As far as I know it "disappeared" when it was transported by train from one exhibition to another. There were many rumors what actually happened to the body. Some said it was stolen, while others claimed it was sold to a private owner.

I would go with the private owner theory, some of these private collectors have collections that would put the best museums to shame, it all depends on how much money you have and who you know

***Newsflash***
fossils of giants or anything else don't have flesh on their bones

and during that period having an exhibit that pulled the crowds in was a good revenue provider
none of you heard of P.T.Barnum

From 1866 until 1868 Mr. George Hull, of Binghamton, New York studied archeology and paleontology. Over this period of time Hull contemplated how to pull off a hoax. It seems that many an evangelist at the time had been preaching that there were giants in the earth. In June of 1868 Hull traveled back to Fort Dodge, Iowa where there was a gypsum quarry he had recalled seeing two years earlier. Even then, he had noticed that the dark blue streaks running through the soft lime rock resembled human veins. Realizing this its appearance was tailor-made for his hoax and it was easy to carve, Hull hired a group of quarry workers to cut off a slab measuring twelve feet long, four feet wide and two feet thick.

In November, Hull had his gypsum wrapped in canvas and hoisted onto a wagon. Since the nearest railroad was forty miles away, it proved to be a long, difficult job. He then had the slab of gypsum shipped by rail to Chicago where he had hired a stone cutter named Edward Burghardt to carve a giant. Burghardt and his two assistants, were sworn to secrecy and agreed to work on the piece in a secluded barn during their off hours and Sundays. The instructions were to carve the giant as if it had died in great pain, and the final result was an eerie figure, slightly twisted in apparent agony, with his right hand clutching his stomach. All of the details were there; toenails, fingernails, nostrils, sex organs and so forth. Even a needlepoint mallet was used to add authentic-looking skin pores. When the carving was done, sulfuric acid and ink were used to make the figure look aged.

so where is the giant now
probably acting as hardcore under a building somewhere

Originally posted by g60kg
I would go with the private owner theory, some of these private collectors have collections that would put the best museums to shame, it all depends on how much money you have and who you know

Yes, indeed, some have much more than the museums. I guess that if it is in a private collection, it's hopefully a matter of time until we learn more. This skeleton was on three exhibitions never to be seen again. I say, lucky are the ones who saw it.

Originally posted by Patrick_D

Originally posted by g60kg
I would go with the private owner theory, some of these private collectors have collections that would put the best museums to shame, it all depends on how much money you have and who you know

I say, lucky are the ones who saw it.

Now you're starting to sound like yoda

Show himself the giant will

Even this day in age, I bet there are still giants roaming around this earth. We can't go more than a month without discovering some new bird or sea creature. At the far depths of the earth these giants still exist in my opinion.

the best way to explain giants, IMO is to look at the culture

people tend to associate giants with 1 thing
greatness

maybe it's simply a way to explain how great people were

without evidence (REAL evidence) we can't say anything

and, if there were humanoid giants roaming the earth right now, we'd know, greydawn
and the depths of the earth?
how would anyone living in caves remain large?
not just as far as adaptations go, but as nutrition goes

runetang:

great find. I know about that site and have seen it before. So far despite all the wing flapping here, nobody has been able to dispute much of what is shown or claimed on the site so it looks like they lose.

Originally posted by JOHNNYMURDER
Put it this way...if you had a gold bar and 99.9 of the population believed it to be gold and and 0.1% had evidence that is was fools gold...what would you do?

Would you freely admit that the gold was fake...admit you are liar, admit that you have been wrong all this time, lose your wealth, your power and your status?

Or...would you try and silence that 0.1%..bribe them, hide things from them, lie to them, manipulate them, threaten them...hell...maybe even kill?

Or you could put it this way:

If you had a "fossilized giant" and 99.9 of the population believed it to be real and and 0.1% had evidence that is was a fake...what would you do?

Would you freely admit that the "fossil" was fake...admit you are liar, admit that you have been wrong all this time, lose your wealth, your power, your status, your meal ticket?

Or...would you try and silence that 0.1%..bribe them, hide things from them, lie to them, manipulate them, threaten them...hell...maybe even kill?

