It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Did Giants Once Tread the Earth?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanJust to say it is quite possible Golliaths tribe were decendents of nephilim!
There are many who suggest that there are a number of decendent tribes in gen.


Please click this link for a U2U



[edit on 26-7-2006 by masqua]




posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Just to say it is quite possible Golliaths tribe were decendents of nephilim!
There are many who suggest that there are a number of decendent tribes in gen.


Lets forget about the remains.... Most biblical stories or any story for that matter have a few meanings and plenty of symbolism! I dont see any in this,

Have any of you read the Book of Enoch? It talks about the fall of angels,

im not saying that we should treat these txt's as true, but there is usually a motive behind a txt/story/parable, here i see none, other than a statement

PS nephilim does not necessarily mean giants


In the Hebrew Bible and several non-canonical Jewish and early Christian writings, nephilim (in Hebrew הנּפלים means The Fallen [ones]) are a people created by the cross-breeding of the "sons of God" (beney ha'elohim, בני האלהים) and the "daughters of men". (See Genesis 6:1.) The word nephilim is loosely translated as giants or titans in some Bibles, and is left untranslated in others. ...


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Chris the watcher]

fixed link and installed 'ex' tags





[edit on 26-7-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris the watcher
Just to say it is quite possible Golliaths tribe were decendents of nephilim!
[edit on 26-7-2006 by masqua]


Errmmm... actually the latest archaeology has proven that the Philistines were in fact Mycenaean Greeks who had been wandering following the Greek Dark Ages and the fall of Mycenae and the other cities in Greece.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
There are many possibilities to explain this.

Suppose we consider the issue in reverse for a moment and see what sort of insight that gives us.

When a species is isolated on an island, a phenomenon called "Island Dwarfing" occurs (there is some controversy over the idea though).

Conditions favor the smaller and the natural tendency of smaller to be better fed and thus not die before having kids, not to mention probably being more potent thanks to be appropriately nourished causes the average size to decrease. Additionally, it is concievable (I'm not sure if it's been proven true- I've only heard it claimed by somewhat dubious "weight-loss 'science'" so far) that living conditions are genetically "remembered" and may influence the function of children.

Homo floresiensis is speculated to be an island-dwarfed Homo Erectus. Whereas Homo Erectus would have been similar in height to a modern person, one set of female H. floresiensis remains was only 3'3".


So it is arguably possible that a person can be reduced in height by just under half by selective breeding and certain genetic factors.

It opens the question of whether all humans are dwarves as a result of our environment. Placed in the right environment for many generations, would humans be nearly twice as tall as they are now?




I believe that this might be possible. When the Romans invaded Germania, the average height of a Roman foot solier was 5'5", and the average height of a German Barbarian was just over 6'. Is it possible that the isolation of the Germanic barbarians had anything to do with thier size and the Romans lack of. Even today, those of Germanic heritage are usually larger that the average person. I am half German, and everyone on the German side of my family is huge, no one under 6'2, and built like tanks, even grandpa, and I get this pleasant feeling when I hold a large axe... =]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats very possible when you consider the average height back then was also much smaller compared to today. Your talking 5-3'' so even 6' which today is quite normal would have been very large thousands of years ago. So somebody 7 plus feet would be a very real giant to those people.


Although not opposed to the possibility of a race of very large humans existing (our modern civilisation produces basketballers who are 213cm [7ft] routinely after all), I think its likely that in antiquity someone being 183cm (6ft) and considered very large is likely to be the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm 190cm (~6'3") myself and even at that relatively modest height, you sometimes feel the world is designed for midgets - fitting my sz 13 feet under the dash in my girlfriends Corolla ==


We had an excellent documentary on television recently on the SBS channel here in Australia which examined the bibilcal pespective of Goliath. An examination of ancient texts showed a measurement of height which equated to about 200-203cm (or 6'7" - 6'8"), a much more realistic figure than the modern 9' - 10'. I wish I had the link to it as it was a great program.

If you look at websites devoted to tall individuals (eg Robert Wadlow) most of them have some kind of congential pituitary defect, which although creating their extreme size, ultimately renders them susceptible to fragile skeletal structures or immunodeficiencies.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by menjo
Is it possible that the isolation of the Germanic barbarians had anything to do with thier size and the Romans lack of.


This is not intended as an insult, just an observation of Peoples.

