Why is the Smithsonian preventing any research into Giants?

Originally posted by Bixxi3

Originally posted by Dextraphite
reply to post by fxtrademark

 

and why would this be? Because it would essentially validate the Bible?

The bible gets one thing right and it must all be true?

I don't think so

No, not exactly but a credible finding would give us some insight into the PRE-flood world. Of course some of the the most famous myths about the time are that a race of very intelligent peoples, perhaps giants, had flourishing societies at places like Atlantis, Hi Brasil and Puma Punka. They were skilled astrologists and builders, then a massive flood destroys them. The narrative is invariably the same across the board.

reply to post by Bixxi3


I don't think that lupr3 specifically said that he thought it was giants, he was just pointing out the evidence at Baalbek that showed that these stones were not made of an ancient type concrete...

The translation from Hebrew to Greek was flawed.

The nearest translation we have for the original Hebrew word "Nephalim" is "without a soul". It did not ever mean "giants". The Greeks, when searching for a word to describe something they didn't have a word for, fell back on their own mythology and thus "giant" was used.

It is possible the legends of these people "without a soul" were distant oral traditions of when early Homo Sapiens interacted with Homo Nearderthalensis. By tagging them as "less than humn" it made them fair game for slavery or worse.

But maybe not.

Originally posted by abeverage
I have not seen any believable evidence of a humanoid over 9ft. And an recent photo is 100% Photoshop HOAX!

Just a reminder, people, that the original post noted that the photographs are nothing to do with the radio interview, and acknowledged that a number of photos are clearly hoaxes. Photos inserted to fill the white space of the narrative.

And while I'm here, I recall the Bible said that SONS (plural) of God had their way (or words to that effect) with human women thus creating the giants. I find it peculiar that the plural is mentioned, just as it is in Genesis with 'let us make man in our image'. Just sayin'.

reply to post by Damrod

The theory that the Nephilim were Neanderthals is absurd considering that they were extinct 15-20 thousand years before the Semites ever existed. Though the word Nephilim does not specifically translate as giant does not mean that they were not. In English we use words all the time to describe something that is not its literal meaning, like when describing someone as a jack ass, they are not literally a jack ass, just a stupid person (no pun intended). Consider this: the word Anakim translates as “the descendants of Anak”, or Enoch, the son of Cain, and was another name for the Watchers. Though it was said that the flood had been sent to destroy them, there were still entire cities of Anakim in Canaan as late as the time of Moses. Spies sent by Moses to scout Anakim strongholds reported back that the Anakim were so large that the Hebrews seemed “like grasshoppers” in comparison. Jewish chronicler Josephus states that even in his own day it was not uncommon for people to dig up gigantic skeletal remains.

reply to post by Bixxi3


"Above all, Rome records no claim to the incredible retaining wall.

b) Presence of other records of actual Roman transport capabilities

Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a little over 300 metric tons seemed to be the limit for the transport of big blocks, achievable only with the greatest difficulty. Transport of the 323 ton Laterano obelisk to Rome spanned the reigns of three emperors. Clearly, the record setting engineers from Baalbek, had they existed, could have also managed the task of transporting the relatively light Lateran Obelisk.
The fact that they "

vejprty.com...

I got this from another site.... everything I have read points to this.. well, everything but that Doug link you sent.. which I will have to read up on.

Originally posted by Damrod
The translation from Hebrew to Greek was flawed.

The nearest translation we have for the original Hebrew word "Nephalim" is "without a soul". It did not ever mean "giants". The Greeks, when searching for a word to describe something they didn't have a word for, fell back on their own mythology and thus "giant" was used.

It is possible the legends of these people "without a soul" were distant oral traditions of when early Homo Sapiens interacted with Homo Nearderthalensis. By tagging them as "less than humn" it made them fair game for slavery or worse.

But maybe not.

The Hebrew root world in Nephillim, -npl, means "to fall". In genesis, the Nephillim are described as the offspring of human women and fallen angels. Later encounters with the Nephillim in numbers and Deuteronomy solidify them as giants.

The Greeks drew off pre-existing Hebrew knowledge when they translated the word to gigantes. The Hebrews knew the Nephillim as giants before the Greeks, not to mention that most of the Septaguint translators were Jewish Greeks.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


Trust me, they've been solved. Working with a concrete-like mixture poured into a mold situated on-the-spot solves a ton (pun!) of problems! We're not talking about molded blocks done at the Base of the pyramids but molds placed exactly where the blocks are meant to be placed. The cement can be moved little by little by buckets if they care to take the time, or maybe employ a more advanced trough-system.

