Nephilim

[Lionz]

http://graveyards.com/IL/Madison/upperalton/wadlow2.jpg

Look carefully there?

[2dimes]

They might frown if Rockets and I show up there in Illinois and start trenching.



fotochopped His legs would break.

I like how they took the picture of him with the short guy just to emphisize it. Serioulsy let me know if there's somewhere I can see giant bones. I really want to check some out. I'll go back to lurking for a while here.

[2dimes]

I looked at the picture, Bob was on the level and seeker of light.

[Lionz]

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin ... o+seclorum

[Snorri1234]

What would be so hard to believe about a 9 foot 6 tall guy having walked earth in the past? Was Robert Wadlow not 8 foot 11?

You mean Robert Wadlow who had hyperplasia of his pituary gland? Who required leg-braces to walk? Who died at age 22?

[Lionz]

You have the right guy in mind perhaps, but do you mean hypertrophy of his pituitary gland and who told you he required leg braces to walk?

What if there was one or more Inca King who had hypertrophy of the pituitary gland? What would be so hard to believe about a 9 foot 6 guy having walked earth in the past?

[notyou2]

HA!!eleventy

Johnny Rockets busted for the fraud he is. Everyone knows the navy was still using F-14s when Top Gun the movie was filmed. Now get your shovel.

Does anyone have a Lebonese phrase book we can borrow?

JR is a little confused. I thought they were F16's in Top Gun, but perhaps they were F-14's. My point is the Canadian air force was flying CF-18's at the time, and still is, and I think this is probably what JR was thinking of.

[Lionz]

Did Maximinus have hypertrophy of the pituitary gland if he is known for being able to pull laden carts unaided?

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... age450.jpg

[Snorri1234]

They might frown if Rockets and I show up there in Illinois and start trenching.



fotochopped His legs would break.

I like how they took the picture of him with the short guy just to emphisize it. Serioulsy let me know if there's somewhere I can see giant bones. I really want to check some out. I'll go back to lurking for a while here.

I think that's actually his dad.

[AAFitz]

They might frown if Rockets and I show up there in Illinois and start trenching.



fotochopped His legs would break.

I like how they took the picture of him with the short guy just to emphisize it. Serioulsy let me know if there's somewhere I can see giant bones. I really want to check some out. I'll go back to lurking for a while here.

I think that's actually his dad.

Notice the shadow his "dad" leaves to the left, but he is in direct sunlight with no shadow from the "boy"

the oswald photo was more believable

[Lionz]

Why would someone photoshop an image of Wadlow to make him look a few inches taller if you're meaning to suggest that occured?

[Snorri1234]

Yeah, no need to photoshop him. Dude was a freak of nature AND DIED FOR BEING SO TALL.


Basically it's silly to point ot him as LOL GIANTS DID EXIST.

[Lionz]

I pointed to him in making one or more point having to do with how hard it would be to believe there was a 9 foot 6 tall Inca king specifically maybe.

[2dimes]

JR is a little confused. I thought they were F16's in Top Gun, but perhaps they were F-14's. My point is the Canadian air force was flying CF-18's at the time, and still is, and I think this is probably what JR was thinking of.

I could have been kidding.
Tom Cruise as Lt. Pete Mitchell isn't Canadian. The US Navy replaced the F-14s with F/A - 18s which is their main carrier fighter currently.
F-16s are not structurally capable of launching from aircraft carriers. It might be funny to shoot the nose wheel off into the ocean with the catapult. Yet another thing I can't afford to do to make entertaining youtube videos like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPVF4dQQzmM

Dude was a freak of nature AND LIKE EVERY GIANT DIED FOR BEING SO TALL.

[notyou2]

I realize the movie is American. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. JR is Canadian and the Canadians are flying the F-18 (CF-18 version) and have been for many years. I was only trying to say that perhaps that is where JR pulled the F-18 reference from. I am simply postulating.

[Lionz]

I might be rubbing off on you NY2.

