Giants- The Mystery and the Myth

Very cool documentary, Giants- The Mystery And The Myth
www.youtube.com...

Giant is not just a legend
photo.minghui.org...

But what is the ultimate point that optimal conditions and lifestyle could bring the human body to? Some say that human beings in the past could ascend in broad daylight in different areas of the world. When some buddhas are cremated it leaves a dense jewel like substance which is condensed energy from other dimensions.

Some people like to claim that the "perfect" human would be like some kind of super hunter with eyes in the back of their head, like something out of the movie Predator or something. They claim that becasue people get diseases or ailments like arthritis and back problems that it shows humans are not even perfect, and that they shared an ancestor with baboons and monkeys and actually came from monkeys then.

But when we look at things scientifically and mathematically we see that the human body is obviously a complete microcosm of the universe. It is perfectly upright unlike any animal. It fits perfectly into the 5 pointed star diagram, and corresponds to the 5 elements. The head is the top point of the star, with the arms and legs fitting into the other 4 points. We also see perfect symmetry in all life, and things often come in pairs of 2 like eyes in humans, they have 2 becasue it represents the law of Yin and Yang in the universe.

People who believe humans are apes will say, "humans are weak! they die at an average of 30 years old in #ty primitive societies."

But again when we analyze people who actually live in touch with nature, we find around the world, especially in asia, that ancient people with no modern benfits can use universal life energy and natural principles to live to be over 100.

Modern genetics says humans can live to be 120-140 easily under proper conditions. So what's the limit? I think the bible says man should live to be 140.

Some reports in China claim someone lived to be 200 years. I don't know if it's true or not for sure. I may look into it more.

But then, in the past humans lived to be way more than even that, and were much larger, and semi-etheric even in the begginning, not even fully material. Religions around the world say at one time humans lived to be up to 1000, like Osiris, Thoth, Isis, and biblical characters too. As we became more attached to materiality and mental desires, we became weaker and weaker.

What is the limits of the physical plane?

reply to post by Hollywood11


Nope. The human skeleton can't support its own weight when we get to about 8 feet tall. Heck, some folks under 8 feet have horrific bone and joint problems. Our height is inherently limited by the materials and structure of our skeletons. No number of YouTube videos or weasel-words will ever change that fact.

People who believe humans are apes? You mean scientists? Awww - does that make you feel icky inside to know that you are a great ape?

You've made so many assertions in your post I don't even know where to start. You say an awful lot of "some say"s and lots of mentions of "they", who are never disclosed. If you can't even bother to research your points before spewing them upon ATS, then why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

Seriously, put your pride to one side, and go read some books. Your ignorance is blinding.

Only about an hour from where i live,they found in the late 1800s bones belong to individuals claimed 10 feet tall.They were found white they were excavating something.

reply to post by Hollywood11

I once thought Giants were just fairy tales but now I think they describe genetic manipulation which took place in an advanced civilization which predated our civilization. The book Enoch is about Giants and it describes in passages donkeys giving birth to elephants something similar to experiments our scientists are performing . Modern giants are the result of a tumour behind the pituitary gland. Height is tied to status now and in the past. An artificial tumour placed behind the pituitary gland could turn an average person into a giant. I heard on Dr.Dean O'dell's show that a surgeon once cut his hand with a scalpel while removing a tumour from a patient.Years later he developed a tumour in the area where he cut his hand. Could be that some ancients figured out the connection with the pituitary gland and growth and maybe even knew enough about tumours to transplant one behind the pituitary gland. Radiation also causes tumours . Mohenjo-Daro looks like it was destroyed by an atomic bomb. Vedic texts also describe nuclear warfare.


[edit on 10-6-2008 by eradown]

Originally posted by dave420


Nope. The human skeleton can't support its own weight when we get to about 8 feet tall. Heck, some folks under 8 feet have horrific bone and joint problems. Our height is inherently limited by the materials and structure of our skeletons. No number of YouTube videos or weasel-words will ever change that fact.

Obviously if humans had been Giants at one time instead of ape-like creatures, they would have had different bone structures than they do now.

