It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Giants were primary species and decendents of Annanaki?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:16 AM
This is true. The royals were portrayed as larger than life. I belive that thier royals were decendents or even the Annanaki themselves. It is very mind boggling how ancient civilizations were SO far advanced and could perform tasks that we cannot even do in this era. Eg. The Inca created what we now know as Llamas and Alpachas, by breeding two wild species called the vicuna and the guanaco. If we tried to do this now a days we would run into a hybrid/donkey. How is it possible that they could do something like that and yet with all of our technologies today we would run into a brick wall.

There must have been and influence of a higher being. Further evidence is found in the nasca lines. This is some form of spaceman. How would an ancient civilization even have a concept of this idea?

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:17 AM
The pic didn't work in my last reply hope it works this time.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:28 AM
I'm with you Fish. Giant bones have been uncovered all over the world but have been covered up.

They are said to be still living in the soloman island. They claim they are 16-feet tall.

There was and will be again a giant race of men from the annunaki.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:40 AM

Originally posted by fishmaster
So new information just came about on Discovery Civiliztion within the last week or two. It stated that 16' giants were the primary species during the pre-flood era.

It's more likely to have been on a Christian broadcastin station. The program/information you mention appears to be one of the programs created by "Dr. Dino."

You will find most of his arguments refuted by other Christians, including the very fundamentalist "answers in genesis" site:

This was due to very high atmospheric pressure since there was really nothing to break down our ozone.

At the site above you'll find the Christian research that says this has been debunked (it's been debunked constantly by scholars and scientists; this just happens to be a large and famous Christian site that eventually was forced to agree that the scientists are right. They give the plain English, Christian reasoning.)

Then went on to relate these giants to the alien race(Annanaki) who came to earth and created them through apes and there own species, thus creating giants or in greek mythology the Titans, or in the biblical spectrum the Philistines....If someone has more information on the and perhaps some websites it would be great.

There aren't any giant, 16 foot tall humans. There's a maximum height for humans (due to body and bone construction) and 16 feet is somewhat beyond the possible for this planet's gravitational field. The tallest human who ever lived was only 8'11"... and he didn't live very long past adulthood.

People who are 8 feet tall have severe difficulties and most don't live very long. They find it hard to walk an their limbs break easily.

There aren't any skeletons of giant humans (though there are some of very large humans (7 feet tall or so)) and there aren't any "races" of giant humans.

And the flood was a myth; there's no global evidence of a flood, I'm afraid.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:56 AM
This is very true that there is no global evidence of a flood. The people who wrote about it thought that where they were was the entire world. It was just the breaking of a natural dam between the Black Sea and the mediterranean sea.

if evidence of bones from a giant species was ever found we would be the last to ever find out. Thats when the cover-up take place.


posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:23 PM
I don't know about there not being any races of giants. I can't say that there were any in the biblical or pre-diluvian era, but there are accounts of tribes of giants in North America.

I think that the tales of 16' giants are hard to believe, but see this website:

This guy does give citations for his source material, and some of it seems credible to me. It seems that there were a lot of giants found among the early North American natives.

There were tribes in Florida, Sonora and probably California who had several members that were between 7' to 8' tall. I am wondering what has happened to the found remains for these people.

It seems to me that if there is a tribe where the men are normally from 6' to 7' tall, that growth disorders cannot account for their height, it would seem that it is genetic. If they were all unhealthy, the tribes would not have survived so long. It seems that warfare and contact with Europeans is the reason for their dissapearance, not their health.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:28 PM
this programme was indeed, on the Discovery Civilization channel about 2 weeks ago in the was called Giants: Myths and Mysteries and it was very interesting actually.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:29 PM
i had to go when i wrote that last bit, but i also wanted to say that it did indeed (Nygdan), have a scientist who, under some atmospheric pressure thingy test, made piranhas grow 3 times their normal size. So you just saying "false" to the author, well, i didnt find that altogether constructive. He/she was merely pointing out what they did on the show.

It also had reports of LOTS of very tall skeletons being found around the world, and it touched upon the egyptians and the sumerians.
Interestingly enough, something i never knew...but apparently in sumerian text, there was a place called Edin, where these visitors from another planet, settled on earth.
Not saying i believe all that, but i thought the mention of Edin/Eden very interesting.

Anyway, i have forgotton much of the programme, but like i said, it WAS on Discovery and it was pretty mind blowing to be honest, for a mainstream channel. I started watching it cos i was tired and bored and thought it would be fun. But halfway through i could see they were going to swing it around to the possibility of alien life. So yeah, it was really interesting.

Just because you cant find it on the Discovery Channel website means nothing. Dont you people ever just trust anothers word?
The morning after it was on, i tried to find it on the Discovery site to show my son, but couldnt even find it then.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:35 PM
Apparently Yes !

See Ancient Lemurians ('force cutters plus gravity force and 'mowing the grass'-ie Arnold sighting.
An old book I ordered from a library far away and I read it years ago. But it was all about Lemurians and the Giants, etc..


posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by fishmaster
Trust me smart guy. Scientists have been able to mimic these exact situations of high atmosphereic pressure. When an organism is brought up under these conditions they grow to being 3 times their size that we see them as. The experiment was done on Black Breasted Piranha. This creature grew some 3 times its size.

