Critical Review of Giant Human Claims

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jaffo
Anyone who thinks the indigenous population consisted of peaceful people sitting around in harmony with all they saw and interacted with is uninformed and, to be honest, more than a little racist.

Wait, WHAT?

The friggin race card? Here? Just wow.

Absolutely. Because every time someone starts screaming about how the "evil Europeans" came and brought war and disease to the New World while ignoring the reality of what the Europeans found and the reasons so many tribes were willing to work with them initially (i.e., to screw over their neighbors), they are being both ignorant of history and racist toward the fully formed individuals and civilizations that were already here.

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Whatever giant-like beast creature I witnessed definitely had double-rows of sharp teeth. It looked like it had WAY too many teeth and I had a great view of the whole creature (i was about 3 yards away on a clear moonlit night with snow on the ground for contrast).

Mine was 7 to 9 ft tall, back-bent legs like a canine, extremely thin and muscled, grey ashen skin, long red-brown bedraggled fur, and tall pointed anubis-like ears.

it pushed a car with 3 people in it 10in forward into the snow, trapping us. scariest night of my life.

What's this all about??????

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

My understanding of today's giants may be considered far out by most but here goes my imagination.
The giants of the bible are not the same as we understand giants of today. According to the bible there is no mention of their actual size but when you read the books of Enoch and then combine them with the Genesis account you can have an approximate account of their size.

According to the most common internet account we read that the Nephilim were 3000 ells in height. – “Enoch Chapter 7 - (And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells.”

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, James H. Charlesworth – Volume 1, Ch.7, page 68 is edited as – “And the women became pregnant and gave birth to great giants whose heights were three hundred cubits.” A cubit being a method of measure and not a measure leaves us with the question of the measuring height of these antediluvian creatures. But then what is an ell in Enoch’s day or perhaps what did Enoch mean by an ell or actually what is meant by the cubit in this period? Some will determine a cubit of that era as being 18 English inches while others may determine it be a royal cubit of 24 English inches while some modern bibles will determine a cubit as 13 English inches. Even at the minimum of 13 inches we can accept that the antediluvian Nephilim were 325 feet in height.

When you consider the remark in Deuteronomy 3:11 where it is specifically stated as a cubit of a man then it may be clear but here in Enoch it is not clear whether this is a cubit of man, angel or giant. - 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.” Nevertheless it is interesting that Deuteronomy would distinguish a cubit in this manner without some sort of other means of measure in mind.

It has been taught that a giant could not function at this height in the modern era. But then we should re read the Genesis account and realize that the Genesis antediluvian world was a closed eco system with a canopy of a great measure of water surrounding the entire world. For the first 1650 years the world was shut up like a giant ball incased in water. This was that water which fell as rain for 40 days and 40 nights in the Noah account and it was this water which erased the entire antediluvian races including the Nephilim except the family of Noah.

If the biblical account is true then the gigantic bones that are being recovered today are not Nephilim remains but are the remains of the antediluvian Noah and family. . That is, as the entire science of the world changed and life spans as well all creation sizes changed, then we are now recovering that change. If what we are now recovering were of 300 feet or more then we could accept that it was antediluvian races.

Most who read the Genesis account will not understand it as is intended.
Gen_6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
The Adamic race in the antediluvian period were also giants as compared to this modern era. Noah was believed to be of about 150 to 200 feet in height according to some accounts. If this is true then the Genesis account will make sense. The Genesis account would be contradicting itself if it referred to the Nephilim after the deluge when it is written that all perished except Noah and family.

My understanding Genesis 6:4 would be as follows. – There were giants in those days and after those days. Those days were when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. Those children became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. That would be my understanding of our giants.

The skeletal remains of today are the remains of downsized descendants of Noah. I don’t believe we have any remains of the Nephilim as yet.

a reply to: JackofBlades

These are valid objections well presented. You have made me re examine my thought processes, and I shall endeavour to be more thorough with any investigation and not as quick to judge.

However, I do not feel it addresses the main thrust of my review of the presentation of the Wisconsin story.

