101 Pics That Prove Nephilim Giants Existed - Hidden History - Part 2

Genesis 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

To all those who need a reminder of where this was said more than 2000 years ago.

It is funny that all those cultures around the world all had the same stories or at least very similar, with giants and dragons or snakes, just plain madness, many great cultures with no contact with each other came up with the same "frauds" at the same time. Pretty impressive. Stories of great floods, of new beginnings all at around the same time from different continents. Striking!

My first impression of the artwork is this: royalty may be treated as "larger than life" - their special status in the artwork portrays them as more important and "bigger" than other people who serve them. I don't think the ancients were trying to show actual scale, one to one. That's my take on artwork. Are there cases of giantism? Sure! Could there be discoveries of really big people? Sure! The artwork, however, is not proof of that. The Egyptian mummies of royalty, for example, would also be giants?

my two cents

- AB

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
...we don't have any large humanoid fossils from that time. Why not?

Science and all other forms of 'education' can no longer be trusted...

To those who investigate allegations of archaeological cover-ups, there are disturbing indications that the most important archaeological institute in the United States, the Smithsonian Institute, an independent federal agency, has been actively suppressing some of the most interesting and important archaeological discoveries made in the Americas.

www.onelight.com...

It is true there were giants that roamed the earth. The reason we see no archeological evidence is because the government has the Smithsonian Institute come and take away the findings to their warehouse. Why do they intentionally do this you may ask? Because the archeological findings would prove the Biblical account of creation, and they can't as easily deceive the world into believing the lies we have all been taught. www.wearesmrt.com...

originally posted by: CaptainLJB
...there's tons of excavations of Giants, most of which were sent to the Smithsonian to...disappear! It's the same story over and over again: skeletons found and lost. It's a cover-up, trust me. There's just too many records of these things being dug up, not to mention Indian testimony that their ancestors fought these big guys. Everything points to the Mound-Builders being Giants...

"The model of human prehistory built-up by scholars over the past two centuries is sadly and completely wrong, and a deliberate tool of disinformation and mind control. ...they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years." LINK

“we are told not to look into this, it’s pretty well communicated if you research into giants or other races they will end your career immediately, we are told to say it’s all 1800’s media fraud regardless of the evidence, if you ask questions you’ll be working at McDonalds tomorrow”.

• A human thigh bone 8 feet 4 inches long from Mexico.

• Human skeletons unearthed near Palermo, Sicily, in 1548 and 1550, measuring 30 feet, 33 feet and 30 feet.

• Two human skeletons unearthed near Athens, Greece, in recent centuries (one 34 feet long, the other 36 feet long).

• A skeleton reportedly 29 feet in length found in 1456 near the Rhone River.

• A 19'6" human skeleton found in 1577 A.D. under an overturned oak tree in the Canton of Lucerne.

• 23-foot tall skeleton found in 1456 A.D. beside a river in Valence, France.

• A 25' 6 " skeleton found in 1613 A.D. near the castle of Chaumont in France. This was claimed to be a nearly complete find.

Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Source

"...a giant footprint of a woman measuring over 4 feet long has been carbon dated at approximately 9 million years old. "...the two-legged being would need to be some 30 feet tall!

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

The gods I believe we're the Aryan/Lyran/Martian etc etc tall red and blonde haired human like beings. These Guys I garner? We're pretty tall! I'm not sure of the limit? But 14-15ft is quite probable.

You're not sure how tall they could get but you're still able to ascertain they were probably 14-15 feet? How do you come to that conclusion?

They lived a very long time as well it seems and had cone heads quite possibly also.

So where is all of the archaeological and anthropological evidence supporting this? This would be the wet dream for someone in those disciplines. It would totally make their entire career. Nobody is going to hide it away, make it disappear or pretend it doesn't exist.

