Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm guessing the reason we don't have any fossil evidence of these guys is they jumped into the air and got caught by the sun's gravity.
Many people will deny the fact that there have been many many many gigantic skeletal remains found, not only in the continental US but South America and, in fact, the world over.Hey, so I've been reading and looking into the finding of giant skeletons all throughout history lately and I just wanted some opinions. Or if anyone else knows a lot about them I'd be down. Books to read, etc.
The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones
fill the mounds of America have gazed on Niagara, as
ours do now. - Abraham Lincoln 1848
This quote has spurred on an interest to look into them again.
Whether it was the hundreds of giant skeletons ranging between 7ft tall and taller being destroyed admittedly by the smithsonian institute after they took the findings from those who found them and that trusted the institute with their findings. Or the countless other occurrences and finds involving skeletons in the indian mounds, or in random places buried beneath the ground all throughout the globe, giants did exist, just as the bible tells us they did.
My question is again, not wanting to debate the existence of these finds, but just wanting more input on this topic. If anyone is well versed in these things, come at me. I'm down for all the evidence and books and sites and what have you that you've got. I just want to learn.
The book of enoch tells us what those weird giant "god" men that are depicted all throughout ancient civilizations that had no way to contact one another all coming down and teaching them how to smelt metals, use herbs for medicine, teaching them about the stars, etc. It even describes why they all have smilier histories involving these beings, how the people fed them, and served them until all the food ran out and the beings ended up eating the people. The book of enoch gives answers to these things, and I feel that the government is riding our history of the skeletons and our proof of the existence of giants so it becomes less obvious that the bible exists, and more likely that it's "aliens". Hogwash, aliens don't exist. Giants that came from the seed of fallen angels however...
Link to the document this 'quote' is recorded. All I see thus far is hearsay.
Which species? Mammoths, Mastodons or some other extinct creature? Where's the whole quote and that document being kept? With only those few words the only 100% sure thing is everybody is assuming it's some type of humanoid. You know what they say about the word assuming.Hey, so I've been reading and looking into the finding of giant skeletons all throughout history lately and I just wanted some opinions. Or if anyone else knows a lot about them I'd be down. Books to read, etc.
The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones
fill the mounds of America have gazed on Niagara, as
ours do now. - Abraham Lincoln 1848
This quote has spurred on an interest to look into them again.
.
They will also deny that the Smithsonian has admittedly, as you have stated, destroyed, hidden or "lost" a wealth of actual hard core evidence of a giant race that existed on this earth.
However, look up L.A. Marzulli, Steve Quayle and Brien Foerster...... These three have found and investigated a large number of elongated huge skulls in South America
The results of this DNA testing should be out any week now.
True... but what bones "fill the mounds of America"? Did Mammoth and Mastodon bones fill these mounds?Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.
"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"
But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
Absolutely! Right? I'll never get why people debate this considering they existed in the bible. Although I do believe it was in the enemies best interest to remove the scripture that testifies of these things, considering now the majority of people condemn the books that prove the bible historically, scientifically, and these findings. Without those texts, and more elaboration on genesis 6 and pre-flood gigantism, the natural choice would be evolution (which most people fail to realize is technically just a theory, despite how much they push it on people) or aliens.Many people will deny the fact that there have been many many many gigantic skeletal remains found, not only in the continental US but South America and, in fact, the world over.
They will also deny that the Smithsonian has admittedly, as you have stated, destroyed, hidden or "lost" a wealth of actual hard core evidence of a giant race that existed on this earth.
To add to this botched archaeological operational activities, there was also a contest, on the internet, to see who could use Photoshop to produce the most true looking fake image. Many of the images were of gigantic skulls and other skeletal images.
This has prompted any skeptic to deem that ALL giant photographic evidence is fake.
However, there are numerous news paper articles from the US in the 1800's and early 1900's with articles of the findings of remains of giant proportions.
These, of course, are also written off as publicity stunts and random hyperbole.