I am still on vacation at present with limited access to the net but should be back within a couple of days.

I'm sorry, but this thread keeps popping up in the feed and every time I see the title, my eye sees "Giant Human Clams." I don't know why.

This is an interesting thread though. Carry on please. I'm enjoying it.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Very admirable response I must say, you don't see this type of mature reassessment on the internet every day.
Not many usually admit they might have been wrong in any way.

Which kind of surprises me as you mentioned conspiracy nutcases which initially flagged you as a narrowminded habitual debunker in my eyes.

If you look behind the facade of a lot of these supposedly crazy stories you'll realize that there's some very exotic truths out there, and they're pretty fantastical so if a person thinks the world is as mundane as it gets - i.e. the mainstream viw - their gut reaction will usually be that it's hogwash, it's too discordant or incompatible with their current view, too science-fiction like, too fantasy like, too weird.
But some of us have the privilege of experiencing such things so you'll come across a lot of us that will straight up tell you we know something. You don't have to believe us, that's up to you. But giving it a hard thought could never hurt, if nothing else it's a little massage for the brain.

I don't know about giants specifically, I wouldn't know how to account for the problems with the muscle weight ratio but I find the stories interesting.
But trust me on this one, beyond the apparent mundane facade of it all mystery still lurks, as it ever did.

Sorry for the delay - it's been busy at work and the second link is basically just an advert for the History Channel Search for Lost Giants series, so to be fair to the material I will need to review at least some of those episodes. I'll have my review of the second link up when I get around to it.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jaffo
Anyone who thinks the indigenous population consisted of peaceful people sitting around in harmony with all they saw and interacted with is uninformed and, to be honest, more than a little racist.

Wait, WHAT?

The friggin race card? Here? Just wow.

Absolutely. Because every time someone starts screaming about how the "evil Europeans" came and brought war and disease to the New World while ignoring the reality of what the Europeans found and the reasons so many tribes were willing to work with them initially (i.e., to screw over their neighbors), they are being both ignorant of history and racist toward the fully formed individuals and civilizations that were already here.

I agree with your over all point, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that if the native Americans had invaded and conquered say England. Almost wiping out nearly all the English. It wouldn't matter if they came in peice at first. In the end they still commited genocide....

I might be wrong, but I think your point was revisionist history.

A better example would be, that slavery never ends without whites who wanted to abolish it. People who like to press forward the "evil white man" mythology forget that a slave only uprising in America would have been crushed. It was whites who hated slavery who ended it. Not the slaves.

Same with civil rights. If even 90% of whites wanted segregation, we would still be using seperate water fountains.


Every single person is different and race is completely a lie. There are tribes of man, all slightly different. But there are no races. You can't lump all of ANY group in ANY box.

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jaffo
Anyone who thinks the indigenous population consisted of peaceful people sitting around in harmony with all they saw and interacted with is uninformed and, to be honest, more than a little racist.

Wait, WHAT?

The friggin race card? Here? Just wow.

Absolutely. Because every time someone starts screaming about how the "evil Europeans" came and brought war and disease to the New World while ignoring the reality of what the Europeans found and the reasons so many tribes were willing to work with them initially (i.e., to screw over their neighbors), they are being both ignorant of history and racist toward the fully formed individuals and civilizations that were already here.

I agree with your over all point, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that if the native Americans had invaded and conquered say England. Almost wiping out nearly all the English. It wouldn't matter if they came in peice at first. In the end they still commited genocide....

I might be wrong, but I think your point was revisionist history.

A better example would be, that slavery never ends without whites who wanted to abolish it. People who like to press forward the "evil white man" mythology forget that a slave only uprising in America would have been crushed. It was whites who hated slavery who ended it. Not the slaves.

Same with civil rights. If even 90% of whites wanted segregation, we would still be using seperate water fountains.


Every single person is different and race is completely a lie. There are tribes of man, all slightly different. But there are no races. You can't lump all of ANY group in ANY box.

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I can see and respect your point. Well said, thanks much.