Behold the Nephilim

[Sculelos]

There have been a few giant primates in the past that are related to us indirectly but no giant Homo Sapiens.

For some reason all of them had huge foreheads. Not sure why though.

Pretty cool:

Gigantopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gigantic Apes Coexisted with Early Humans, Study Finds | LiveScience

Indeed, you are correct. Yet the giant humans still existed. The beings you are referring to were called "Trolls" but I think they were some sort of gigantic gorilla.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

:biglaugh:


opcorn:

 

[Sha'irullah]

:biglaugh:


opcorn:

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Close. I was actually laughing at the mighty skeletons.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Close. I was actually laughing at the mighty skeletons.

Sorry but this just never gets old. Proof that I am a loser

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I'm sorry. I shouldn't mock obvious fiction.

 

[outhouse]

Have you not started enough POE threads for one day

 

[xkatz]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I used to dig dirt and make all sorts of dirt pits all the time and I know that recently dug up dirt is rough while filled in dirt is smooth, just saying that the first picture has significant evidence of them refilling in part of the hole that was dug out in the low quality photo.

And how many archeological digs and excavations have you been on? Not just digging a hole, but digging up bones and other artifacts?

I guess the days of mistaking mammoth skeletons for titans, nephilim, giants, and other fairy tale creatures isn't over like I had thought it was.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Two genuine Photographs of Human's that were up to 36 feet tall in the day's before the flood.

I get the feeling that was a rushed edit, as the shadows are highly inconsistent (as well as where they shouldn't be, absent where they should be, and mismatched shapes in at least a few areas), the image is very blurry, and the guy on the right not only is using a rough tool pretty close to the bones, it appears there is nothing past his right hand.

 

[xkatz]

I get the feeling that was a rushed edit, as the shadows are highly inconsistent (as well as where they shouldn't be, absent where they should be, and mismatched shapes in at least a few areas), the image is very blurry, and the guy on the right not only is using a rough tool pretty close to the bones, it appears there is nothing past his right hand.

The smoking gun IMO is the top right corner. You can see the unnatural contrast between the smooth and rough terrains.

Although, this is nonetheless fake

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

Waow, as a graphic artist too...I can say it's quite a bad and obvious photoshop ô___o Just look at the corners x'3

 

[Sculelos]

Proof that a cover up was involved and the original skeleton was genuine.

Everyone's replying the giant was faked and national geographic (The Smithsonian) said it was the mammoth on the left that was found, yet their 'Official' photo's show obvious signs of doctoring were as the low resolution photo probably taken from someone's cheap camera unofficially as some people have actually claimed that they destroyed the evidence for this as National Geographic is obviously pro-evolution and they wouldn't want something so troubling upsetting the masses now would they?

1. The ground is smoothed over in the Mammoth photo... this isn't possible in a recent dig unless they refilled their hole.
2. Some of the imprints from the giant are still in the Mammoth photo (shocking huh)
3. The groundpost in the mammoth photo simply have their shadows going the wrong way (big mistake from their photo editor)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Everyone's replying the giant was faked and national geographic (The Smithsonian) said it was the mammoth on the left that was found, yet their 'Official' photo's show obvious signs of doctoring were as the low resolution photo probably taken from someone's cheap camera unofficially as some people have actually claimed that they destroyed the evidence for this as National Geographic is obviously pro-evolution and they wouldn't want something so troubling upsetting the masses now would they?

1. The ground is smoothed over in the Mammoth photo... this isn't possible in a recent dig unless they refilled their hole.
2. Some of the imprints from the giant are still in the Mammoth photo (shocking huh)
3. The groundpost in the mammoth photo simply have their shadows going the wrong way (big mistake from their photo editor)

I'm guessing the answer to my question is you have not been on any archeological digs and excavations, as it is pretty obvious the bones in the left picture are not edited, just from something obviously not human or anything that looked human. Also, Cornell University, National Geographic, and The Smithsonian are not the same groups. As for the picture on the right, do you have any idea how incredibly rare it is to find something that old and still that intact? Even the one of the left is an exceptionally rare find just to find that many bones that close to each other.