Now the Nephilim I propose, could be the Cro Magnon man..appeared suddenly 30,000 years ago

"cro magnon man" did not appear suddenly. It is simply an anachronistic term for the first modern humans in Europe. The same ones who left Africa 60KA. The oldest remains in Europe date to about 43KA

(coinciding with RH negative bloods sudden mysterious appearence)

Do you have a citation for this? Last I looked, there was no known date of the appearance of Rh D

these guys were average about 7ft I believe

Their average height was 5' 9"

and had larger brains than modern man and Neanderthal.

Slightly larger capacity than we do today, still smaller than Neandertalthough

They were 'diluted' so not as tall as 'the gods' and with decreased longevity,

Did they drink too much water? what were they diluted by and from what? They were just Homo Sapiens Sapiens

there is also a reptilian aspect!

Of course there is!

As the RH negative imo and study, is of reptilian origin that is why the Jews have a significant amount of RH negative as well,except they were a more modern 'creation'.

And what citations do you have to support either the reptilian assertion for Rh D let alone the recent "creation" of the Hebrews? FYI it's not all Jewish people, it's Ashkenazi who have the higher percentages and its a geographical reason for that.

This theory is provable with science and is encroaching on the truth if not bang on the nose.

Then where is the science to support it?

They are also who I believe are behind the vast majority of UFO encounters and so on. So not quite ETs but non human pure Cro Magnon 'man'.

An early European human with minor morphological differences who lived in the late Pleistocene are responsible for UFO encounters? I'm sure you can document this then right?

These are my opinions in a nutshell I'll go where the evidence flows.

You'll go where the evidence flows huh? Then where is the evidence for any of what you just stated? I'll see water flow uphill before you can provide it.

a reply to: aorAki

A star for a much better retort.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Another damning report and they go on on and on and on.
The evidence for me is so conclusive and at the same time
very hard for an academic to accept but

YOU'VE ALL BEEN LIED TO IN MULTIBLES.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I bet you believe in evolution right? How much of the evidence have you seen in a lab? Probably none. All I've ever seen are a bunch of pictures in a book and a bunch of guys on TV saying they agree with the "evidence".

The average person doesn't have access to any of the equipment it takes to test for alleles, DNA, etc... so all we have to go on is a bunch of pics in text books. There's no difference. You just choose to believe one and not the other.

Lol.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I bet you believe in evolution right? How much of the evidence have you seen in a lab? Probably none. All I've ever seen are a bunch of pictures in a book and a bunch of guys on TV saying they agree with the "evidence".

The average person doesn't have access to any of the equipment it takes to test for alleles, DNA, etc... so all we have to go on is a bunch of pics in text books. There's no difference. You just choose to believe one and not the other.

On the one hand you have a book that is incorrect according to geology, archeology, and biology and on the other hand you have a website with loosely interpreted art. On the one hand you have theories of atomic dating, evolution through natural selection (which is viewed all the time), evolutionary additions to DNA such as cancer, which of course is deleterious but is the same mechanism by which DNA is altered (which is also observed all the time), and on the other hand you have a 2000 year old book.

But it's more than that. The pieces of evolution fit into the broader scientific paradigm in a way that functionally allows us to perform all sorts of sciences, from epidemiology to taxonomy to genetic testing. You have personally benefited from science and medicine of which evolution is used in R and D, from theory to practice.

Without fail, everyone that claims evolution is false doesn't fully understand it.

a reply to: randyvs

not terribly damning though when one of the videos states that they carbon dated a stone footprint to 9 million years old. You can't carbon date rock, only organic materials. If they don't have the fortitude to engage in basic due diligence and get the basic science correct, what makes you think the veracity of any other information is in good standing? You can't just take it on faith that the information is correct because it confirms what you already hold to be true or likely. It's up to each of us to actually engage in some due diligence and see how accurate the information being presented is. Just a little actual fact on the "giant footprint" from S. Africa, it's in igneous rock, it is granite. You can't leave footprints in granite. What that also means is that it used to be liquid, volcanic magma. The only time it would have been soft enough to leave a footprint in, was when it was still hot enough to melt steel, let alone your flesh and bones. I don't think that even the giants would have been fire proof. Were they? And that doesn't even get into the fact that the toes or edges have no wear on them at all. It's been there for millions of years but no weathering has taken place? To say its highly unlikely would be kind on my part.