[notyou2]

maybe

[Frigidus]

Although the angle might make it seem a little larger than it is, this is clearly a very big monster thing. How can we explain this, maybe?



Nephilim.



How can we explain something this clear cut?

[Lionz]

[Lionz]

How about someone toss up a theory on the Yonaguni Monument?

> > > http://s8int.com/water2.html

Geologically dated to be from a mythological point in time in which it's claimed the most advanced culture in Japan was small groups of hunter-gatherers?

It might not be much in terms of evidence for giants, but evidence against orthodox history and in support of the flood at least? These Might all show it...



















You will actually find some who will argue that it's a natural structure maybe... image showing an above ground stone structure somewhere else on earth for comparison purposes here?

[Lionz]

These two might be derived from a movie that uses one or more photoshopped image and they Might even be photoshopped themselves. Where is shown in these if they are not? There might be plenty of hoax images, but should anything really be turned into a strawman in a quest for truth?

[daddy1gringo]

...should anything really be turned into a strawman in a quest for truth?

I thought the strawman was in a quest for a brain.

[PLAYER57832]

OK, have some more time. Starting from more recent posting to earlier:

Re Yonugami site: Basically, this looks regular, but is most likely a fully natural site. The rocks do not come from another location (which would tend to indicate human intervention). The smooth surface makes some people suspect human activity, but it is likely natural.
http://circulartimes.org/Enigmatic%20Yo ... S%20CT.htm

You have the right guy in mind perhaps, but do you mean hypertrophy of his pituitary gland and who told you he required leg braces to walk?

What if there was one or more Inca King who had hypertrophy of the pituitary gland? What would be so hard to believe about a 9 foot 6 guy having walked earth in the past?

Robert Wadlow -- He, Andre the Giant, etc are all real. They had pituitary problems. This is one reason why archeologists/most scientists don't completely dispute the possibility of very large people. As we see today, it is actually likely that there were individuals who were unusually large. That said, "unusually large" at a time when the average person was much shorter is a relative term. The Vikings, for example, are often protrayed as "huge brutes". I reality, evidence is that they were about the same size as we today, but were perhaps a bit larger than others around. One theory (it might actually be fact, but I cannot immediately find verification, so I say theory), that a mild climate gave them a much more varied diet than many groups of the time, thus making them healthier and stronger. However "giant" is an exaggeration. Think of it this way.. people ALWAYS make the enemy more brutal, bigger, etc. in retelling. Its rather akin to "fish stories". I don't say they lie, I say its easy to convince yourself that the people you fought were huge, nasty brutes, rather than people just like you.

However, there is a difference between isolated individuals and an entire race of giants. We have a fair amount of archeological evidence form the times when Giants are supposed to exist. Yet, no evidence of giants has been found. As many have said before, absence of evidence is not evidence. There could be remains not yet found or the remains just might have dissapeared, not been preserved. However, again, when there is so much evidence from virtually every other mentioned group in the region and not that one.. the absence is suspicious.

Like i said before, i've seen reports of these skeletons from time to time for many years now and have been intrigued with such, mainly because such reports are always followed by silence from the scientific community. I've never seen or heard of any scientists investigating them or providing evidence to refute them - just silence. Given such odd behavior from the scientific community at large, i don't think it makes me a "believer" in fairy tales to say "Whatthefuck?".

Reports and "credible reports" are 2 different things. I would have to see individual links, but all of what was posted above are simply hoaxes. Real science tends to ignore such hoaxes because most PhDs get reams of such reports, along with claims that Newton/Gallileo, etc were all wrong. Occasionally, they do take time to refute the most prevalent, but they just don't have the time, energy or financing to prove that " yes, the sea really is salty".

I think your broader question is could giants exist. The basic answer is that it is actually likely that there have been isolated individuals who were giants. Whether there was a man who was 13 feet high, is another question. Most scientists say its quite unlikely. I have heard Biblican explanations as well, but cannot remember them off the top of my head. (one explanation is, of course that he never was actually 13 feet, just that this was the perception or even that it was a mis-translation or even that this is not necessarily a true story, but a "lesson story".. .sort of like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.... but I don't know what is the most accepted explanation right now. I DO firmly believe that concentration on such minutia is not what the Bible is about and is precisely where human error comes in. The truth comes through no matter the translation, but details don't always, because some concepts in one language just plain differ in other languages.)

