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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   
solomonspalding.com...
www.xpeditionsmagazine.com...
www.stevequayle.com...
These three sites seem to list the best record of 'giant' peoples in North America.
My statement about the Smithsonian was "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."
I didn't say that the Smithsonian was involved in some conspiracy to erase the worlds evidence of giants. And I stand by my conclusion that the remains that were sent to the Smithsonian were disposed of somehow. By either storing in mislabled boxes or by other deliberate means, they have been lost to the public trust. During the 1880's and to some degree up to present day, evidence of an archeological nature that doesn't fit in the beaurocratic sciences definition of mans evolution or creation is discarded, lost or hidden away. Once a scientist has spent a lifetime acheiving a position based upon a certain set of facts, they feel extremely threatened by anything that imperically challenges those facts. A quick perusal of the scientific journals will show cases of evidence being 'discovered' in the storage rooms of museums and institutes. Science only recognizes what it is prepared to recognize.
In the references that are provided here, you will find numerous reports of graveyards containing multiple skeletons of 'giant' proportions. You will also find accounts of them being exumed by Dr.'s and Professors and shipped to the Smithsonian and other Natural History Museums for study. I have yet to find a case of the skeletal remains being availiable after they confirmed receipt of said remains.
I have no knowledge of skeletal remains found in China, or their destruction. I stated that there are Chinese records of using 'giants' in battle. Also of Mongols and Persians doing the same. These are stories of battles and wars that come from ancient sources. As I wasn't there at the time, I can't verify the accuracy of the tales, nor can I guarantee that the 'giants' involved weren't just huge Mongol or Chinese warriors.
As for your position, can you please provide some documentary proof that 'giants' don't and have never existed on this planet at any time since the beginning of man. Three peices of evidence from varying reputable sources that prove that such a race is impossible and could have never existed. Please note that opinion is not a proof of nonexistance.




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Direwolf
These three sites seem to list the best record of 'giant' peoples in North America.
Hans: What I meant was three pieces of evidence not three websites. Pick what you feel are the three strongest, best evidenced pieces of information that prove Giants exist.
My statement about the Smithsonian was "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."
I didn't say that the Smithsonian was involved in some conspiracy to erase the worlds evidence of giants.

Hans: Actually you are and you restate it below.

And I stand by my conclusion that the remains that were sent to the Smithsonian were disposed of somehow.

Hans: Evidence of this? Evidence by the way is not a book or website repeating (or just making up) information that is second or third hand, it should be a primary source.

By either storing in mislabled boxes or by other deliberate means, they have been lost to the public trust.

Hans: Why not just destroy it? Actually things ARE lost in museums and libraries. I had a job once looking up just that sort of stuff. It is rarely done deliberately. Ever lose something in your house? Take that and mulitiple what you have by x10,000-100,000 times. Much work in such places is done by students and poorly paid/volunteers, who often make mistakes or take short cuts.

During the 1880's and to some degree up to present day, evidence of an archeological nature that doesn't fit in the beaurocratic sciences definition of mans evolution or creation is discarded, lost or hidden away.

Hans: Then why were so many new discoveries made? Minoan? Sumeria? Elamite, etc, etc

Once a scientist has spent a lifetime acheiving a position based upon a certain set of facts, they feel extremely threatened by anything that imperically challenges those facts.

Hans: Actually they don’t, the most successful well known scientists are one who discover something new not those who find nothing but status quo – think about it and name a famous scientist who became famous by doing nothing, discovering nothing? I can name thousands who found new things.

A quick perusal of the scientific journals will show cases of evidence being 'discovered' in the storage rooms of museums and institutes. Science only recognizes what it is prepared to recognize.

Hans: Yes, and that is often due to new information, a few cases of people distorting science for personal, religious or political views are known but they are rare exception. May scientists like to do the field work and often die or lack the funding to complete the investigations.


In the references that are provided here, you will find numerous reports of graveyards containing multiple skeletons of 'giant' proportions. You will also find accounts of them being exumed by Dr.'s and Professors and shipped to the Smithsonian and other Natural History Museums for study.

