Why is the Smithsonian preventing any research into Giants?

Originally posted by Baalam

Originally posted by Dextraphite
reply to post by Baalam

 

Watch the entire series and visit Steven Quayles website. It gives a lot more information, and it is not JUST about ONE occurrence that was a hoax. Sure, there are many hoaxes, but also many valid accounts. This is not just based off of one occurrence.
StevenQuayle.com

Allow me to reiterate, I don't need to watch the entire series because in the first few minutes alone there are clearly doctored photographs.

Here's an article with more pictures.

It is mathematically impossible that these creatures existed, in accordance to the square-cube law. I believe giants are possible, but you're simply regurgitating false information.

Uhhhggg .... Using National Geographic to debunk something is no good. Sometimes photos are faked for a very useful purpose ...one being ...to discredit the context of whatever is in the photo.

They are pretty good at mixing truth with fiction. They lie. Just like every other mouthpiece for a government.

Our current use of mathematics is not the end all for everything. And using the word "Impossible" just doesn't sit well with me.

Dinosaurs existed on this planet for a long time. Seems to me they had no problem existing even though they were and still are the biggest creatures to roam planet earth.

Soooo...believing that a 12 foot Human or biped can exist isn't that far out.

reply to post by Furbs


I don't think it's that simple, especially if you understand the history of the scrolls. All the OT scrolls were considered inspired soon after they were written and the Jews were extremely strict about how to copy and pass down the literature. One mistake and they started the whole process over again.

And the level of consistency is not something that can be done on a whim. What you are suggesting is akin to if we take books written between 500 AD to the present 2012 AD and combining it in a way where there are no contradictions. Not as easy as you say it is.

Why is everyone saying it will validate the bible??? If anything it would validate the opposite theory of the Ancient Astronuat Theory. Nephilim means those from the heavens. If they had wings in there skeleton it would validate the bible, but if they don't it goes to the AA theory and evolution. Espsecially if there DNA is similar to ours.

OT and NT are two completely things IMO

Sure the Torah may be consistent with the years...
But it was the NT that was created solely to keep us in our box and keep females down. (But I won't get on a Goddess-based rant today )
So saying "Bible" is irrelevant in that sense, since it was not the NT that spoke of these things.

I do believe if the Torah was the word of a deity, it was a vengeful one at that.

... I wouldn't want him as my god.

Yes, because the Bible mentions giants that means it would validate the Bible. Please.

Jack and the Beanstalk mentions giants. Does that make all fairy tales fact instead of fantasy?

Secondly why would you think it validates any of the recent religions. If anything it would validate religions which are now considered myths. The bible wasn't the first too talk about giants on earth.

reply to post by jtap66


Cause there's no way the bible can't be a fairy tale or myth..... just discredit all the other older and even ancient religions.

I've no problem believing in Steven Quayle's statements because he Gives His Sources and His Sources are verifiable. We're not talking about a couple freaks of nature unearthed here and there but Hundreds of accounts in different nations worldwide. Yeah, maybe some photos are fakes but that does not invalidate the whole thing, no more than all those fake UFO snaps floating around makes UFOs unreal.

My mistake here was bringing in the Bible. The existence of Giants might validate a tiny fraction of it, but so it would other non-Christian religious scriptures and myths. Namely the Nordic stories (and anyone who's delved into the roots of Nazism know where That would lead!). The bottom line is it would stir up too many old belief systems and maybe even lead to war.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by Furbs

 

I don't think it's that simple, especially if you understand the history of the scrolls. All the OT scrolls were considered inspired soon after they were written and the Jews were extremely strict about how to copy and pass down the literature. One mistake and they started the whole process over again.

And the level of consistency is not something that can be done on a whim. What you are suggesting is akin to if we take books written between 500 AD to the present 2012 AD and combining it in a way where there are no contradictions. Not as easy as you say it is.

Ah, the bait and switch, it seems.

The Jews have 24 canonical books, all written in Hebrew, and even those books were canonized at some point around 200 BCE. Before then, there were more that are simply no longer taught as canonical and are only looked at by mystics, like the Book of Enoch, for instance.