Michael Cremo, where a lot of the following information stems from, considers himself a "Vedic Archaeologist" and bases all of his "theories" off of Hindu mythology as he is a Hare Krishna and doesn't actually have a degree or any type of background in the science he is attempting to gain standing in. Now certainly, that would appear to be an ad hominem attack and that's not my intention at all, just giving a little background into the motivations behind his work, which is to demonstrate that humans and other apes have lived side by side on Earth for 100's of millions of years.

Does any of the above make him wrong or a crackpot? At face value, not necessarily if there was supporting data and evidence. As there is not then in my opinion absolutely. When one uses pseudoscience in order to concoct evidence to support Vedic creationism, you're not doing science or using the scientific method to reach your conclusion. He starts with his conclusion and then finagles the information in an attempt to support it, reality be damned. What it does not however, is make him correct. About any of it. Cremo likes to condemn "academia" for demanding suitable evidence to support hypothesis. That alone is suspect to me. Would not higher levels of evidence and supporting data be desirable as they only make your position stronger?

Another perspective on giants. The Romans used to refer to the Celts as giants too. Does that make the Celts 15 feet tall and descended from the gods? No, it means the Romans were considered tall if they hit 5'7" and the 6' + Celts were considered enormous to the average Roman Legionnaire who encountered them in battle. There are numerous remains and graves of people of exceptional height found from many layers throughout history. A recent Egyptian cemetery found included the grave of one man who was roughly 7ft tall. all of the graves were of a standard size so they literally had to fold this poor bastard in half to fit him into his resting place. We need to keep in mind that just because someone was exceptionally tall or robust, doesn't mean they are outside the spectrum for normal human heights. We use averages when discussing populations. Currently the average height of an American male is around 5' 9" but I'm sure you know people who are well over 6 feet right? The NBA is littered with them. It's not at all shocking to see a Center on an NBA team reaching heights nearing 7 feet. Just because it's not the "average" height in a given population doesn't mean its abnormal or even extremely rare as proponents of giants throughout human history would have you believe. There are groups of people in East Africa where heights in the mid 6 ft range are normal and average for them. They would certainly be giants to people of other geographic regions though who were of lesser stature.

Don't take my word for any of it though. Do yourself a favor and do some research instead of taking some youtube videos as definitive evidence that we've all been taken for a ride and/or lied to by academics who are trying to hide the truth to preserve some secret. Look at the data objectively and weigh the science and the data properly. Like the example I gave with the giant south African footprint. The facts in the face of the illusion just don't work out in favor of the "footprint" being authentic. It is almost definitely a carved forgery. It IS definitely not a real footprint as the geological conditions preclude such.

As far as finding the complete skeleton or skull of a gigantic human/hominid etc... announcing a find of that magnitude would make someones career. Showing off the remains of massive people unknown previously would make an entire career for someone, there's little impetus to hide that away in a storage bin.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
Do you believe the giants were:

Fallen Angels + Human
Ancient Aliens + Human

Imagination + humans

Image 1: Caricatured depiction of an adversary
Image 2: More caricatures or even parallax misrepresentations / interpretations
Image 3: Those beneath Pharaohs were often depicted as smaller in stature
Image 4: Three children and their mentor
Image 5: Not applicable
Image 6: Human figure with a cat or some adolescent feline
Image 7: Male and female / not applicable
Image 8: Slaves with their slave masters
Image 9: see: image 3
Image 10: Parents with progeny
Image 11: Metaphorical
Image 12: Could be from any large mammal or even a dinosaur
Image 13: Hollywood "giants"
Image 14: Gulliver's Travels
Image 15: Artistic interpretation of higher rank equating to larger stature

...And so on.

From the OP's site: "The actual bodies are there encased in glass for all to see."

Man! THOSE were pictures! Not those of some ancient reliefs, which were produced to emphasize the leaders by showing them larger than life.

Nope.