Hans: And you are certain that these are real and not hoaxes, again pick the three you think are strongest and we’ll go from there.
I have yet to find a case of the skeletal remains being availiable after they confirmed receipt of said remains.
Hans: Who confirmed what? Evidence?


I have no knowledge of skeletal remains found in China, or their destruction. I stated that there are Chinese records of using 'giants' in battle. Also of Mongols and Persians doing the same. These are stories of battles and wars that come from ancient sources. As I wasn't there at the time, I can't verify the accuracy of the tales, nor can I guarantee that the 'giants' involved weren't just huge Mongol or Chinese warriors.

Hans: You seem to be implying that all this conspiracy is happening in the US and no evidence of giants exists outside in the rest of world. I presume th




Mod Edit-How to Quote– Please Review This Link.







[edit on 23-8-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Hans:
If you are trying to disprove the past existance of giants, you are going to have to work a little harder at it.
You said that I stated that the Smithsonian is involved in a conspiracy to erase evidence of the worlds giants. What I said is that I stand by my conclusion that remains sent to the Smithsonian were disposed of. I don't know if that is proof of a conspiracy, only that it lends credence to my stating
"During the 1880's and to some degree up to present day, evidence of an archeological nature that doesn't fit in the beaurocratic sciences definition of mans evolution or creation is discarded, lost or hidden away"
As to the discoveries of Minoan and Sumeria, they were civilizations that were mentioned in some ancient writing and therefore could be put into the context of the archeological mindset. Remember that at the time of the 1880's all archeology had to conform to the Biblical reference and fall within a 5000 yr time frame.
At the time in which the references took place, science was still a beaurocratic proceedure and new things were held to a diferent scale than today. For an example of this, compare Tesla and Edison. In truth, Thomas Edison never invented a thing in his life. He was a visionary in the business of running research laboratories and patenting the result. The lightbulb he is so famous for was actually invented and patented in Canada and sold to Edison when his shops experiments failed.
In comparison, Tesla invented hundreds of items including wireless communication, AC power, remote control machines, flourescent tubesm AC motors, etc. Yet he was hounded as a charleton until his dying day.

You don't accept historical record as proof, even when recorded by people of standing. The records indicate that there were these graveyards and that remains were sent to and received by the Smithsonian. If we are to discount all records as being a hoax, please provide proof that the Romans ever fought the Egyptians. The artifacts in Rome could be the result of tourists bringing home souveniers.
Discrediting my veiw by claiming it is a conspiricy theory is a low attempt. Do some research into historical science and you will find that a mans whole worth was based upon his scientific standing and they would do a great deal to preserve that standing. The Royal Society in England is a good place to start. They held the reins of science for centuries and decided for the world what was true and what was false. Please note that many members were lords or knights, and that politics and religion were as important to the scientific process as fact was.

Yes, things are lost in museum collections. But it was also an easy way to deal with specimens that brought up uncomfortable issues. And while going through the collections there have been cases of 'misplaced' items that contradicted the wisdom current when the specimen was received. In a later time, it was found and used to prove or disprove a theory, but only at a later time. Museum Curators got their position in the old days by being the right kind of scientist for the time. But being a Curator, one would hope that the preservation of a specimen would overcome their self preservation and allow them to misplace as opposed to destroy a specimen.
I would say that you should stop trying to place all the evidence in a 2007 time frame and try looking at the period in which it is recorded. Science and archeology has come a long way since most of the listed references. If I had the resources, I would love to go to the South Western US and search and excavate some of the sites for hard imperical evidence. In my opinion, I'm sure that with some research and effort some evidence would be found.
Please do your homework before jumping on me again.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
My apologies, I double posted.
[edit on 26/8/07 by Direwolf]

[edit on 26/8/07 by Direwolf]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Howdy Direwolf

“If you are trying to disprove the past existance of giants, you are going to have to work a little harder at it. “

There is no need to disprove the past existence of giants as there existence has never been proved in the first place.

Be show evidence that the Smithsonian has hidden away evidence? What is your primary source for this statement?