But we are not talking about just the Hebrew texts, are we? Nope. You brought in the Gospels, since you are discussing multiple languages. The Gospels aren't as cut and dried as some would like to believe, and even they were cut and pasted from multiple sources (mostly oral traditions) before being canonized.

Which is simpler?

A group of guys, that had made it their lives work to study religious texts, got together and created a single book designed to have all of the knowledge worth knowing about their religion in a single place.. or that a supernatural force used magic to make 40 different authors tell the same story at different times in history?

Well this is a first for me. I've never seen math used to troll a thread.

The flaw with odds and statistics is that there really is no such thing as a mathematical impossibility. For example, it is mathematically impossible to be struck more than once by lightning.

Yet one man, one Roy C. Sullivan has been struck by lightning 7 times in his lifetime. Roy was a U.S. forest ranger in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia

In other words, no matter how much the odds are stacked against it, there is always a very slim chance of beating the odds. And sometimes the odds are beaten, even if they are a googleplex to the tenth power to one.

With that being said, I don't believe that the proof would validate the Bible in its entirety. You'd still have to prove the existence of Jesus and God with hard evidence, not just claims and argumentation. Just because the giants existence it still doesn't prove the existence of God. Those are two entirely different things.


Edit:

Here is a website that lists some of the archeological finds:

www.prospector-utah.com...

reply to post by parkwoods21


humanoid winged angels are actually not in the bible...

Let's say that these giants are the descendants of the Nephilim. If you read the Book of Enoch, the biblical god sent a flood to wipe these Nephilim off the face of the earth. The biblical god is said to be omniscient, meaning he knows everything. Apparently, he didn't know that his flood plan would fail and that the Nephililm would live.....

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


Do you know what Nephilim means? Those who come from the heavens....I'm not an expert but did the giants come from the heavens? Or were they made of the earth like we supposivly are.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by parkwoods21

 

humanoid winged angels are actually not in the bible...

The Archangel Michael is in the Bible, and he is a humanoid winged angel according to pre-christian sources.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
reply to post by parkwoods21

 

humanoid winged angels are actually not in the bible...

Zechariah 5:9-10 "Then I looked up--and there before me were two women, with the wind in their wings! They had wings like those of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between heaven and earth. 'Where are they taking the basket?' I asked the angel who was speaking to me."

So I am guessing here...

Elite families favor red hair in their breeders since it is closer to the original genetics that made up "the fallen"?

They are all about preserving their royal blood lines. Did they find a myth or a lineage from one of the olden rulers that was scattered amongst the many children of man?

Blond / red hair, blue eyes, etc? These are the traits they think are directly passed down from the gods of old?

It would be interesting to find out if there are allot of royal blood lines with higher than normal incidents of six fingered children.

reply to post by Furbs


I didn't address the NT and was using the OT as an example...but since you brought it up, we know that there are thousands of manuscripts of what we call today the NT. Yes they are in fragments, but the interesting this is that even if we didn't have any manuscripts, we could reconstruct 95% of the NT just based on the writings of the first century references.

Secondly, we are veering off course to the OP which was about giants. The point is, Giants are depicted throughout the Old Testament, alluded to in the New Testament, and accounts of giants are made throughout history all over the world.

So the truth about giants wouldn't prove all the bible true, or God, or Jesus. However, it would show that the historical significance is accurate on Giants and therefore, it should at least give credibility to the fact that the Bible is NOT just a mythical story pieced together by 4th century ecumenical leaders.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
The point is, Giants are depicted throughout the Old Testament, alluded to in the New Testament, and accounts of giants are made throughout history all over the world.

So the truth about giants wouldn't prove all the bible true, or God, or Jesus. However, it would show that the historical significance is accurate on Giants and therefore, it should at least give credibility to the fact that the Bible is NOT just a mythical story pieced together by 4th century ecumenical leaders.

"The Truth" about giants is simple.

en.wikipedia.org...

They are a physical impossibility.

reply to post by Hydroman


I am mistaken...

You're right...there is. But I believe that is the only place of humanoid mention of wings.

Besides that, I believe wings are only in living beings...not necessarily humanoid figures

"Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." Isaiah 6:2

And certainly, other than the passage you mention, wings are seldom mentioned with angels.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


You are right. It would prove the bible took stories and accounts from other cultures across the world and incorperated it into the "christian" book.