Someone's pulling your leg, here. For one thing, there's no such piranha species:

And there's no such research. It would probably be fatal to the fish, because the pressure would cause something called "the haldane effect."

This is why divers can't breathe oxygen/nitrogen when they go down more than a dozen meters or so.

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:44 PM
Well Sir, I suppose there was'nt any Sabertooth Tigers 'cause their teeth could'nt have fit-in with their killing and eating structure.. The Mamoth's Tusks were too long hence their demise.

Just questioning the words of Giants desention from a super moderator.


posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:55 AM
maybe those of you in disagreement with byrd can put together a rebuttal better than, "gee it stinks when you prove us wrong, thats no fun"

try fighting fire with fire

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 10:19 AM
it must have ment another piranha. I saw what i saw, but there is no ifo on the net. SOmeone help me out.
You would think there would be something.

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:13 PM
Hey Byrd how long have you been a member? Everyone seems to wait for you to reply.

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:05 PM
did anyone not see my post earlier? Fishmaster, i wrote that i also saw this programme, it was called Giants: Myths and Mysteries and it was on Discovery Civilization
Ah well, maybe i'm being too quiet to make my voice heard here

posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 12:51 PM
geek101 thanks for the support. I found that program quite interesting. Made me really start thinking about the real truth to our creation.
I am a christian beliver, but this theory clicks for me. Its too bad i can't find that program of the net. It would help my point.
Thanks again,

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 04:30 PM

Originally posted by geek101
did anyone not see my post earlier? Fishmaster, i wrote that i also saw this programme, it was called Giants: Myths and Mysteries and it was on Discovery Civilization
Ah well, maybe i'm being too quiet to make my voice heard here

This program you mention here said nothing about actual giants being some kind of dominant species/descendants of the Annunaki. It started out with the Greek Titans and their offspring and ended up with some of the real people in modern times with the glandular problem. Had a lot about Jack and the Beanstalk, Paul Bunyan and John Henry (wasn't even a giant, but a token black for political correctness) in between.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:05 PM
sorry partner, but i think we are talking about something completely different. This program did indeed talk of giants being the genetic product of the annanaki. This topic has now lost interest with me. I am now looking alot more into the story of jacob and esau. Much more enlightening.

posted on Dec, 26 2008 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by fishmaster

sir, you need to Google "Sumerians"... apparently we are the outcome of anunnaki splicing (reproduction) their own genes with than of the Sumerian people ie. humans.
The anunnaki taught the simple farmers how to be prosperous and use mathematics and language, in fact they are the first documented people to use written language

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:33 PM
The notion by those who respond to these unsupported claims of past knowledge or events, that somehow in our modern era we know all there is to know about our world and universe seems as ignorant as the people being responding to. At least those that investigate alternate avenues of evidence such as stories passed down from generation to generation usually take such evidence objectively. Those that flatly deny any claims of an understanding of history and the universe other than that which is generally accepted by the "modern scientific community" ought conisider what history and science is in actuallity. History consists of various types of evidence written, deduced, and, oh yeah, ORAL!! And science by its very nature is dynamic and ever changing. Unless you are an utter fool, you would not accept that what we know today is what will remain the accepted truth for all of time. Science is, by definition, hypothesis (an educated GUESS) based on available evidence(which also depends on how you interperet that evidence, which in turn depends on many factors). Change the available evidence(or interperetation thereof) and you are back to zee drawing board Mr. Martian.

Now I'm not saying that I personally believe any of this, but unless people do some unbiased investigation into some of these wild stories contained here and elsewhere, there will be no(or significantly diminished) scientific progress. I might also remind everyone that almost every "great" scientist has had a very strong unerrring belief in god. Which god, who knows. But a superior, higher intelligent being that created or guided the world in which we live. It is the sheeple type scientists, those that aren't so great, who just follow along with the generally accepted knowledge of the day(the "scientific community"). A good example of this is darwinian evolution and it's subsequent deduction of atheism. Darwinian evolution is a great theory, but to believe that all of this incredibly complex world in which we live just happened by accident is about as absurd as the monkey writing Shakespeare theory. Certainly if there is a higher being that is intelligent enough to create everything, why is it so absurd to think that he couldn't preplan or guide evolution?? If he could have the knowledge and forsight to create the world and universe and all of the complex systems required to support all of the various types of life, as well as the types of life themselves, why couldn't he preplan something like evolution? How ignorant of all of you who so quickly deny these claims to think that we as humans have a monopoly on knowledge. If we are so damn smart then why is any scientific progress necessary?? Shouldn't we have known everything from the beginning then too??

Absolute idiocy.

So please feed me some more of your sheeple rhetoric in response to this post, as I'm certain you will because that is your nature: to blindly back up and reaffirm the knowledge that creative, open-minded types have discovered for you. Maybe someday you will grow up to be adults with free thinking minds of your own.

Good Day.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in