Sorry Direworld but you are incorrect, the only mention of these early civilizations was one word, Shumer, in the bible a place name for Mesopotamia. Both civilizations were unknown to the world at their time of discovery. After there discovery new sources and re-evaluation of old sources found other pieces of confirming data (mention of Minoan’s in Egyptian sources, etc)

Not all scientists of the time went with that (the Bishop Usher’s date of the earth), especially the non-Christian ones. The age of the earth was a long debated issue at that time. Gathering evidence against and for it was a major activity.

There was just the beginning of an academic structure, most scientist were independent and had no contacts with the government/government funds. Many were independently financed AFAIK the first Archaeology degree was awarded in the late 1890’s in the UK.

“You don't accept historical record as proof”

Sorry Direwolf but you have not presented any such evidence. All you have done is post links to web pages, the equivalent of giving me a book and saying “look it up”. I recommend (again) that you post in your own words, with links to the supporting primary evidence the three best pieces of evidence you have for Giants. Remember other than say so and post links to large websites, you have not done so. I'm kinda puzzle as to why you refuse to do that???

“Please do your homework before jumping on me again.” Unfortunately you are still in error and pointing out said errors is not ”jumping on you”.

Let us review the facts:

1. The existence of Giants has not been proven
2. AFAIK there is no known evidence for Giants

That is pretty much the status quo. If you say you have something new, new evidence or a relook at previous examined and rejected evidence, please put it forth!



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
From a genetic point of view, I don't see any problem with the biblical concept of the Nephilim.

Horses + donkeys, lions + tigres, African + Indian elephants are all quite obviously different to each other, and yet both can interbreed. They may not produce viable, fertile offspring, but they do produce offspring. I have read articles that suggest neanderthal man interbred with modern humans (although, probably some time ago. I just realised that sentence implied some kind of cross-generation necrophilic inclination).

In the case of lions + tigres, gigantism or dwarfism occurs. Just a thought.

As I recall, Goliath was supposedly 9 foot tall. The thing about the old testament (i have literally just finished reading it, and I'm re-reading it now) is that all the numbers are consistent. They might not make sense (40 years wandering on what was probably a months journey, max) but they are consistent and the israelites knew where they were and what was going on.

They know exactly how big the ark of noah and the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle were. They are very precise and repetative about their measurements.

I think you have to address the legend itself as well. If I were going to fabricate a giant opponent, why would I stop at 9 feet? If the nephilim are well-known in the israelite mythology, surely I'd invent a bad guy with greater traits to emphasize the danger to David?


I find myself digressing somewhat, but if "the sons of god" did come down and get it on with human women, is it not possible that the resulting children would be affected by gigantism and result in a race of giants?



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Truthwillsetyoufree
 


OK, to all those questioning if giants were real, yes. These unfortunate people still exist today with a disease known as gigantism. It is a very dibilitating disease when at full strength. There are documenteries about people at least 8ft, the tallest that i have seen was 9'2. Discovery health channel and national geographic have the docu's if anyone wants to check facts. These people suffer from an excessive amount of growth hormone that is excreeted in abnormal amounts over a lifetime. The form mainly seen today is pituitary gigantism, where there is a tumor that prmotes this kind of " abnormal" growth. I am a nursing student now studying this disease and found the conversation and wanted to share my own findings, since the class is now diagnosing Goliath's type of gigantism.



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:37 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.


Bingo! Now we're getting somewhere. Let's recap first:


Book of Enoch - Content

The Book of Enoch describes the fall of the Watchers who fathered the Nephilim. The fallen angels then went to Enoch to intercede on their behalf with God. The remainder of the book describes Enoch's visit to Heaven in the form of a vision, and his revelations.

The book contains descriptions of the movement of heavenly bodies (in connection with Enoch's trip to Heaven), and some parts of the book have been speculated about as containing instructions for the construction of a solar declinometer (the Uriel's machine theory).

Book of Enoch - The book is made up of five sections:

* 1. Book of the Watchers (Ch. 1-36)
* 2. The Book of Parables (Ch. 37-71) (Perhaps at one point, instead of this was the "Book of Giants")
* 3. The Book of Luminaries (Ch. 72 - 82)
* 4. The Dream visions (83-90)
* 5. The Epistle of Enoch (91 - 108)

Influence from the book has been traced in the Hiberno-Latin poem Altus prosator.

