Giant Skeletons Found?

[DeaconDean]

So, when you notice citing official denial doesn't have the impact it has on you, you stoop to ridicule.

Say what you will, but these are actual calls from years past.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Goatee]

It's really sad that you cannot open your mind past your cognitive dissonance.

If you do not believe the Book of Enoch... the written text in the living breathing word of God still gives reference to them... I don't need to re-post these scriptures. I have argued with you enough to know that you are well aware of them but have an excuse to dismiss the truth of the word of God. .

You obviously have not looked into any of the presentations by A.J. Marzulli, Steve Quayle, or Brien Foerster...These guys go into great detail that blows any argument you have toward "no physical evidence of gigantic people" out of the water.

They have discovered, observed and recorded a plethora of physical evidence that proves that there was a race of Giant humanoid beings.. not just in North and South America, but on every continent.

They have skulls that are solid evidence in that the suture pattern, bone plates, cranial volume and spinal insertion point are definitely not human.

There are carvings of very very tall human looking people in Egypt where they are depicted in the process of creating many of the megalithic structures of Egypt.

The parallels in architecture, artwork, building techniques and symbolism from works in Egypt and those in South America is uncanny.

Experts in various trades, from masons to stone workers to engineers and architects have stated that we cannot reproduce these massive structures. Not only due to the technology and precision of the craft but this is compounded by the shear size of the hard rock blocks that were used.

To add to this, the shapes, layout and positioning of these megalithic structures, in many cases, is in exact positions on the globe that correspond with constellations in the sky and..... .when viewed on Google earth.... they line up with other megalithic structures in another part of the globe with precision that would have been impossible with out technology just like google earth... the accuracy is phenomenal.

So.... either take the blue pill and go back to believing all the lies....

or..

Take the red pill and open your eyes to the literal mountain of new and exciting finds, discoveries, evidence and proofs of the fact that we are but a shadow of the once powerful, intelligent and knowledgeable races that presided on this earth before us.

Not only that... but it is 100% biblical and the big kicker is........................

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

We have no excuse for what is coming our way on this earth.

Some people will believe 'ANYTHING!'

If there were gigantic people around we would have Bones of them. The only bones we have of gigantic people are either in movies or via Photoshop!

We know how the pyramids were built now.

These people had skills and workings which died with them.

 

[Hieronymus]

That don't prove anything as there are thousands of plaster casts of supposedly the "bigfoot". Even supposedly film.

How about the video and pictures of the actual footprints in there?
Or is THAT the conspiracy?

 

[Hieronymus]

Some people will believe 'ANYTHING!'

Anything the mainstream tell you?

 

[mmksparbud]

Let me say this---If I had a footprint alongside a dinosaur that was 15 in long---I would have called every newspaper in the country and every TV station out there. Not to mention National Geographic and People and any other magazine I could think of. I am of the opinion that Adam and Eve and their children were giants and had great intellect. I do not believe in fallen angels having sex with humans. Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, we will be like the angels. Now, all the angels mentioned in the bible are male and you want me to believe that God made millions of angels all with the ability to reproduce and gave them no way to do so?! Why--just to torment them? It makes no sense and I've asked many logical questions as to just how big were these fallen angels that produced such giants and how could human females handle not only the "encounter" but giving birth to one of those gigantic creatures without being ripped open. When the words Nephilim and giants and sons of God and daughters of men are researched--you certainly come up with different interpretations than fallen angels having sex with human women.
I do believe there were giants---100% human giants born out of Adam and Eve, giants themselves who passed those genes on to others including Noah who then passed those genes on to those after the flood.
Why choose to believe in something that makes no sense and doesn't conform to the character of God and be easily explained with scholarly research. If giant bones ever are found---the DNA will prove them to be 100% human--with some extraordinary genetic codes. If they lived to be nearly 1000 years, why wouldn't they have been extraordinarily tall?

 

[DeaconDean]

How about the video and pictures of the actual footprints in there?
Or is THAT the conspiracy?

I don't believe it.

Bigfoot is belieed to have feet somewhere between 16 and 24 inches long. Like I said, they have plaster casts of them, but have they ever produced one?

Produce a "giant" with feet to match, and I'll provide you with a bigfoot.