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER,

What do you consider evidence if you claim no evidence for giants has been found? What do you consider to be a valid source of information?

The bigger answer in all of this is what is credible and what is not.

To be scientifically credible means several things.

1. physical evidence. Not absolutely required, but pretty definite. If anyone were to find a skeleton of a 20 foot person.. well, no question it exists! The problem is none has been found. Each of the modern cases you have presented (skipping the ancient reports for the moment) is plain fraud.

2. Corroborating, verified evidence. Here the standard is extremely high. To be considered credible, it usually has to be verified by multiple experts and credible people. Anything reported by just 1-2 people, without any kind of physical evidence (sounds, undoctored photos, etc.) is going to be questioned, even if the people reporting it are fully credible. I can remember, just as an example, seeing bald eagle .. a male with the white head, etc. One of my colleagues was a graduate student. Even so, it was not considered an "officially official" report. That was for an animal pretty much known to be there! When it comes to reporting something thought extinct, etc, the standards required is much higher. It took years to verify the existance of the ivory billed woodpecker, for example.

Eye witness accounts are notoriously horrible. This is true in crimes, it is true in biology it is absolutely and completely true when reviewing ancient accounts. A lot of what you call "reports" are actually not first-hand reports, but instead reports of things people believed at the time. Those that are "first hand" are, well, just questionable. Take Marco Polo. Now, I don't even know if he made such a report (that dragons pulled the emperor's carriage), but from the outset, Chinese society, even back then was extremely maticulous in reports. IF this were true, there would be more evidence within China. What I have seen (and no, I don't call myself an expert!) refers either to other animals or representations of mythical animals -- like the dragon parade. But, and this is important, even if these reports were fully true, it would not be proof against evolution, in favor of the flood, etc. It would be evidence of an anomoly, sometime unexplained. See, we DO actually have ancient animals, very definite relics. We have horseshoe crabs, Nautilus, Ceolocanth, etc. (yes, I am heavy into fish..) All exist in exactly the same form today as they did millions of years ago. So, too do their "evolutionary descendents".

In general, things reported by a group like the National Geographic (in recent times... older reports were, well, perhaps less credible) and other recognized scientific organizations won't even be reported by them (things can be "leaked" unofficially.. sometimes by people who simply want to either "borrow" the well-known name to perpetuate their fraud or sometimes just misunderstandings that get blown out of proportion.. something that someone might have thought possible, but which is not actually true).


3. Older reports are even more questioned. People in the past simply did not have the same standards we do. They were not stupid, but they lacked the knowledge and awareness of the world that most children gain today in elementary school. A lot of reports were exaggerated or changed. Sometimes just to "make a better story" (mermaids might be an example of this), sometimes because people really and truly believed things to be true (reports of giants... easy to think a fierce enemy is much larger than he really is! or to "see" a mythic creature you fully expect to find in the "dark of night" or the "dark forest", etc).

So, basically, pictures on tombs and such are considered important, are things for which people would like answers. However, it must be understood that many of them were what we would call fictional representations.. that is, representations of gods and creatures people believed to be true, but which they had not actually seen. Some werer even of tales that were just entertainment. Others pictures might represent real animals or might not.



Also, what goes against what is given in Genesis? Does Genesis not suggest there at least has been water above earth's atmosphere and suggest that it did not rain before the flood? Thoughts on sections called Genesis 1:6-10 and Genesis 2:5?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen1.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen2.htm[/quote]

I answered this pretty fully to Widowmaker in the Real University. If you cannot or do not wish to join, I will dig it up later, in a new thread. But right now, I have to go.

[b.k. barunt]

I guess we can throw out Wikipedia as a credible source then?


Honibaz