Book of Enoch - Names of the fallen angels

* Shemyazaz (also called Samyaza)
* Araqiel (also spelled Arakiel)
* Rameel (Azazel)
* Kokabiel
* Tamiel
* Ramiel
* Daniel (see Daniel (angel))
* Chazaqiel
* Baraqiel (also called Baraqel)
* Asael
* Armaros
* Batariel
* Bezaliel (called 'Busasejal' or 'Basasael')
* Ananiel
* Zaqiel
* Shamsiel
* Satariel
* Turiel
* Yomiel
* Sariel

The book of Enoch depicts the interaction of the fallen angels with mankind: "Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals 〈of the earth〉 and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures".. "S[h]emyaza[z] taught enchantments, and root-cuttings Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqiel [taught] astrology, Kokabel [taught] the constellations, Chazaqiel [taught] the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel [taught] the signs of the earth, Shamsiel [taught] the signs of the sun, and Sariel [taught] the course of the moon" 1 Enoch VIII v 1. Later Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel look down and see the lawlessness caused by the fallen angels and make a petition to God to act. Uriel is sent to Noah to reveal to him the flood that is coming. Raphael is sent to bind Azazel, while Michael is sent to bind the associates of Shemyazaz (also called Samyaza or Satan).


There is a theory which is currently generating more steam that the Watchers and Nephilim were and advanced people (at the time) from Europe who had mastered astronomy and various other technological advances (metalwork for example). I believe this was popularised by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas in the book 'Uriel's Machine' which I suggest everyone in this thread goes and seeks out immediately.

Click Here for their website summary.


Uriel's Machine shows how a prehistoric unit of measurement (the Megalithic Yard), accurate to a fraction of a millimetre, is derived from observational astronomy and explains how it can be duplicated by anybody who wishes to repeat the simple experiments, described in the book.



they show how a civilisation merged and was able to build an international network of sophisticated astronomical observatories which provided accurate calendars, could measure the diameter of the planet and accurately predict comet impact years in advance. They reveal that this is the true purpose of the great megalithic sites in Western Europe built long before the Egyptian pyramids. Further they show that the Book of Enoch, long a part of ancient tradition of Freemasonry but then rediscovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, contains precise details on the building of a machine for the reconstruction of a shattered world.


Having read the book I have to say I agree with their findings, I expect the heavily religious types will be outraged and/or find it incomprehensible that we are not referring to divine beings... the evidence is certainly in the theory's favour rather than faith in supernatural or super-human superstitions.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTileSpook
There have been skeletons of American Indians discovered here in Indiana that were measured to be between 9 and 11 feet tall, and a skull was found on the Western side of the state (if I remember correctly) that fit over a normal man's sized head like a helmet.

The above can't be considered a "race of giants", but there were some abnormally large people around, just like today.

JDub

They weren't American Indians.
They were described as having red hair and signs of metal-working that American Indians have never shown any signs of.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
For this topic, like big foot and nessie you're going to need a skeleton, in particular one well preserved enough to have capturable mDNA, etc


The lack of evidence for giants and the amount of fake and hoax information on it has so muddied the waters that no other type of evidence will clear it up.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   
"To sum up, the longitudinal development and body proportions of the Sunhgir 1 are typical for representatives of the Early Upper Paleolithic and differ from the body built of Magdalenians. Sunghir 1 belongs to the group of the giant Cro-Magnon population."

www.rc.ru...


the neolithic metalworking chiefs buried at Alsónyék are called giants by anthropologists too.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by menjo


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... =]

Sounds like "natural selection" to me.
An isolated, fairly aggressive group of people, in a harsh environment, would probably adhere to a "strongest is leader" culture.
Bigger, stronger males get more chances to breed. Passing on taller genes, etc.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by SumnerKagan]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Alas, I do not have the minimum 20 posts required to initiate a new thread or I would do so. But since this thread is here I'll use it.

I'm eyeball deep in researching a project on so called "giant" humans. As all can see, the web is filled with these stories, many of them hoaxes, even more of them just hearsay repetitions of the hoaxes. Initially I believed that if even a small fraction of these stories were based in fact there must be some kind of documentation stashed away somewhere to support them, and that if I looked long and hard enough I would eventually sniff out some of it.