I'll say this though, if giants made the pyramids they'd have made Big entrances so as not to bump their heads!

reply to post by OrionStarfire


Where did all of this info come from? Very fascinating, please let me know? I have heard of a few of these stories,
mainly the Germanic and Amerindians, but you seem to have a good source all of which I personally believe.

Originally posted by OrionStarfire
reply to post by Damrod

 

The theory that the Nephilim were Neanderthals is absurd considering that they were extinct 15-20 thousand years before the Semites ever existed. Though the word Nephilim does not specifically translate as giant does not mean that they were not. In English we use words all the time to describe something that is not its literal meaning, like when describing someone as a jack ass, they are not literally a jack ass, just a stupid person (no pun intended). Consider this: the word Anakim translates as “the descendants of Anak”, or Enoch, the son of Cain, and was another name for the Watchers. Though it was said that the flood had been sent to destroy them, there were still entire cities of Anakim in Canaan as late as the time of Moses. Spies sent by Moses to scout Anakim strongholds reported back that the Anakim were so large that the Hebrews seemed “like grasshoppers” in comparison. Jewish chronicler Josephus states that even in his own day it was not uncommon for people to dig up gigantic skeletal remains.

Josephus in The Antiquities of the Jews writes:

"For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.

www.ccel.org...

Of course Westerners and apologists dismiss the ideas as having no foundation, and being yet another "invention" of the Bible. Just like how they regarded King Herod, until his tomb was discovered in 2007 in the EXACT location Josephus said it was.

reply to post by CaptainLJB

You are missing the evidence at Ballbek of the megalithic stone abandoned at the quarry still only partially chiseled out. Are you saying that they intentionally molded a concrete stone directly to a quarry and left it there to appear as if it was halfway carved out?

Originally posted by Dextraphite
reply to post by fxtrademark

 

and why would this be? Because it would essentially validate the Bible?

It in no way validates the entire Bible. If Giants are proven, it would only validate the MYTH of David and Goliath.

The fact that cities mentioned in The Bible have been found doesn't validate it either. The BEST stories take place in places that we know and are familiar with. Even today, many stories take place in towns and cities we are familiar with but are just that, stories.

After all, you don't REALLY think that than big alien ship over the Empire State Building took out New York now, do you?

This is my second favorite topic next to UFO's./....When I show pictures of Giants to my wife she was just floored because there is not much literature on this as there should be...

Originally posted by Baalam
Considering that the video doesn't give much more information, I'm inclined to go with the fact that it is a hoax. National Geographic did an article on the topic and talked about how in this particular case, it was a well made hoax.

Another good resource for these doctored images can be seen here. I'm all for giants, but don't believe everything you read in a YouTube video.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally, I do not believe that the discovery of giants is a hoax. There seem to be all manner of sizes when it comes to primates. Neanderthal, if memory serves, was a little bigger than us, though by no means "giant." But, Australiopithicus (I'm sure I misspelled it, but you get the idea) is about the size of Bigfoot, somewhat a giant --if 7ft+ qualifies. Maybe a minor giant. Then, on the other end of the scale we have the "hobbit" found in Indonesia (I think). To the hobbit, WE are giants. The examples I've listed so far are uncontested and backed by mainstream, public --**cleared**-- science.

As many of us know, and far many more do not know, researchers who look into "fringe" topics, like giants, do not get grants. Further, they are black-listed by fellow scientists. Even further, they usually don't get tenure. You see, to look beyond the BLINDERS that TPTB (The Powers That Be --wealthy elite who *fund* research) have on us all, means to lose funding, become an academic pariah and eventually -without tenure-- forced out of "science." All because some scientists are curious. To look beyond where "they" want us to look is academic suicide. If you don't believe me, then read some of Michael Cremo's work: "FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY." --He has essays and other work out there too.

That being said, there exist reports that upon discovering giants and other odd remains, fossils, skeletons, artifacts, etc., teams from the government, universities and/or the Smithsonian arrive and take the remains for "study" or they purchase them. If the remains weren't given over or sold to them, then the remains "vanished" (stolen) at a later date, or ridiculed and declared a hoax (sound familiar to you UFO folks? For info on secrecy, cover-ups and designed ridicule, read Richard Dolan's "UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE; this all ties together, folks). So, when anomalies have been discovered, it seems that people show up to whisk away these profound disoveries.