No photos there. Has anyone actually been to the Museo Oro del Perú?

originally posted by: peter vlar


As far as finding the complete skeleton or skull of a gigantic human/hominid etc... announcing a find of that magnitude would make someones career. Showing off the remains of massive people unknown previously would make an entire career for someone, there's little impetus to hide that away in a storage bin.

Well said.

i keep saying this. Absolutely would it make someone's career, and it would enhance the name of the institution where the research was based as well.
Personally, I've seen femurs over two feet in length uncovered in the field (Bell Hill, North Canterbury, New Zealand). They belonged to Pachyornis elephantopus. That was pretty exciting in itself, so I would imagine I would be bouncing off the walls if I had excavated a 'giant human'.

Oh look another OP who doesn't understand the word proof.

I'm at a loss as to why we as scientists and cultured people would hide all signs of giants, according to these old papers there was a dearth of these skeletons but yet none seem to be on display yet we revel in showing giant dinosaurs bones.

Why hide giant humans or at least humanoids, we have extremely tall people but they mostly suffer badly because if a genetic error (if you will) and they do not reach the 9ft range but why hide bigger folk.

For me it stinks of embellishment at times where stories were entertainment, why say you saw a 7ft man when you can amaze with stories of a 10ft man, why say you fought off 3 tall men when it sounds dangerous that you fought off 4 GIANTS. A king who does not want land entered, why fight when you can spread myths of human eating cannibal giants among the poorly educated people at times when curses and gods were totally believed.

So when when a site selling stuff and seeking self promotion from those going to it presents pictures poorly connected to articles (being kind with the word articles) or many with zero connection and padding it out with fakes just to hit the magic 101 number then I really see nothing that is PROOF of anything, its stories, hearsay and newspaper reports in a similar way to our own Sunday Sport in the UK which just this week ran a story entitled "Nazi monkey found on Pluto" (I kid you not), well then I just ignore it as the BS it is.

a reply to: strangechristian777 You say that like scientists are all in on some grand conspiracy or something. Scientists are normal people who have a fascination with the universe from one angle or another, they want truth more than anyone. Evolution is proven and testable, and there is no other theory that comes close to disproving it. If you can prove otherwise then go ahead, there's a noble prize waiting for you.

a reply to: ElementalistGiant humans at the time of dinosaurs? No. There is absolutely no evidence to support that, humanoid or primate fossils have never ever dated back that far, and have never been found in layers that deep. Desperate and misguided are words id use to describe you, trying your hardest to argue the facts because you have some deep seeded fantasy about giants that has no credibility.

a reply to: strangechristian777

You have a very strange idea of what evidence consists of. Good thing scientists dont think lik eyou or we wouldnt be here, having this discussion on an internet forum

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Elementalist

We have fossils of those large dinosaurs. We even have fossils of small dinosaurs (ostrich-sized and chicken-sized) from that period, too. We even have fossils of small mammals that lived during that time (mouse-like mammals and weasel-sized mammals)...

...but we don't have any large humanoid fossils from that time. Why not?

Because such fossils would have been quickly removed and buried in the vaults of national museums because they disprove the Darwinian myth of the Earth's history.

Just as all giant skeletons were quickly moved from public view during the 19th century.

All over the world? everywhere? And that century after century?

That has to constitute as the most effective ,longest during and succsesfull conspiracy of all times.

a reply to: strangechristian777

Im not discounting the possibility that some form of star faring race in our ancient past did indeed come down from the heavens and breed with us Humans thus producing offspring with what may seem supernatural abilities. However as to them being 20 ft tall, i have to wonder is that even possible given the gravity and atmospheric conditions of our world?

If at some point Nephilim did exist or do exist i imagine that the term giant pertains to their abilities rather than there actual size.

originally posted by: Anubis259
Scientists are normal people who have a fascination with the universe from one angle or another, they want truth more than anyone.

The laser particle size analyser I manage has a range* between two milometres and seven hundredths of a micron. The microscopic world has an interesting perspective on 'truth'.
It's fascinating.



*effective range