It doens't matter either way, whether you believe in giants or ape-men, the skeleton would have been different

People who believe humans are apes? You mean scientists? Awww - does that make you feel icky inside to know that you are a great ape?

If it doesn't make you feel icky or wrong then i would say you have become quite entrenched in materiality and selfishness.

You've made so many assertions in your post I don't even know where to start. You say an awful lot of "some say"s and lots of mentions of "they", who are never disclosed. If you can't even bother to research your points before spewing them upon ATS, then why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

Seriously, put your pride to one side, and go read some books. Your ignorance is blinding.

Obviously i've done alot ofresearch as you say, i post tons of sources, links, videos, and bonus material as well

Originally posted by eradown
I once thought Giants were just fairy tales but now I think they describe genetic manipulation which took place in an advanced civilization which predated our civilization. The book Enoch is about Giants and it describes in passages donkeys giving birth to elephants something similar to experiments our scientists are performing . Modern giants are the result of a tumour behind the pituitary gland. Height is tied to status now and in the past. An artificial tumour placed behind the pituitary gland could turn an average person into a giant. I heard on Dr.Dean O'dell's show that a surgeon once cut his hand with a scalpel while removing a tumour from a patient.Years later he developed a tumour in the area where he cut his hand. Could be that some ancients figured out the connection with the pituitary gland and growth and maybe even knew enough about tumours to transplant one behind the pituitary gland. Radiation also causes tumours . Mohenjo-Daro looks like it was destroyed by an atomic bomb. Vedic texts also describe nuclear warfare.


[edit on 10-6-2008 by eradown]

Good post I think you're definitely on the right track to finding the truth about the past and history.

I definitely think that there was some kind of engineering with mixing different animals going on. Humans too, think about the stories about the Minotaur in the west in ancient times, or mermaids, or bird headed Kachinas in the Hopi teachings. These were the last of these beings from Atlantis that had left Atlantis for other parts of the world before it was destroyed.

Hey, in fact the Great pyramids of Giza's were used as hospitals to correct and fix these humanimals at one time.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Hollywood11]

Another version
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Hollywood11


This is hilarious. Posting links and youtube videos doesn't make up for an inherent lack of understanding of human physiology.

Sorry. You're wrong on this one.

If humans de-evolved from giants then their physiology would have been different at that time, same as if they evolved out of apes or cave-men/ape-men the physiology would have been different.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Hollywood11]

reply to post by Hollywood11


That changes nothing. You are arguing from opinion, devoid of supporting evidence. It doesn't matter how much you bleat on about giants - it doesn't change the fact that our lineage is very well understood. There are gaps, but there are no gaps where human-like giants could have existed.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Hollywood11

 

That changes nothing. You are arguing from opinion, devoid of supporting evidence. It doesn't matter how much you bleat on about giants - it doesn't change the fact that our lineage is very well understood. There are gaps, but there are no gaps where human-like giants could have existed.

Hey Dave, sorry don't mean to go "banging" again, but why is it when people post the evidence they have collected you tell them they are wrong? The fact is they could be wrong but, evolution could be wrong too. Last time I checked, evolution was still a "Theory". How does telling them to "go read some books" which you won't even name for them helping to teach them what is "theoretical". Theory is changing, because it's not correct, but is an agreed upon "idea" that tries to help fill in the blanks until it can be observed as correct or changed.

In theory we could steal if we wanted to. We could go on stealing different things all over the place, but eventually the Law is going to catch up and prove our theory of stealing wrong. Even though, we would have evidence of what our theory of stealing got us, the law which is concept, would prove us wrong regardless of the evidence we've shown because it was obtained in the wrong manner.

I simply don't understand your "scientific" method, because your not using one. It seems to me your statements are driven by ego, simply because, you will not perform this simple task of showing them why they are wrong with evidence that is contrary to theirs, so that they may observe something more then your nude statements. We can tell each other we are wrong all day long, but that teaches nothing. Cutting people down isn't scientific, it's foolish. Don't we all come hear because we are interested in alternative explanations to things? Think tanks aren't supposed to have sharks in them.

If you were truly interested in seeing people reach the same academic level as yourself, then try living up to the science you preach. You might as well start preaching from a pulpit and call your God a Monkey, because your doing the same thing.

