Proof of Ancient Giants?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I stumbled upon this website that I am going to provide the link for and I must say, this is the first time I have been presented with actual evidence of any kind, substantial evidence, of the existance of giants tens of thousands of years ago, or possibly sooner.

The book of Genesis tells us there were giants in the early days of mankind, and that these giants were offspring of fallen angels who had children with human women. This would lead one to consider that angels are actually physical beings, being able to 'fall to earth' and physically have intercourse with human women, according to the book of Genesis. When I say physical beings, I'm talking about intelligent lifeforms from somewhere other than the planet Earth originally. But if the giants existed, whether they were actual halfbreed offspring of other worldly beings and humans or they were simply the 'large' version of us isn't important. There were huge versions of modern animals and insects, like the Great Shark(60ft), the Crocodile's ancestor of similar stature, bugs as big as small animals, etc.

Instead of paraphrasing and presenting the persons arguements, I thought i'd link to the site so you can draw your conclusions from the source.

s8int.com...

There are page after page of photographs of various skulls and bones found, as well as substantial stories and other evidence like imprints in rocks and mummified remains. I must say it is somewhat convincing.. while the 6 fingers and/or 6 toes anomaly on the giants as well as the double rows of teeth could be explained as a simple birth defect, the size of some of the remains found cannot be explained. You will see for yourself, some items have been found suggesting giants as tall as 14ft, or as short as 7 to 8 feet. In all likelyhood over different perioids and places there may have been various sizes, like humans. Many remains were found with "giant sized tools" as well. Numerous 8-10 ft tall semi complete skeletons and mummies have been found and there are pictures on that site.

After checking it out let me know what you think; Did giants really exist afterall?

[edit on 19-9-2006 by runetang]




posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   


I stumbled upon this website that I am going to provide the link for and I must say, this is the first time I have been presented with actual evidence of any kind, substantial evidence, of the existance of giants tens of thousands of years ago, or possibly sooner.

and you didn't immediately become suspicious that this information isn't to be found anywhere else ?
a lot of this stuff falls apart at the slightest scrutiny
i'll decipher the biblical stuff first to show you what i mean

i will first post the quotes from Oooparts and then the actual quotations from the Hebrew bible (i.e. the real source)

ooparts
2 Samuel 21
In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot--twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother, killed him.

Hebrew source
20 And there was again war at Gath, where was a champion, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. 21 And when he taunted Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him.

the Giant referenced is Goliath and it says nothing about this guy being a giant. so you have to rely on the bibles original accuracy of claiming that Goliath was 6 cubits and a span tall (about 9 feet). its a bit like a fisherman claiming that he hooked a great white shark in the river but it got away in that there is no evidence that Golaith even lived let alone he was tall

ooparts
Numbers 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

hebrew source
33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'

no mention of giants at all

ooparts
Deuteronomy 2:11
Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims.

hebrew source
11 these also are accounted Rephaim, as the Anakim; but the Moabites call them Emim.

no mention of giants at all

ooparts
Deuteronomy 2:20
(That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

hebrew source
20 That also is accounted a land of Rephaim: Rephaim dwelt therein aforetime; but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim,

ooparts
Deuteronomy 3:11
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man

hebrew source
11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

you'll see this is presented as some evidence that Og was a giant because he had a large bed. By the same rules a visit to your local bed shop will inform you that the vast majority of the population are over 7 feet tall

ooparts
Deuteronomy 3:13
And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

hebrew source
13 and the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half-tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob--all that Bashan is called the land of Rephaim.

no giants once again
most of these mistranslation came about during the rewriting of the bible into the King James Version. the scholars of the time had no idea what the rephaim or the nefelim were so they translated the word whenever they saw it as giants
the purpose of writing the king james version was to further christianise something that was essentially the religious book of a different religion
as such its currently used by fundies all over the wolrd as the word of god when really its the word of man corrupted in order to become more useful to control other men

after this Ooparts goes on to discuss GIGANTOPITHECUS" & "MEGANTHROPUS"

"There is no controversy about these facts; there was a race or group of people found in Australia called "meganthropus" by anthropologists. These people were of very large size--estimated between 7 to 12 feet tall, depending on what source you read"

this is completely wrong
you can read the real truth aboutthese species here
en.wikipedia.org...
and here
en.wikipedia.org...