However, look up L.A. Marzulli, Steve Quayle and Brien Foerster...... These guys have gone to great personal sacrifice, both physical effort and financial input, to search for the truth of the biblical fact of giants existing on this earth.
These three have found and investigated a large number of elongated huge skulls in South America and, through much trouble, difficulty and resistance, finally found three accredited laboratories, that are analyzing the DNA of several of these skulls.
The results of this DNA testing should be out any week now.
It will never cease to confuse me as to why Christians, who believe the bible to be the word of God, are so skeptical when modern research finds something that proves the bible to be true.
The archaeological field is controlled by a Darwinian motivated group of evolutionists. I can totally understand why they don't want any of this highly factual and credible evidence to surface and reach the mainstream media.
Their whole world IS going to come crushing down with all the focus on the fact that intelligence has not been gradually increasing, technology that is greater than what we have today had been lost and there were beings that were far greater in size than we humans and they possessed abilities and had knowledge that has been lost.
It is not life from other planets... It is that of angelic hybridization of the human race, that started before the flood and continued after that......
One more name to google.... Rob Skiba, who has three excellent books out, that deal with Genesis and all the events that bible believing people have not had the courage to believe in the past.
All the evidence that these people have unearthed, fought the cover up and presented to the world, with great opposition from both evolutionist and biblical people, is vast, solid and proves beyond any doubt that the bible is true in every detail... even the ones that boggle our simple minds.
So, don't believe the scoffers and deniers when you look into this stuff and your eyes are open to the wonders of the world before the flood and after that... even up to the last century.
This might have been false, but they have done exactly that in the past. It's why there's accounts of people finding them and not wanting to give them to a museum, because they know it would be destroyed or "stolen" as has happened before.The Smithsonian never admitted it because it never happened.
The cause of Christianity is not helped when people tell lies.
No, they weren't human skulls. There is a history of people binding their heads with boards, but why would people do this? They were emulating something they had seen before.These skulls are human skulls (elongated probably as a result of head-binding). They are within the ordinary human size range. They are not "giant."
The results actually came out last year. They showed that the skulls were human.
The Smithsonian never admitted it because it never happened.
The cause of Christianity is not helped when people tell lies.
These skulls are human skulls (elongated probably as a result of head-binding). They are within the ordinary human size range. They are not "giant."
The results actually came out last year. They showed that the skulls were human.
From what documents tell us, the answer would be no.... In fact the bones that "filled the mounds of America" were those of giant human like beings.
No, they weren't human skulls.
yet in many finds their suture patterns are different than that of a humans
and the space for their brains is much more than ours
Always take what you read in Snopes or Wiki with a grain of salt... do some research yourself.
PEOPLE... this new evidence is pro Christianity... PRO Bible.... we should be spreading this new found knowledge...
These are bigger than 8 feet. Also Og of Bashan was over 15 ft tall. Biblical.Contemporary newspaper accounts, which Lincoln may perhaps have been referring to, talk about human skeletons which were at the most 6 to 8 feet high. This is in fact the normal human range for basketball players.
Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.
"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"
But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
It was over 1000 years, which is a 6th of the time we've been on earth, so I definitely wouldn't say it was relatively short.You know, it also strange that between the time Adam was driven out of the Garden, until the flood is relatively short. Yet by the time Noah is ready to build the ark, we have the antediluvians.
I don't know why it was possible, no one does. All I know is that the bible talks of giants, before and after the flood, and that the bible quotes from, and references Enoch, and it also talks of it. There are greek texts of enoch, that I don't believer are to be trusted, but there are Ethiopian and Aramaic and Hebraic books of Enoch, that all line up with one another. There are more than one book of enoch, there's three I think. I've only been reading the first one so far, but it's done nothing but line perfectly up with scripture, and it even sheds light on some confusing parts of scripture. So long as you're not reading the greek (the text that talks of 3000 ells) it lines perfectly up with the bible. That verse 7:11 or whatever only exists in the greek, and isn't found in literally any other translation of Enoch. All the other versions, Aramaic, Hebraic, and Ethiopian don't mention it. That verse doesn't exist. It stops at 7:6, and then begins chapter 8.How is it possible, that even though with the "breeding" of the "Watchers" with the daughters of man, that women were able to give birth to children that would grow to 40' tall or higher?