All this is purely argumentative.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hieronymus]

YouTube videos aren't proof of anything. That one is particularly notorious.

Video is usually considered proof.
It's stronger than pictures, because pictures can be faked easily.
It's irrelevant through which channel you can view it.
A video may be 'notorious', but that's also irrelevant.
What is relevant here is that they find footprints and some are destroyed.

 

[DeaconDean]

What is relevant here is that they find footprints and some are destroyed.

And that, even the Smithsonian conspiracy have been proven false.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Goatee]

World is full of gullible people!

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is another one for you.

What if I told you there is support in scripture, that you can ward off demons by roasting a fish heart on coals?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mmksparbud]

Video is usually considered proof.
It's stronger than pictures, because pictures can be faked easily.
It's irrelevant through which channel you can view it.
A video may be 'notorious', but that's also irrelevant.
What is relevant here is that they find footprints and some are destroyed.

Videos are proof????!!! Check this out.

 

[DeaconDean]

Videos are proof????!!! Check this out.

Hahaha, that's a good one!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Radagast]

How about the video and pictures of the actual footprints in there?
Or is THAT the conspiracy?

You believe that video? Surely everybody knows those footprints are fake. See here for a detailed analysis.

 

[Radagast]

Video is usually considered proof.
It's stronger than pictures, because pictures can be faked easily.

It's particularly easy to fool gullible people with videos like this because:

1. the pictures are always vague and grainy
2. worthless hearsay evidence is made to look good
3. the illusion is often created that "experts" have reviewed the evidence, when they haven't
4. there is never any real evidence, but the absence of citations is less glaring than it would be in print
5. only part of the story is presented, and the right questions never get asked.

This is why the craziest conspiracy theories always spread through videos.

In this case, you are feeding us a video of what everybody knows are fake footprints. Most creationists have walked away from the claims because they are so obviously false. It goes to show how you've been fooled through those five techniques.

 

[Hieronymus]

Let me say this---If I had a footprint alongside a dinosaur that was 15 in long---I would have called every newspaper in the country and every TV station out there. Not to mention National Geographic and People and any other magazine I could think of.

But that's what they did in the past.
A lot was published before evolution became the mandatory view.

I am of the opinion that Adam and Eve and their children were giants and had great intellect. I do not believe in fallen angels having sex with humans.

I choose to go with Scripture and extra Biblical evidence for giants.
1st Enoch may be considered to be Scripture too, since it was quoted and referred to in the Bible frequently.
But even without Enoch, the Bible speaks of sons of God 'mating' (technical details are not given, i doubt this was by means of 'angelic erections' so to speak) with the daughters of men, bringing forth the Nephilim, but nobody knows how many there were.
Special genocide (as opposed to ethnic genocide) was commanded by God to eradicate the giant tribes, like the Ammorites and the others (i forget) up to Goliath.

Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, we will be like the angels.

But we're discussing events on earth here.

Now, all the angels mentioned in the bible are male and you want me to believe that God made millions of angels all with the ability to reproduce and gave them no way to do so?! Why--just to torment them?

I see your point, but technical details are not given.
However, in many instances in Scripture the angels and even God were physically present on earth.
Our Lord and Savior is in fact also an example of the divine impregnating a woman.

It makes no sense and I've asked many logical questions as to just how big were these fallen angels that produced such giants and how could human females handle not only the "encounter" but giving birth to one of those gigantic creatures without being ripped open.

Who knows what hell those women must have gone through.
We're not discussing benevolent gods here.
And who knows how large the babies were?
Who knows to what extent the giants had supernatural traits?
This is all occult stuff too.
In fact, from what i understand, the concept of divine conception is an important theme in occultism and belief systems like that.

When the words Nephilim and giants and sons of God and daughters of men are researched--you certainly come up with different interpretations than fallen angels having sex with human women.

Uhm, no actually.
Ancient languages scholars usually agree the text says what it says.
The 'Sethite view' is not what the text describes.
"and also after that" explains why there were giant tribes, who God's people were commanded to eradicate, as in genocide.
You don't really need Enoch to confirm this either.

What you might want to consider (if you didn't already) is that God created beings with a free (or personal) will.
This is how both the angels / created gods and humans can choose to rebel.
But it's also a necessity for Love, which it seems to be all about in the end.