considering that Ooparts usually puts its best evidence on the first few pages the quality of it goes rapidly downhill after this
take for example the welsh giant found fossilised in 1895 for instance
look at the picture and then tell me the last time you saw anything fossilised with all its flesh intact

this kind of giant evidence is a direct result of the biblical quote "there were giants in the earth in those days (genesis 6:4)
the original source actually says
"The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown"

so in the last century there were lots of finds that backed up what the bible said and attributed the creation of the earth to 4004 bce when it was built by god in seven days
this was a belief inspired by Bishop James Usher who working backwards adding the ages of the patriarach together reached the date of gods creation
en.wikipedia.org...
after this biblical scholars attempted to fit all of existence into this timeframe

the results of this today have led to the existence of groups you may have heard of such as young earthers and creationists
this brings us back to Ooparts
it is in fact a creationist christian website masquerading as scientific truth of Noahs flood
as you would have seen if you'd actually read the homepage
s8int.com...
pinch of salt
know what I mean




[edit on 19-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The fact that the website is a Christan website that is trying to scientificly prove anything does not discredit it alone, nor does it give me any bias towards it. I don't discriminate against anything Christian simply because it's Christian like the majority of civilized western society does, lol.


I have to say you did waste alot of typing explaining all that bible stuff; I know that giants and nephilim are interchangable words in the text, as is anakim and rephaim, all of which are words for 'angels' or 'fallen angels', or translated otherwise as 'giants'. In Deuteronomy, it's explained that when the Israelites led by Moses came upon the land of the 'Rephaim', they were much larger / taller in stature than the Israelites; for they complain to Moses after scouting that the townspeople they are preparing to attack intimidate them greatly because of this size difference. Moses then goes on to say that God is with them and they will be victorious. The famous Og of Bashaan was their leader, or one of their leaders I should say, and his brief tale is described in Deuteronomy as well.

However, the 'angels' were described as being larger than human beings in the text of the bible and even more so in the gnostic book of Enoch, which I have read.

Of course, to the Sumerian creation theory conspiracist, or should I say, to someone who follows Zecharia Sitchin's work would say the words nephilim, anakim, and rephaim were words for the anunnaki, the 'gods from outer space' in Sumerian myth according to Sitchin. And we both know that most of the oldest Old Testament works are founded on earlier Sumerian myths and legends, ie; The Flood.

So I come to the conclusion that something fishy is going on here. Sure, they may not have been literal giants like dungeons and dragons giants, and s8int.com might not have authentic photographs, but this doesn't explain why there are mentionings of giants or nephilim in the Old Testament as well as various Gnostic gospels that the Catholic Church did not include in the 'official bible', for this very reason no doubt.

To sum it up, the Sumerians myth and the book of Genesis(and Enoch) can be linked by the presence of humanoid beings that were larger than us modern humans. The Sumerian sketchings show this, the extremely tall anunnaki compared to the smaller humans, the perspective is given. In the bible, one can link the giant/nephilim stuff directly to the older Sumerian belief or influence, as these are the only two that specificly speak of beings from the sky that had offspring with human women to create what is called 'giants' or 'rephaim' or 'anakim', where as 'nephilim' and 'elohim' are usually reserved for the actual beings from the sky, ie; 'fallen angels'.

I personally think that our past as human beings is much stranger than we'd like to admit or think about, and that beings of another kind have come to the earth at some point as well.

You know, if that crap about the Pyramids being older than the Egyptians is true, the theory that the Pyramids are 10,000+ yrs old, I could see how the labour was performed by people much stronger than us. Same thing goes for Stone Henge; while both could be made by humans, we get perplexed that ancient humans who lived so uncivil could use technologies, albiet basic mechanical ones, to assist them in the construction of these huge monuments. Theres a Celtic legend that Stone Henge was built by a giant named Gog or Magog or some such, that lived on some small isle. In that legend, he picked up the stones and carried them across the water or some such. Could it be possible that it was actually built by more than one 'giant'? How did the idea of a giant building the Stone Henge even come about? Do you find it ironic at all?

I'm not saying I believe 'giants' built these structures, I just don't dismiss the idea either because there is lack of substantial evidence to definitively go either way, in my opinion of course.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   


The Sumerian sketchings show this, the extremely tall anunnaki compared to the smaller humans,

got any evidence for this you could show me ?