How come man over the last 5000 years, has not evolved enough to have children over, in rare cases, 9' tall?
Well, considering the bible talks of giants, and talks of the fallen mating with women, my guess is that women can give birth to them, so they couldn't of been huge at first, but that they just continually grew afterwards.Look at nature. The largest mammal to give "live birth, produce milk" for their children to drink, is the blue whale. A newborn "blue whale" weighs around 30 tons! And look at its mother, how big is she?
In all honesty, how big of a uterus would a woman have to have to give birth to a baby that would grow 40 feet, or 450 feet, or even 4500 feet tall?
Look into ligers. Like I said, they are born normally, but because of the hybridization, they don't have the gene that stunts growth, and they keep growing. They actually have a full grown liger that is still to this day growing larger, and it's already 900 lbs. (at least it was last time I looked into it)The biggest "natural born" baby in the world was born in 1878 to Anna Bates in Ohio, she herself, stood 7'11". The baby weighed 23 lbs, 12 oz, he was 28" long, but sadly, only lived 11 hours after birth. (See Guinness Book of World Records)
40 feet tall. That's almost as tall as a Semi-Truck and trailer. (53 feet)
I wonder how big a baby would have to be when born, to grow to the size of a semi-truck?
God Bless
Till all are one.
Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.
"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"
But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
The spirits of the giants in the book of enoch were 3,000 ells which is 20 miles.
450' tall men. That is what Enoch teaches.
In this version, the height is given until verse 12: "Whose stature was each three hundred cubits.
An "ell" in biblical measurements could have been as much as 3.75 feet.
At 3000 ells, that's higher than 2 miles!
Much like the liger - tiger lion hybrid. It exists now, "thanks" to science... but regardless, it's birthed in the womb of an ordinary tiger or lioness, but yet it grows much much larger than any of the two it's born from. It doesn't have the gene that tells it to stop growing, so compared to lions, or tigers, it's ridiculously huge!
True... however, there are some much taller. Whatever the size, the Smithsonian wanted them gone.Contemporary newspaper accounts, which Lincoln may perhaps have been referring to, talk about human skeletons which were at the most 6 to 8 feet high. This is in fact the normal human range for basketball players.
True.Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.
The whole quote talks about men, and it insinuates that the bones mentioned were in fact giant men, because the next line after mentioning the bones found refers to them, and not another species. Just look at the two files I've attached, they're early 1900's and late 1800 articles written by the New York Times, and they wrote on some early finds of the skeletons I'm talking about. Some were in the mounds, and others were just in random places buried that people stumbled upon while excavating or digging, or mining, etc.
Firstly, the children that these women gave birth to were angel/human hybrids. They grew rapidly.You know, it also strange that between the time Adam was driven out of the Garden, until the flood is relatively short. Yet by the time Noah is ready to build the ark, we have the antediluvians.
How is it possible, that even though with the "breeding" of the "Watchers" with the daughters of man, that women were able to give birth to children that would grow to 40' tall or higher?
How come man over the last 5000 years, has not evolved enough to have children over, in rare cases, 9' tall?
Look at nature. The largest mammal to give "live birth, produce milk" for their children to drink, is the blue whale. A newborn "blue whale" weighs around 30 tons! And look at its mother, how big is she?
In all honesty, how big of a uterus would a woman have to have to give birth to a baby that would grow 40 feet, or 450 feet, or even 4500 feet tall?
The biggest "natural born" baby in the world was born in 1878 to Anna Bates in Ohio, she herself, stood 7'11". The baby weighed 23 lbs, 12 oz, he was 28" long, but sadly, only lived 11 hours after birth. (See Guinness Book of World Records)
40 feet tall. That's almost as tall as a Semi-Truck and trailer. (53 feet)
I wonder how big a baby would have to be when born, to grow to the size of a semi-truck?
God Bless
Till all are one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?