The picture that is painted is that "someone" or some FEW know something about our past, about this world, and they *desperately* don't want the general public to know about. It's as if the wealthy elite, TPTB, know about the true nature of this world, perhaps reality itself, and they want to remain in power, keeping us "lower folks" unaware of our full potential. There's a thread on ATS right now about the "Mother of all Conspiracies," or something like that. It's popular, you've probably read it.

TPTB condition us to believe in "Occam's Razor" and the acronym of KISS (Keep It Simple, STUPID). Don't fall into those pitfalls --shortcuts to actually THINKING. They want you to believe that the simplest of explanations is true, that this world has no more secrets, etc. For instance, when looking into the science and anomalies of 9-11, I realized there was MUCH MORE to the story than the official accounts, that certain "facts" were in FACT fallacies, lies and deceptions. Occam's Razor would tell you to accept the official explanation. It's important to be open-minded, thoughtful and a little curious.

Did giants exist? It's relative. We're the giants compared to that hobbit race. Aside from the obvious or well-done hoaxes, there seems to be credible evidence in photographs and personal accounts (some by scientists themselves) that suggests that there have been giants on this planet. That's not 100% certainty, for sure, but it's a lot better than a quick dismissal, IMHO.

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun

 

Trust me, they've been solved. Working with a concrete-like mixture poured into a mold situated on-the-spot solves a ton (pun!) of problems! We're not talking about molded blocks done at the Base of the pyramids but molds placed exactly where the blocks are meant to be placed. The cement can be moved little by little by buckets if they care to take the time, or maybe employ a more advanced trough-system.

I'll say this though, if giants made the pyramids they'd have made Big entrances so as not to bump their heads!

I personally don’t think giants built the pyramids. At least I haven’t read anything that would make me believe that. But there are other temples that are very hard to explain. This is why I keep bringing up Baalbek. Those foundation stones are huge...I think they are limestone as well. I don't believe the Romans could have done it, or would have done it. I do believe there were giants.. Only way I could know for sure though is if I found a skeleton myself. But going off of what I have read and the interviews I have partaken in, I have come to the conclusion that they are real. Sine “I” believe this it could answer my question on how those stones were quarried and then put into place. The timeframe would line up, as well as the means to do it. Again this is my opinion, and opinions are like … well you get the picture right?

reply to post by SmertSpionam1


My information comes from to many sources to site and years of research into this subject. These are excerpts from a book I have written, which will exonerate the valid claim of the White race as the true prehistoric founders of human civilization, and not a bunch of ancient aliens. The true founders of Human civilization were ancient Aryans. a fact that was well known by the turn of the 20th century but has been covered up by the ZOG PTB since the end of world war two.

reply to post by OrionStarfire


Well that is why I said it was an oral tradition of those encounters, not the Semites themselves. It could have been a story handed down from the Hunter Gatherers of a hairy "less than human being" that the "ancients" encountered.

I see your point but I do not agree. I do not accept the historical accuracy of your source material. Nice stories, but that is all. Allegories and metaphors.

The archaeological record shows that the two species coexisted for many thousands of years. I don't see it as any stretch of logic to assume one looked poorly on the other and that after the one began to vanish, stories were told about them and embellishment always has a way of creeping into oral traditions and history.

Can you give an example of anyone being prevented from this research?

I know of the stories where people say someone from the Smithsonian came and took remains etc. but that could just be someone saying that.

If I found giant bones, artifacts etc, I'd take lots of pictures, then I'd invite the press to take pictures, then I'd invite the scientists.

Originally posted by Dextraphite
reply to post by fxtrademark

 

and why would this be? Because it would essentially validate the Bible?

In as far as the bible is a book of myths explaining what was going on around the folks who crafted the myths in attempts to explain was is going on?

I'm pretty sure every culture's mythology does that. Good try though...

Derek

Another thing to think about is this. Aside from proving the Bible correct in terms of the giants. If the information were to be released it would be plain and simple that we were lied to. All history books would have to be rewritten. But that is the easy part. The demeanor of people now a days has shifted. The balance of power would tip, if this was proven to be true. It is a game of control, and that control would be destroyed. Same could be said about UFO’s… If everything you were taught in school, and big chunk of what is being taught today was found out to be a lie purposely hidden. What do you think would happen to public perception? And perception is reality.