I have to say you did waste alot of typing explaining all that bible stuff; I know that giants and nephilim are interchangable words in the text,

well we both know thats the case but we aren't the only two people reading this with that foreknowledge are we


[edit on 19-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Ah I see, well, you could at least have said that the words were interchangable, not that the word giant is a mistranslation. I mean do we know that to be a fact, and based on who's bible? Imagine how many different versions of the bible have these obscure passages written with the interchangable words.

Oh yeah, anunnaki picture, coming right up. The big guy on the right side sitting on the throne is an anunnaki, and the little people on the right side are human servants/worshippers.



(P.S. -- the two tiny little beings inside the box / throne that the anunnaki is sitting on are the anunnaki's servants, possibly 'greys' if we say that anunnaki = alien)

[edit on 19-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   


Oh yeah, anunnaki picture, coming right up. The big guy on the right side sitting on the throne is an anunnaki, and the little people on the right side are human servants/worshippers


the big guy on the right is in fact a statue of the sun god shamash
the people on the box are decorative

there are hundreds of texts from this period
none of them mention giants and there is in fact no sumerian or akkadian word for "giant"



as for the changing of Nefilim into giants
why don't you ask a rabbi
i'm sure he will tell you that at no time do the Hebrews claim that the Nefilim were giants
it is purely a belief of the scholars who wrote the KJV
the Hebrew bible is the original
so any later variants are irrelevant

i see that you do your research at xfacts

it is not a credible source
the claims it makes for the Enuma Elish for instance are laughable




posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Ah I see, well, you could at least have said that the words were interchangable, not that the word giant is a mistranslation.

No, they are mistranslations. Nephtelim is not a synonym for "giant" although a few versions treat it thus. Look it up in any Biblican concordance.



Oh yeah, anunnaki picture, coming right up. The big guy on the right side sitting on the throne is an anunnaki, and the little people on the right side are human servants/worshippers.



(P.S. -- the two tiny little beings inside the box / throne that the anunnaki is sitting on are the anunnaki's servants, possibly 'greys' if we say that anunnaki = alien)


No, not really.

It's a Sumerian deity (and this is according to the cuneiform text on the image) called Shamash. In those days, the image of the ruler or god was always shown as very large (as though he's close to the viewer) and everyone else was shown as being small (as though they are far away.)



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
No I don't do 'research' at xfacts, infact, all I did was do a google image search for anunnaki and that, among other pics, came up. I chose it due to the perspective, showing humans.

So, that is a carving of a carving you say? I don't know definitively, but if it is, I've seen ALOT more pictures with similar bearded figures, much taller than humans, with humans in the pictures as well. These pictures I've seen were all on the internet and all supposed to be specificly Sumerian in origin.

I personally don't think the Nephilim were Giants, I think they were Angels, if anything. The Giants came along when the Angels supposedly had children with Humans. This pairing, I can speculate, would produce strange offspring.

The gnostic book of Enoch depicts Enoch's wife giving birth to a child not from his seed. The child was 'golden' and 'shining' and starting growing faster than a regular human newborn, as it is described in the book. To be honest, I forget if Enoch kills it or not, I think he does.

Enoch was supposedly Noah's grandfather, or great grandfather, so this is clearly pre-flood. I would suggest locating the gnostic book of enoch, sometimes called the apocalypse of enoch, and reading it to see how much detail is actually given in one of many Christian/Jewish writings that was removed from the Gospel.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It's a Sumerian deity (and this is according to the cuneiform text on the image) called Shamash.


Precisely. Sumerian deities WERE the Nephilim/Anunnaki/whatever .. and this is where the Giant myth came from, and this is where the book of Genesis gets the term 'There were giants in those days' or nephilim, whatever. The writers of the Old Testament were heavily influenced during their exile in Babylon, where Sumerian/Akkadian traditions were still in existance, and the deities were the same with different names, for instance Marduk/Baal. This is a God that some speculate the exiled Jews associated with Satan.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
1 more thing. I am not a literalist in regards to the Bible, I don't interpret it literally, word for word, precisely as it is written. There is a lot of symbolism and analogies in the writing, as well as creative representations of things/people described as something entirely different.

However, there are quite a few people who do take it literally, specificly Evangelists and the like. So all I am saying is that it is quite clear in the Old Testament that 'something' called Nephilim/Elohim/Angel came to earth and had offspring with human women. These offspring were referred to as Anakim/Rephaim/Giants. To be honest all 6 words are used in similar context, making it quite confusing.