Harte

Originally posted by dAlen
Sepherim are Elohim (plural - gods) high angels who happen to be fiery reptilian. (fact if you believe Judaic bible (and Christian).

Ehh.. Seraphim are Elohim, okay I buy that.

Plural, okay, I think that too.

High Angels, yes, yes indeed. These high angels are AS DEPICTED in the Tanakh.

Fiery Reptilian? This is not depicted in the Tanakh. There is nothing saying the Elohim had scaly skin, nor that they were Reptilian. I've seen plenty of compelling and not so compelling evidence that the Anunnaki were actually Reptilian, which is where the concept of Satan being a Serpent comes from, where Dragons come from in mythology, and why Demons have split tongues, tails, and other reptilian features in Catholicism.

But, I do not agree. I do not think the Anunnaki were Reptilian at this point in time. We are not in the image of a Reptile, We are in the image of what we depict Angels to be, minus the wings and gracefulness and glowing auras and such.

In fact, if it says the Reptile, the Serpent, decieves man right off the bat in Genesis by getting Adam & Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden so he could have greater influence over their decisions, and loses his limbs for it. Some point to this as evidence of it's semblance to humanoids, I disagree. It takes more than limbs.. dogs and cats have limbs.

Frankly, I think the story David Icke and possibly Zecharia Sitchin(forgot if hes pro-reptilian) sways from any truth when it starts going into where the beings came from, and if not that, then why the beings came here definantly, and also how the being were Reptilian for sure. These things throw a wrench in my perverbial wheel.

If we are to disucss this with seriousness, we are kind of assuming aliens could theoreticly exist and travel space/time. Okay. Theres a math equation somewhere that points to that being truthful. Anyways, I'm not much for alien stories and conspiracy, but alot of these people who ARE into such things claim that there are "good" aliens which are seperate to the Reptilians/Greys, who seem to be of the same agenda or leadership essentially (one a product of the other). These "good" aliens are supposed to look "Nordic" in appearance, which when i first saw on text made me crack up, the thought that tall Nordic nazi-supermen were zooming through space, but after being subjected to the Reptilian theories, somehow this became more believable.

So all im saying is if we are a product of one of the two, its the ones that look like tall blonde beautiful humans with big muscles like the Greeks portrayed their Gods; not the Half-Bird-Half-Giantman carvings that are supposed to depict certain Anunnaki. I wasn't created by something that has a beak.

And the thought that Dinosaurs are the Giants of the Bible considering they are hundreds of millions of years before the time of Human beings makes it highly unlikely, to take the softer wording.

Cheeeeerszz

I'm hoping at this point that you realise that the word Annunaki was entirely invented by Zechariah Sitchen in 1974.
it does not appear in any genuine texts
the Sumerians called them the Anuna gods
which meant the Men of An (the sun god)
nothing whatsoever to do with anyone coming from heaven to earth besides which the Sumerian always stated that Heaven was a mountain in line with the beliefs of every ancient culture
Heaven has only been some place in outer space since the common era and the rise of Judao-Christianism

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the Seraphim have no shape at all, at least none that can in any way be perceived by such lowly creatures as ourselves.

It is only the lower choirs of angels that we are able to resolve into a form compatible with our limited scope of vision.

And the Annunaki are, of course, not even part of that equation.

Harte

thats right the Angels are actually based on the Igigi the lesser gods and not the Anuna who are the cthonic deities.
Enoch knows that much
funnily enough so does Sitchin
though with all the rubbish hes buried it in no one has noticed he actually got one thing right

Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

Does anyone else see a pattern forming here?

Originally posted by JOHNNYMURDER
Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

Does anyone else see a pattern forming here?

I do. I see you cutting and pasting the same response to all of Marduk's posts.

In this spirit, then, I will follow suit:

I don't get this post at all. Seemed to me that it was my post that was ridiculing more than Marduck's (quaaaack!!)

Johnny, you got some personal problem with the 'Duk? Why didn't you come at me? I'm feeling left out!

As for "...prove(ing) what he is saying is wrong...," why is that necessary? The claim was made. Proving it to be right is the onus (borne, by the way, by the claimant) and not proving it wrong.

I dislike the word "prove" here anyway. I always ask for evidence, since there can be no proof per se. Proof exists only in Mathematics.

Harte