But i think i've said all i have to say at least twice now, so i guess it's time to leave it as it is.

 

[Hieronymus]

You believe that video? Surely everybody knows those footprints are fake. See here for a detailed analysis.

So you call those brothers liars and conspirators, and the obvious 'debunkers' are right.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's particularly easy to fool gullible people with videos like this because:

1. the pictures are always vague and grainy

1. No.

   [*]worthless hearsay evidence is made to look good.

   Well, if excavated / uncovered things cast in stone are not tangible proof to you, i guess you're right...

   [*]the illusion is often created that "experts" have reviewed the evidence, when they haven't

   Who do you classify as experts? Apparently not the folks in the field, they just excavate fake footprints, right?

   [*]there is never any real evidence, but the absence of citations is less glaring than it would be in print

   So they excavate fake footprints?

   [*]only part of the story is presented, and the right questions never get asked.

   They present the excavated footprints, some get destroyed.
   They find giant human footprints in several locations around the world, also dino footprints on top of human footprints, which may get destroyed.
   They show you the evidence on video.
   You choose not to believe what is imprinted in stone, because folks tell you it is fake.
   Those are folks who didn't do the ground work.
   What makes them credible and what makes excavated / uncovered footprints fake?

This is why the craziest conspiracy theories always spread through videos.

Irrelevant to the evidence imprinted in stone.
Irrelevant to the fact that those imprints get destroyed sometimes.

In this case, you are feeding us a video of what everybody knows are fake footprints.

That's apparently your opinion, but i will stick with the evidence my fellow Christians have uncovered.

Most creationists have walked away from the claims because they are so obviously false.

You have no evidence for them to be false.
Rather, you only have some vague conspiracy theory, or not even a theory but just incredulence you're unable to defend.

It goes to show how you've been fooled through those five techniques.

Your five techniques are fried air.

 

[Hieronymus]

You believe that video?

Are you suggesting it's CGI and they are liars?

 

[mmksparbud]

I see your point, but technical details are not given.
However, in many instances in Scripture the angels and even God were physically present on earth.
Our Lord and Savior is in fact also an example of the divine impregnating a woman.

Ok---Now you've done it!! The bible does not say that God had sex with Mary to produce Jesus!! Does not, does not!! It does say that this was the product of the Holy Spirit. It was the same Jesus that was in heaven before He became human. It is not given in detail, but that same Jesus was made into an embryo and put in Mary---her DNA did come in contact with His, But the mothers blood does not come in contact with a fetus. Sex was not involved. I've posted so often over the past 40 years and I hate repeating myself

"The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64


PaleoBabble
If you’re interested in phony DNA research to prop up ancient alien hybrids and alleged nephilim skulls, you’re in luck. Two recent posts came to my attention today. They’re both long, but well worth the time.
First, there’s the essay by Frank Johnson at the Ancient Aliens Debunked blog: “Another Bone to Pick…With Peruvian Nephilim/Alien Hybrids.” It’s a good survey/refutation of the alleged evidence. It’ll get you up to speed on the claims and personalities involved.
Next we have (drum roll, please) a real archaeologist weigh in on the skulls – Keith Fitzpatrick Matthews on the Bad Archaeology blog. Keith’s essay, “The Paracas skulls: aliens, an unknown hominid species or cranial deformation?” is nothing short of devastating. In particular, pretend anthropologist Brien Foerster, a participant in the upcoming “Nephilim Skull Tour” comes out looking very bad, even dumb. (Just read it). This essay deals a bit with the DNA issue, but focuses more on the forensics of the skulls themselves.
After Aug---new site----http://drmsh.com/category/paleobabble-2/

 

[Radagast]

So you call those brothers liars and conspirators, and the obvious 'debunkers' are right.

In this case, the "debunkers" are right. Their "debunking" was enough to convince both the Institute for Creation Research (who agreed that the claims were false) and the producers of the original "Footprints In Stone" film (who stopped selling the film).

The new film has, if anything, even less credibility.

Are you suggesting it's CGI and they are liars?

Nothing as sophisticated as CGI. Just carvings made to look like rocks with human footprints, misinterpretation of what are actually dinosaur footprints, some plaster casts with no photographs of the alleged original footprints, and a bunch of worthless interviews.