Anyways, these literal interpreters probably do not know about this to such an extent, and they should. They tend to only hold things from the New Testament as literal, and kind of pick and choose from the Tanakh. The Tanakh must be interpreted literally too and thus, there were, to these literal interpreters, Fallen Angels and their half-human offspring dwelling on the face of the Earth at some point in the past.

As I said I don't interpret it literally so I do not hold that view. I feel that its possible, that there was something strange going on during a time that is much too long ago to accurately remember or describe. The best we get is what we have.. which isn't much.

Hell, for all we know, the mentions in the Tanakh and the Gnostic texts of Giants, usually described as being the offspring of Fallen Angels and being evil in nature, could have actually been Neanderthal men snatching away the odd human women that got seperated from the nomadic tribe. Lol, as silly as it sounds, primitive man would've seen neanderthals in exactly this view if they did indeed snatch away human women. Very unlikely, IMO.


[edit on 20-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   


It's a Sumerian deity (and this is according to the cuneiform text on the image) called Shamash. In those days, the image of the ruler or god was always shown as very large (as though he's close to the viewer) and everyone else was shown as being small (as though they are far away.)

Shamash is an Akkadian deity
the picture is of a statue of Shamash the Sun god
Utu is the Sumerian sun god
the akkadians like the sumerians before them and the baylonians after them were idolatrous
they worshipped statues of their gods
the statues were kept in the temples and bought out on special ritual days in processions
the statues were larger than life size and this is reflected in the images of them
once again i will tell you that there is no mention of Giants in any Sumerian or Akkadian text.
I'm not making this up you know
its the truth
misreading what an ancient cylinder seal says is the normal method that pseudo science uses to convince people that ancient aliens were around
they weren't
and this isn't an image of one

the ruler wasn't always shown large in proportion to the rest of the citizens
that was only done with the gods
not all the kings were deified in their lifetimes
especially in the later periods
Sargon the great, Naram Sin, Hammurabi and Enlil Bani are the only four that I can think of....


Runetang
the mentions of Giants in the bible are to be taken with a pinch of salt like the rest of it because its all fiction
clearly there is no actual evidence of any giants left around discovered by archaeology
if they were ever around there would be lots of evidence of them
giant sized evidence thats hard to miss
Kapeesh ?






posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The bones and the skulls says it all !!!
Did anyone else see that except me ?

Those things are huge !



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I'll give you that; theres no definate proof.

And I also agree, to some extent, that certain parts of the bible are fiction, or at least highly exagerated, changed-around, or mistold if not fiction entirely. But I speak of specific parts where as you may refer to the whole as being fiction; I only think parts of it are fiction. Anyways..

I dont think Anunnaki made human beings, and I dont think they exist, but they are the Pagan Gods depicted in a bunch of ancient cultures, The Olympian dietes and be linked to the Egyptian ones which can be loosely linked with Mesopatamian diets from various cultures and even Hindu dieties. Or rather you could link them all as kinda being similar across the board. Lets not forget the dieties of the Nordic peoples and druidic pagan Celts and pre-Celts. I speculate perhaps IF these beings existed, maybe this is how the similarities across the globe in early paganism could be similar?

But if those beings ever existed, which theres no substantial evidence for, we'd have to rethink the whole 'no offspring' thing and many other things. Clearly their offspring with human women, if possible, would come out quite strange, and this legend of a pre-flood time (the only place you'd ever find evidence is maybe a mile below the bottom of the deepest part of the Black Sea) made its way into the bible, but gnostic texts werent allowed into the bible at the Nycene Creed meeting in the Eastern Roman Empire. 4th century AD

edit: R3KR. according to Marduk and others, that website's pictures are not of what they are described as being necessarily, neither is the information there-in, because the website is run my Christian fundamentalists.

I think the pictures of the 8 foot tall skeletons and such are very compelling.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
The bones and the skulls says it all !!!
Did anyone else see that except me ?

Those things are huge !