You view here, has some TRUTH hidden within to explain your premise, but I think this is due to another reason, that has been overlooked in your commentary.

The Germanic, (Hunnish, Scythian, Bulgar Originated) Peoples, have a past that exceed's the Roman origins. Barbarians may represent the Roman View, but this had been a common trait to their family for eons. Their ancestors can be traced through to 7000 BC.

Romans, as with the Greeks of Today, have a past which comes into existance some 3000 or 4000 BC at best.

So, maybe that "Genetic Trace", resides still, in the makeup of the Germanic peoples.

And the missing sequence with the following cultures such as the Romans and Greek's lacked this, since they have no direct Kinship with the Fallen.

In both cases, at this Point, the gods and dieties are no longer physical, but solely a spiritual concept as are the decendants and Nephilium, since the Flood removed these from the earth.

Which of course, is unlike the People who Originated from the Steppes region, since they have always been there, since Recreation.

I trust you get what I am suggesting.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Eerrm, Shane I'm not sure where you're going with this. The German peoples emerge from Jutland at some point during the late iron age and their earliest history is extremely vague.
The Scythians on the other hand came from central asia, and we really do know a lot about them, thanks to archaeology. They had nothing at all to do with the Germans.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by menjo
Is it possible that the isolation of the Germanic barbarians had anything to do with thier size and the Romans lack of.


In both cases, at this Point, the gods and dieties are no longer physical, but solely a spiritual concept as are the decendants and Nephilium, since the Flood removed these from the earth.

Which of course, is unlike the People who Originated from the Steppes region, since they have always been there, since Recreation.

I trust you get what I am suggesting


Dude just to make it clear the bible does not say that all the nephilim kere killed off!

the nephilim are the decendents of the elohim!

various tribes found in the old testement are decendents of the nephillim

"The Nefilim were upon the Earth in those days and thereafter too. Those sons of the gods who cohabited with the daughters of the Adam, and they bore children into them. They were the Mighty Ones of Eternity"
- Genesis 6:4
(of course depends on which translation!)

notice the "The Nefilim were upon the Earth in those days and thereafter too."

im not saying what your getting at is wrong- but there is no where in the bible that says they were spiritual beings either



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
this whole idea originally basis itself upon faith...

also, angels and humans would have to AT LEAST be in the same genus. i doubt they're in the same species

the children of the angels and humans would then be infertile, and in the 1 in 1 trillion chance that the children could produce offspring, they would be infertile



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
this whole idea originally basis itself upon faith...

also, angels and humans would have to AT LEAST be in the same genus. i doubt they're in the same species

the children of the angels and humans would then be infertile, and in the 1 in 1 trillion chance that the children could produce offspring, they would be infertile


I agree about the infertility, but if we are saying these biengs are of god/et orgin, i think they would be able to overcome genetic problems!



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris the watcher
I agree about the infertility, but if we are saying these biengs are of god/et orgin, i think they would be able to overcome genetic problems!


I'm still highly doubtful at best. Proof anywhere? At all?
And... if they could solve the genetic problem this would mean making it vanish, in which case there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I can't believe I just wrote that. It's Friday, it's lunch, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, I therefore deserve a beer.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by Chris the watcher
I agree about the infertility, but if we are saying these biengs are of god/et orgin, i think they would be able to overcome genetic problems!


I'm still highly doubtful at best. Proof anywhere? At all?
And... if they could solve the genetic problem this would mean making it vanish, in which case there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I can't believe I just wrote that. It's Friday, it's lunch, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, I therefore deserve a beer.



Have a nice hol! Have a few beers!!!



posted on May, 27 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Edit: Found answer to own question.

[edit on 27-5-2007 by Freezer]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
There are many archeological sites and remains that point to a species of man that grew to what we would call giant size.
Humans are no different than any other species that exists on this planet. We are a result of genetics and enviroment. That our species can reach a 'giant' size is not at question, as there are living 'giants' in the world today.
The archeological record of North America shows that there were tribes of large Homo Sapiens on the continent. A good deal of that is hushed up or discarded because it is seen a proof that doesn't fit the model universally accepted in the ivory towers.
The arguement that they couldn't have existed as a species because they would have had deformities and health problems is flawed. Giants of our species have health problems because our genes are not programed to work at that size and mass. If a race of 'giants' evolved, their genetic makeup would be slightly different to make allowances for these factors. It is survival of the fittest, after all.
There is no problem with a pygmy species of Human, because we can talk to them. The same with people of dark skin or different facial features. But the idea that 'giants' walked the earth really disturbs some people.
There have been burial caves found in the American South West that contain the remains of red haired giants 9ft tall. There was no mention of physical deformity, and they were discribed as having a robust build. Unfortunately I can't find a link to this information.
Why they would have died out is fairly self evident. As a species, we don't react well to differences and would definitely have tried to remove a large competing race of Human from our territory. As they couldn't blend in with other people, they would have been an easy target.
I also seem to remember some reference to 'giants' being captured and tamed for warfare. A 9 ft human with a club would have been terrifying on the battlefeild.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Howdy Direwolf

