ARE hiding this stuff from us...

"...authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied- and, of course, lost to the scientific study they deserved.” Source

"A cave full of giant skeletons was found by telephone employees near Santa Barbara, California. Unfortunately, the cave entrance was sealed shut before proper excavation could be conducted."

"A giant skeleton on Santa Cruz Island, California, was sent to the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C., where it was promptly "misplaced". Source

"...authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied- and, of course, lost to the scientific study they deserved.” Source

There are FAR too many pieces of evidence that were either buried, lost or just plain lied about over the years.

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

“the biggest cover-up in the history of mankind is the history of mankind itself”

“There are two histories: official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events.” ~ Honoré de Balzac

I asked about what happened to the full bodies and the older curator said University of Berkeley had came and taken all the giant skeletons away for study decades ago and this was all that had survived that grab. ...if you research into giants or other races they will end your career immediately, we are told to say it’s all 1800’s media fraud regardless of the evidence, in fact they think they have found a living tribe of Neanderthals in northernmost Canada, but I don’t know anymore about it, it’s pretty controversial, again if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”. Source

Well, evidences abound, and this is one. I should say that there could be many more at hand, but when they have been found by Darwinians, they have been ignored, hidden or simply destroyed. Destroyed by those who later on demand such evidence. An example of this is the "mysterious" disappearance of more than 50 perfectly kept gigantic antediluvian skeletons (between 10-14 feet tall) found in a cave in Arizona. You may, or not, have heard that Mr. Samuel Hubbard, discovered remains of giants in a cave in the magnificent Grand Canyon of Arizona."Source

According to Marius Boirayon, there is a village hut on Malaita island (Solomon Islands) that is supported by an 8 feet long human femur bone.

• A human thigh bone 8 feet 4 inches long from Mexico.

• Human skeletons unearthed near Palermo, Sicily, in 1548 and 1550, measuring 30 feet, 33 feet and 30 feet.

• Two human skeletons unearthed near Athens, Greece, in recent centuries (one 34 feet long, the other 36 feet long).

• A skeleton reportedly 29 feet in length found in 1456 near the Rhone River.

• A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.

• 23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.

• A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.

Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Source

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: Marduk

The mammoth and mastodon buried their dead in mounds? Crazy.

yeah, they dug dens, like rabbits
just bigger

A few sources for anyone curious as to why our true history is being hidden from us...

To those who investigate allegations of archaeological cover-ups, there are disturbing indications that the most important archaeological institute in the United States, the Smithsonian Institute, an independent federal agency, has been actively suppressing some of the most interesting and important archaeological discoveries made in the Americas.

www.onelight.com...

It is true there were giants that roamed the earth. The reason we see no archaeological evidence is because the government has the Smithsonian Institute come and take away the findings to their warehouse. Why do they intentionally do this you may ask? Because the archaeological findings would prove the Biblical account of creation, and they can't as easily deceive the world into believing the lies we have all been taught. www.wearesmrt.com...

originally posted by: CaptainLJB
...there's tons of excavations of Giants, most of which were sent to the Smithsonian to...disappear! It's the same story over and over again: skeletons found and lost. It's a cover-up, trust me. There's just too many records of these things being dug up, not to mention Indian testimony that their ancestors fought these big guys. Everything points to the Mound-Builders being Giants...

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

originally posted by: Murgatroid
A few sources for anyone curious as to why our true history is being hidden from us...
Non supported sources deleted

you realise of course, that as your sources tend to be people like David Hatcher Childress, who is well known as a liar who profits from selling pseudo history books to the gullible, that no one here is convinced by either him, or your collection of credulity.


Here is the truth about the Smithsonian cover up
www.jasoncolavito.com...

But you carry on believing what you want, because that's what belief is, something not supported by any evidence

a reply to: [post=20022405]Titen-Sxull[/post

Nothing of your repiy refutes my post.

a reply to: thebabyseagull

Cool article here! Thanx for the share!! Not too sure if Giants built that, but I do believe there were giants in our past. Why not right? When there was more air pressure and a higher oxygen content, they could have been enormous!! S+F for You!

a reply to: Marduk

Au contraire...