That's what I'm saying..
are all the bones bunk? some of them?
which ones can't be explained?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
if this was all true

why wouldn't this be more well documented?
would anyone gain anything from covering it up

this all just seems like bunk to me



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
www.returnofthenephilim.com... Evidence of a Race of Giants Are Found in Ancient Legends of Every Old Civilization



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Surley there were giants then as there are now. The Ubangis appear as giants to Pygmy tribes too. It is all relative to the context in which it was originally stated. There have been giant skeletal remains enearthed but we cannot assume any of them were from a "Race," tribe or culture of giant peoples. Paleoarcheology simply has too many gaps remaining to conclude there were substantial numbers.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   


Evidence of a Race of Giants Are Found in Ancient Legends of Every Old Civilization

I'm going to nominate you for "overgeneralisation of the year" award for that comment

from your link



The Return of the Nephilim is a Bible Prophecy in the news Messianic magazine that deals with the End Times New World Order, with a Hebraic flavor to it. We explain in depth the return of satanic hybrids who arise from the sexual union between fallen angels and women. Such a kind of interdimensional abomination already took place during — and also after — the Antediluvian World (i.e. the world before the Flood of Noah). So, we report on recent and current events relating to the UFO phenomena as well as UFO abductions in history and now. We also report on the programmed disintegration of our current society in favor of the New World Order that Satan and his minions are establishing over our planet. We report too on the many changes taking place in nature, plagues and all kinds of cataclysmic events which herald the Return of Messiah YahShuah to judge and rule over the earth during His Millennium Kingdom.


Warning : reading this website may seriously damage your mental health

[edit on 12-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

The book of Genesis tells us there were giants in the early days of mankind, and that these giants were offspring of fallen angels who had children with human women.
Instead of paraphrasing and presenting the persons arguements, I thought i'd link to the site so you can draw your conclusions from the source.

s8int.com...






VERY good find! Excellent!


Absolutely perfect for ATS' section on Ancient and Lost Civilizations.

IMO - your evidence showing that there were in fact ancient giants, who were in fact angels, constitutes far, FAR more substantial evidence of an ancient and lost civilization than for example, the fact that the I Ching is based on a binary numerical system, and contains a calendar similar to the Mayan calendar.

Well worthy of ATS rigorous academic standards.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
The bones and the skulls says it all !!!
Did anyone else see that except me ?

Those things are huge !


Well, the skull does say it all, but it doesn't say what you think it does. It's not a human skull -- and in fact, the deceased creature looks nothing at all like a human. The photo is small (need a larger view), but it may be a short-faced bear (extinct bear):
www.skullsunlimited.com...

The relative size is about right, too:
www.boneclones.com...

(I'll check with a paleontologist friend about what else it might be. There's something about the teeth and the back edge of the skull and the rock coloring that makes me think it may be a dinosaur. But it's not one of the small number that I'm familiar with.)

The key here is the occipital crest (the sticky-up at the back of the skull bit), and the positioning of the zygomatic process (the cheekbone www.gwc.maricopa.edu... ). The temporal bone (back of the cheekbone) isn't in the same place it is in a human or human ancestor. The arch for the eye is in the wrong postions and the brain case (cranium) shows that the creature had a smaller brain than a human being does. The vertebral column (spine) comes out of the back of that skull's head. No human would have that (because you couldn't stand and walk upright.)

The "leg bone" is a sculpture of some sort.

Here's a real femur:
ect.downstate.edu...

In a real human, the condyles (rolled ridges at the bottom of the femur) are not flat. They're the site of the attachment of the capsule for the knee joint. The knee couldn't hinge properly if the condyles were flat (like on that sculpture.)

The sculptor who made that never had a thorough course in anatomy. So there's just "lumps" instead of the real structures where some major muscles that move the bottom leg attach (the obturator externis) and the tiny lump at the top where the psoas major attaches (kind of an important muscle, since it allows you to rotate the hip joint (and you kinda need to do that in order to walk):
education.yahoo.com...

www.meddean.luc.edu...

There's no ridge in the intracondylar arch.

Those features, by the way, are present in real skeletons. You can see them in the skeletons of cats, dogs (you can see a model of the dog knee here: www.gpianatomicals.com... ), tyrannosaurus rex ( www.baystatereplicas.com... ), etc, etc.

So it's a fake. In fact, it's a frequently debunked fake -- but I thought rather than saying "it's fake!" I'd show you how we know. As I recall, it was sculpted on behalf of a religious museum.


(the reason I know this is that I'm paying my way through this semester at a university by teaching the human anatomy and physiology lab. It's designed for pre-med and is fairly detailed.)

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Byrd]





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join