It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this picture a fake ??

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If I remember correctly, the femur was discovered to be a Mastadon femur as well...



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Yeah I've seen this pic before. Looks really fake.



posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Good pick though. Amazing what you can do in Photoshop (I use it myself).



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 06:07 AM
link   
This pic and a few others based on the same "discovery" have been proven to be frauds numerous times. What's got me curious is why suddenly the big rush of threads on this pic? This is about the 3rd or 4th thread this week that I've read about this picture



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I agree to read www.stevequayle.com... like BlueCollar mentioned



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I think you are hearing about it so much because Quayle was on coasttocoast AM recently



posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
eh nothing special to me. Looks like a regular skeleton



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Wow! jack and the beanstalk story is true afterall! PMSL



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
wich bible u readin huh? i neva saw it in the king james version



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I would love to see a pic.

*Z*



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I sure do hope that's irony...

And anyway, the Nephilim are in the apocryphal texts, primarily the book of enoch, not the bible.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Amarillo_Brice]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
hey guys
i researched about these giant humans before, a few weeks ago, and i posted this on another forum... here what i found!


Genesis 6:4 claims: "There were giants in the earth in those days;"





Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus

In 1935 palaeontologist Ralph von Koenigswald came across an unusually large molar while looking through fossil teeth in a Hong Kong drugstore, where they were known as �dragon�s teeth� and sold for medicinal purposes. He realized that the tooth belonged to a new primate species, which he named Gigantopithecus blacki. Many hundreds of teeth have since been found, along with 4 jawbones. Gigantopithecus (�giant ape�) is regarded as the largest primate ever to have existed.
Another species, known as Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis, is thought to have appeared in India between 6 and 13 million years ago, while Gigantopithecus blacki is thought to have lived in Southeast Asia and to have gone extinct about ****300 to 400*** thousand years ago. The teeth, though large, have a few similarities to human teeth, and this led some scientists to speculate that the creatures might have been giant hominid ancestors. However, the scientific consensus today is that Gigantopithecus was a hairy, quadrupedal, vegetarian ape.1 It is estimated that Gigantopithecus would have been 2.7 to 3.7 m (9 to 12 ft) tall if it stood on its hind legs, and weighed between 270 and 545 kg (600 to 1200 pounds); the largest gorilla is 1.8 m tall and weighs 135 to 180 kg.
In 1941 Von Koenigswald unearthed the fragment of an enormous jawbone containing 3 teeth in Java. They were even more humanlike in appearance than those of Gigantopithecus but slightly smaller. He named this new find Meganthropus palaeojavanicus. Since then there have been similar finds in China, Southeast Asia, the Near East, and Africa. Meganthropus is believed to have lived 1 million years ago, and is estimated to have stood around 2.4 to 3 m tall and to have weighed 270 to 365 kg. Like Gigantopithecus, its remains are scant. It is generally considered to be a very robust form of Homo erectus, though it has also been compared to the robust australopithecines.3
In Apes, Giants, and Man (1946), palaeoanthropologist Franz Weidenreich argued that both Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus were actually giant hominids on the line leading to man; in other words, the ancestors of man were not apelike pygmies, as usually supposed, but apelike giants.4 The conventional view is that Gigantopithecus walked on its knuckles like a gorilla, but anthropologist Grover Krantz believes that it was a bipedal hominid, and that Bigfoot may be a living relative. In addition to the semi-human dentition of Gigantopithecus, he points out that the back of its lower jaw spreads much more widely than the jaw of a gorilla, suggesting that it carried its head vertically and was capable of erect, bipedal locomotion. After examining their jaws and teeth, anthropologist Ivan Sanderson, too, concluded that the gigantopithecines were probably tool-making hominids.




and if you dont like that explanation for your bibles *gaints* here another explanation...