We look forward to the evidence you have to support these beliefs.

One question

If the evidence has been supressed, how do you know about it? I suspect you have been reading some of the openly published (and still easily available) fictional books put out on this subject years ago. I presume you have read Corliss?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Direwolf
 


Those red haired giants were found in Paw Paw Creek. I believe the Kurgan's and other eastern Russian tribes came to the Americas before the Native Americans we are familiar with today.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Hello Hanslune:
I'm afraid that I've never read any modern fictional accounts of giants, aside from the Harry Potter books. My tastes run more to detective and scifi. And I've never heard of Corliss. Is he/she a good writter?
I was incorrect about those red haired giants. They were only eight foot tall. Mea Culpa
The reference to captured war giants comes from many ancient cultures in the Middle east and Asia. The Persians were suposed to have captive giants, elephants, rhino, tigers, bears and wolves for use in battle. Must have been quite the sight, if it really happened. It could have been ancient propoganda. The Mongols used giants in battle, and so did the Chinese. Roman legions gave accounts of Germanic giants, huge men that fought like beasts and towered over the other barbarians.
The problem with giants is that there is alot of anecdotal evidence, but the hard evidence, such as remains and skeletons tend to disappear or become mislaid. The Smithsonian is guilty of this on several occasions, but my beleif is that the skeletal remains raised too many questions and caused the scientists of the time to dispose of them.
Here are a few sites about giants. I just wish I was able to point to an archeological site, but as far as I know, the majority are now towns or cropland.

Giants
www.geocities.com...
www.freerepublic.com...
www.s8int.com...
paranormal.about.com...
www.sydhav.no...
solomonspalding.com...
www.ripleysorlando.com...
www.geocities.com...
www.geocities.com...www.biblebelievers.org.au...
www.xpeditionsmagazine.com...
www.stevequayle.com...www.bibleufo.com...

Beware of the announced giant of Saudi Arabia. It was a winner in a photoshop contest and has found its way across the internet.

(edited to fix url statements)

[edit on 21-8-2007 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Howdy Direwolf

Corliss:


Wiki
William R. Corliss is an American physicist and writer who has come known for known for his interest in collecting data regarding anomalous phenomena. Since 1978, Corliss has published a number of works in the "Sourcebook Project": Each volume is devoted to a scientific field (archaeology, astronomy, geology, et cetera) and features articles culled almost exclusively from scientific journals. Corliss was inspired by Charles Fort, who decades earlier also collected reports of unusual phenomena. Unlike Fort, Corliss offers little in the way of his own opinions or editorial comments, preferring to let the articles speak for themselves. Corliss quotes all relevant parts of articles (often reprinting entire articles or stories, including illustrations). Many of the articles in Corliss's works were earlier mentioned by Fort works. Corliss has written many other books and articles, notably including 13 educational books about astronomy, outer space and space travel for NASA and a similar number for the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation.


In his material you will find all known earlier references to giants.

I would question your statement that the Smithsonian has been destroying evidence. The Smith would not have had access to the rest of the world's evidence. So why would, say the Chinese, destroy evidence of giants?

In the 18th, 19th and early 20th century a belief in giants, based on the Bible was wide spread. Scientists of that time would have had no problems dealing with the reality of giants. A great deal of time was spent looking for them. Based not only on the Bible but other sources. The end result was Nada.

The problem has been the lack of evidence for them and numerous hoaxes.

How about you picking the best three pieces of evidence you feel prove that Giants actually existed (Giants as a species not the odd tall human)

Regards
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthwillsetyoufree
 


Giants did once live on the earth.
I believe.
Both Biblical and physical evidence support this.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The Bible mentions them but the Bible is a book of wisdom not science.

I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you find compelling.

regards




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join