It seems I may have been wrong about that. Thus far all I have are stories that read: "In the year 18-something-something civil engineers working on the such-and-such dam dug up seven mumified giants who ranged from 12 to 14 feet tall, yada, yada, yada...."

They rarely contain any references to the source of the story. Those that do contain references lead to nowhere if you attempt to locate the source for the reference (i.e., American Antiquarian, v3 1880, pg61 turns up frequently and if you run it down you get only a listing name with the comment the record is no longer in print and not a stitch of the original text to tell you what it might have contained - this is common.)

There are a lot of bright, inquisitive, investigative folks on this forum and I'm hoping to tap into that pool of experience in order to find new leads to pursue in my research.

Let me explain what I'm NOT looking for. I don't want a flame war or debate. I already know all the reasons why it is improbable from a factual standpoint that these giant hominoids ever existed. Believe me, I get it, and I don't need further clarification on this point. I'm perfectly willing to concede they never existed, or most likely never existed once I've exhausted all routes of investigation and come up empty. I'm also not looking for photographic evidence. Photoshop makes photographic evidence absolutely worthless. I can't consider photographs or videos to be evidence regardless of their source (or more likely, alleged source.) And last, no scriputural references, whether Christian, Hindu or otherwise. Virtually none of them can be documented, and their whole inclusion would be too emotionally charged to be of any practical value, though personally I believe some of them may be accurate. For research I have to disqualify them.

What I AM hoping for is to be pointed in the direction of solid, verifiable leads that contain either references to physical trace remains that can be verified currently, i.e., in a museum, a private collection, etc., where someone can go and look at them. Stories that such things are "said to exist" don't interest me. There are millions of those and they're basically of no value. I would also be interested in accounts which lead to verifiable documentation by reputable sources whose work can be accessed and checked today. Again, something like that American Antiquities reference above is of no value as it leads nowhere. It's contents, whatever they may have been cannot be verified today.

Again, I'm not looking for a debate. I well understand the reasons these creatures may be nothing more than fiction. As Sergeant Friday used to say, I'm seeking "Just the facts, Ma'am."

As an example of what I'm looking for, the one promising factoid I've been able to locate speaks of two giant mummies in a gold museum in Lima Peru. These exhibits are there to this day, though the source who first identified and measured them (Glenn Kimball) is contradicted by someone in writing from the museum's staff. They don't deny the mummies exist, only that they do not match Kimball's description and measurements. But in theory, anyone could go there and with permission, measure these exhibits right now. That's the sort of leads I'm hoping some of you sharp folks can put me on to.

Muchos gracias

~R~



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RavensShadow
What I AM hoping for is to be pointed in the direction of solid, verifiable leads that contain either references to physical trace remains that can be verified currently, i.e., in a museum, a private collection, etc., where someone can go and look at them.

RavensShadow,

Sorry, bud, but you are destined to go up nothing but blind alleys on this goose chase.

At least, that's my guess.

There are simply no dependable leads and, to my mind, that's because there were simply never any giants.

Can't have evidence for a thing that never, ever existed.

Harte



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
It may well be that you're dead on the money but I'm not quite ready to throw in the towel just yet. There is the one lead from Lima Peru I'm hoping to pursue. I have family in that part of the world and with a bit of luck it might be possible to obtain current measurments of the two mummies in question.

There are a couple of photographs, suggestive, intriguing, but not conclusive. It is difficult to establish scale from these shots. The one which contains a human patron of the museum in the shot with one of the mummified heads is does not rule out the possibility that the seeming large size of the mummified head may be exaggerated due to the angle the shot was taken from. It is possible the museum patron in the photo was somewhat distant in the background and not on plane with the head, making the apparent size of the mummy appear exaggeratedly large. But who knows? If I can obtain measurements there may just be something to it. And if there is validity in this instance it's possible there are others which will prove to be equally valid.

I'm not yet to the point of writing the whole matter off. Perhaps others have stumbled upon similar leads that I can followup on.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join