Giant humans
The races of humanity are highly diversified in stature. They range from pygmies some 1 m (3 ft) in height to the tall, slender Watusi of Ruanda-Urundi, whose adult males commonly grow to heights of over 2.1 m (7 ft). About one in a million people suffer from giantism or the growth disorder acromegaly, which causes various infirmities in additional to exceptional height. The tallest man ever reliably measured was 8 feet 6 inches by the time he was 8 years old, and 8 ft 11.1 in (2.72 m) when he died in 1940 at the age of 22. The shortest person was a Dutch woman who was only 23.2 inches (58.9 cm) tall at the age of 19.
Modern �experts� firmly reject the idea that there have ever been entire races of giants, and are adamant that our distant ancestors were primitive apelike creatures much smaller than ourselves. Worldwide legends and traditions, on the other hand, assert that there were races of giants in days of old. Theosophy agrees, and says that just as many modern animal and plant species had giant ancestors, so did modern humans.1 Over the past few hundred years, humans have grown slightly taller, but the long-term trend, measured over millions of years, is towards a reduction in stature, with relative �dwarves� and �giants� probably existing in every age.
A surprising number of giant human skeletons have in fact been discovered, some of them reaching heights of 4.6 m (15 ft) or more. In many cases, the present whereabouts of the remains is unknown, and many details about the skeletons and the circumstances of their discovery are lacking, including indications as to their possible age. But to dismiss every such find out of hand as a delusion or hoax would seem to owe more to rank prejudice than to healthy scepticism.
During the exploration of North American mounds in the 19th and early 20th centuries, hundreds of bones were recovered, including remains of human giants, mostly 2.1 to 2.4 m (7 to 8 ft) tall, but sometimes as tall as 3.1 m (10 ft).2 The official view is that they were just isolated cases of giantism among the Indians, but some of the skeletons seem to have belonged to an extinct, non-Indian race, and many Indian tribes have traditions of giants once occupying the land. In the case of some burials, the skeletal remains appeared to be uncommonly old and crumbled to dust when exposed to the atmosphere. Scientists from the Smithsonian Institution were involved in some of these finds; many of the bones were shipped off to its huge museum and have never been seen again! Only a small proportion of over a million artifacts in their collection are on public view � but no giants are among them.
A stone mound over 21 m in diameter was excavated near Brewersville, Indiana, in 1879; it contained several skeletons, at least one of which was over 2.9 m (9 ft 8 in) tall. The artifacts were kept in a basket near a grain mill on the property where they were found, but in 1937 a flood swept the mill away and with it the contents of the basket.3 In 1925 a group of amateur investigators dug into an Indian mound at Walkerton, Indiana, and unearthed the skeletons of 8 prehistoric humans, ranging from 2.4 to almost 2.7 m tall, all wearing substantial copper armour. Unfortunately the evidence was scattered and lost.
In 1833 soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompock Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and found the skeleton of a man about 3.7 m (12 ft) tall, surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant had double rows of upper and lower teeth � a commonly reported feature that is also mentioned in ancient traditions. When local Indians began to attach religious significance to the skeleton and artifacts, the authorities ordered them to be secretly reburied. The remains of a giant man with double rows of teeth were also dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast.
There are countless, often very sketchy reports of giant human skeletons being discovered in other parts of the world. A human skeleton 5.2 m (17 ft) tall was unearthed at Gargayan in the Philippines, and bones of other human creatures over 3 m tall have been found in southeastern China; one palaeontologist put their age at over 300,000 years. At Agadir in Morocco, the French captain Lafanech�re discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons including 500 double-edged axes weighing 8 kg, of a size that would require a man some 4 m tall to wield them. Other giant stone implements have been found in Moravia and Syria, and the bones of their users were discovered close by. In Sri Lanka explorers found the remains of humans about 4 m tall, and at Tura in Assam, near the border of Bangladesh, a human skeleton measuring 3.4 m was discovered. Bones of humans from 2.6 to 3.1 m tall were found under a French dolmen.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:07 AM
link   
i just found the site i got this quote form ourworld.compuserve.com...

you may find this interesting if u cbf reading the link





-


Fig. 4.5. Scale model of a mammoth skeleton rearranged to demonstrate how the ancient Greeks could have interpreted immense and unfamiliar animal fossils as the remains of giants.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Yep, there was a great special on this not too long ago...

The above would also explain why the giants are depicted also as hulking brutes, and with more neanderthal features, as evidenced by the thicker bones and incorrect assumption of the skull.

I've long thought that dragons were derived from incorrect ancient findings of dino remains, and that the differences in world dragons was largely due to the difference in world dinos.

This is probably the origin of MANY mythological creatures.



posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   







 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join