In fact, ironically your own source confirms my research.

Not to mention the fact that Jason Colavito writes for Skeptic magazine.

This completely destroys his credibility IMHO.

I still find it incredibly naive for anyone to not think that something else is at work with the amount of documented evidence of skeletons being turned over to the Smithsonian and their apparent absence from public record at the museum. Why is it that so many independent news stories claim these findings' affiliation with the Smithsonian Institute only for them to be denied by the museum? Someone's lying, and I doubt it's all of the newspapers.

I understand Childress was an important character. Nonetheless, this doesn't explain the several newspaper articles detailing discoveries of giant humanoid skeletons in connection with the Smithsonian Institute BEFORE Childress came on the scene. The article says the giant skeletons were turned over to the Smithsonian Institute. So unless these people don't know how to use a ruler and are unfamiliar with human skeletons there's no reason to not believe them.

If you want proof that governments will use ancient artifacts or archaeology for warfare, or to simply further their own ends, just take a look at the Crusades or the Nazis. If you do not think it's relevant to today then look up Operation Paperclip or ask yourself why the government spends so much money on anthropological research. But, Childress was not merely pulling things out of his butt. Destruction and suppression of ancient artifacts is real.

And, why is it so far-fetched to believe that the government's national museum would destroy artifacts that deviate from their isolationist historical viewpoint anyway? Do you know how many things the government keeps from the public? Do you know how many things the government has kept from the public?

www.jasoncolavito.com...

Fact 1) We now have collected over 200 articles written about giant finds in America during the 19th/early 20th century. I have even found some of these myself on newspaper search sites. Anyone can do this, but you can buy books now with these articles copied for all to read.

Fact 2) Many of these articles end with "the bones were sent to the Smithsonian."

My question is: "Why wont the Smithsonian just produce the bones!"

If it gigantism, let us see! If is something other, let us see! If the bones are not available, then it can only be one of two options, incompetence or a cover up. If the Smithsonian keeps losing things should we be entrusting the Smithsonian with our history? If the Smithsonian did hold the view of a Caucasian race before the "Indians" (what do we call them now, if they were not native either?) then they are not protected under the Native American protection act. Please then, just show us the bones!

If the Smithsonian now says they belong to the Indians, the Indians themselves claim otherwise. By their own oral tradition they say there were people here before them who built those mounds (and they were tall). If so, then now we have a different problem. One of the Smithsonian being in the lone position as the sole arbiter of truth. Are they really that certain of themselves?

You must understand what our hubris has done. We took land from native Americans, built institutions of higher learning upon it, accredited them by our own authority, and then with great audacity told the native people they didn't have the education to know what they were talking about! Really?

So if the Smithsonian says the diffusion theory is wrong and all people developed as isolates, then explain why all the nations on this planet have legends of a flood, an original one world language, giants stories, and fallen beings coming down from the sky? Kind of makes the Bible sound true doesn't it?

Either way (incompetence, cover up, or audacity), the Smithsonian would be embarrassed by evidence produced outside of the accepted modernist worldview. Therefore it is not that far fetched a conclusion to perceive a cover up! All of this would simply be answered by SHOWING US THE BONES! (Unless they're in the ocean now . . . )

www.jasoncolavito.com...

a reply to: Murgatroid

Lol, so what you believe, is that there is an international conspiracy, which has taken place over 100s of years, across different continents to hide a race of giants. And that the motivation for this, is job security on the part of archaeologists
got it thanks


btw, your quotes were taken from people responding to the article and as such are worthless, did you misread it, or are you just replying out of a desperate need to prove your point of view...You had to quote mine to find those responses and then you mischaracterised the source, that's blatantly dishonest

The article doesn't support your claims at all
The last paragraph

The fact is that before Childress’s 1993 article there was no claim of a Smithsonian conspiracy, even in places where we would expect to see evidence of such a belief. As we end 2013, we can take a moment to curse Childress on the twentieth anniversary of his creation of a modern myth.