I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers, but come on man...I know your better then that.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Blargh.

Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it has evidence supporting it, can be falsified, can be experimented upon, and can be used to predict something. What we call a 'theory' in everyday English is called a 'hypothesis' in scientific terms. Evolution is more than a 'theory' - it is established. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is still just a hypothesis - it has yet to become a theory, and seeing as it is unfalsifiable, can't be experimented upon, and can't be used to predict something, it never will.

And, FYI, youtube videos and half-insane rants on the internet are not 'evidence', at least not of a scientific variety.

At least try to understand the nomenclature before you try to use it to make a point. You failed miserably.

You fail to understand my (the) scientific method? It's easily summed up (in its most basic form) in 5 words: 'put up or shut up'. Hollywood11 made a claim, but failed to provide actual evidence. No genetic studies, no verified fossil records, no nothing. That is not evidence, that is conjecture. No-one learns from conjecture.

hello

Maximus Thrax was reported to be 8 foot six inches

Robert Pershing Wadlow was reported by Guinness book as being 8' 11.1"

John Rogan was 8' 9"

Trijntje Cornelisdochter Keever circa 1615 (female) 8' 4.4"


david

reply to post by drevill


Indeed. Mutants. Not a separate species. You'll also notice all of them had horrific side-effects of their size. Hardly a useful adaptation.

Know what's funny? You can go into almost any museum and see "bones" of ancient GIANT animals, but "Oh no! There were no giant humans!"

In a sense, they are right, as the giant "humans" were said to have 6 fingers on each hand, and 6 toes on each foot.

reply to post by sir_chancealot


And yet left absolutely no trace of their presence. Fascinating.

You might want to read that whole 'evidence' thing we touched on earlier.

Actually, I'm a huge Giants fan and have been following them for years.
They even won the Superbowl last year!!

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Blargh.

Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it has evidence supporting it, can be falsified, can be experimented upon, and can be used to predict something. What we call a 'theory' in everyday English is called a 'hypothesis' in scientific terms. Evolution is more than a 'theory' - it is established. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is still just a hypothesis - it has yet to become a theory, and seeing as it is unfalsifiable, can't be experimented upon, and can't be used to predict something, it never will.

And, FYI, youtube videos and half-insane rants on the internet are not 'evidence', at least not of a scientific variety.

At least try to understand the nomenclature before you try to use it to make a point. You failed miserably.

You fail to understand my (the) scientific method? It's easily summed up (in its most basic form) in 5 words: 'put up or shut up'. Hollywood11 made a claim, but failed to provide actual evidence. No genetic studies, no verified fossil records, no nothing. That is not evidence, that is conjecture. No-one learns from conjecture.

Let me do what you failed to, AGAIN, which is to provide a quote, link, santa's naughty list...anything other then insults. "It's not the proper nomenclature"....Walter - The Big Lebowski

Wikipedia - Theory

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

In disagreeing, please provide some info(i.e. source, link, etc.) to correct me. It would make what your saying "verifiable" and would greatly aid to the entire science community.

Peace

Sweet Leaf
Black Sabbath

Originally posted by zlots331
Actually, I'm a huge Giants fan and have been following them for years.
They even won the Superbowl last year!!

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by sir_chancealot

 

And yet left absolutely no trace of their presence. Fascinating.

You might want to read that whole 'evidence' thing we touched on earlier.

Really?

Stonehenge, Machu Pichu, the Pyramids (which were considered ancient 2,000 years ago!), Easter Island. Need I list more?

Each of those becomes much, much easier to explain if the people who created them were 10-20 feet tall. (Please note: I am NOT saying that IS how they were created).

Never forget, scientists refused to accept that the Wright Brothers actually flew a heavier-than-air craft for several years afterwords.

What do you think the reaction would be if someone DID discover giant human bones? You think anthropologists would go "Awesome! This is an amazing discovery!" or do you think they would dismiss it as a hoax, or try and cover up the evidence because the bible talks about giants (as do a lot of other societies), and would be afraid that the bible would be proven, yet again, to be truthful?

Scientists are humans too, and they have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.