 

[Jontehs]

Everyone's replying the giant was faked and national geographic (The Smithsonian) said it was the mammoth on the left that was found, yet their 'Official' photo's show obvious signs of doctoring were as the low resolution photo probably taken from someone's cheap camera unofficially as some people have actually claimed that they destroyed the evidence for this as National Geographic is obviously pro-evolution and they wouldn't want something so troubling upsetting the masses now would they?

1. The ground is smoothed over in the Mammoth photo... this isn't possible in a recent dig unless they refilled their hole.
2. Some of the imprints from the giant are still in the Mammoth photo (shocking huh)
3. The groundpost in the mammoth photo simply have their shadows going the wrong way (big mistake from their photo editor)

Please read this post and check the link http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1936837-post8.html.

 

[Sculelos]

[youtube]P5jXVStAYPU[/youtube]
"GIANT" Skeletons Discovered...2013 - YouTube

That video is interesting. I'm not sure what to thing of the Mastadon dig site except I'm 100% certain the Cornwell university doctored their "Official" pictures, and that indeed the "Fake" picture looks very, very genuine. (and the official dig was done supposedly in India in 1997, not in Hyde Park!(possibly staged cover-up?)).

Anyways here's another photo.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Everyone's replying the giant was faked and national geographic (The Smithsonian) said it was the mammoth on the left that was found, yet their 'Official' photo's show obvious signs of doctoring were as the low resolution photo probably taken from someone's cheap camera unofficially as some people have actually claimed that they destroyed the evidence for this as National Geographic is obviously pro-evolution and they wouldn't want something so troubling upsetting the masses now would they?

1. The ground is smoothed over in the Mammoth photo... this isn't possible in a recent dig unless they refilled their hole.
2. Some of the imprints from the giant are still in the Mammoth photo (shocking huh)
3. The groundpost in the mammoth photo simply have their shadows going the wrong way (big mistake from their photo editor)

Please tell me you're not serious. You can't be...

 

[Sculelos]

Please tell me you're not serious. You can't be...

I know what computer generated bones look like.

Now Bronze Skeleton Fossils really do exist yet they always start as white when dug up and Bronze after they have been exposed to air and humidity for quite some time yet I'm completely sure the Hyde Park dig was faked by National Geographic in some sort of Bizarre cover-up... how do I know, well if they didn't cover it up they wouldn't have Cornwell University of Computer GRAPHIC's plastered on all their pictures (Which btw was a Student's of the University's work and the Hyde Park Dig wasn't even a real thing (completely computer generated).

History has a weird way of working, don't believe me just look at how the USS Oceanic was renamed the Titanic and the real Titanic was renamed the USS Oceanic and thus it was the Oceanic that sunk, and the Titanic remained in service as the Oceanic until it was torn apart for scrap metal during WW2.

 

[Breathe]

Vanakkam,

Waow, as a graphic artist too...I can say it's quite a bad and obvious photoshop ô___o Just look at the corners x'3

A graphic artist? Awesome. I have a friend who wants to get into that (he's a photographer). What tips would you give? (Thread hijack! )

As to the post, it'd be boring to repeat the same thing as everyone else, so...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know what computer generated bones look like.

Now Bronze Skeleton Fossils really do exist yet they always start as white when dug up and Bronze after they have been exposed to air and humidity for quite some time yet I'm completely sure the Hyde Park dig was faked by National Geographic in some sort of Bizarre cover-up... how do I know, well if they didn't cover it up they wouldn't have Cornwell University of Computer GRAPHIC's plastered on all their pictures (Which btw was a Student's of the University's work and the Hyde Park Dig wasn't even a real thing (completely computer generated).

History has a weird way of working, don't believe me just look at how the USS Oceanic was renamed the Titanic and the real Titanic was renamed the USS Oceanic and thus it was the Oceanic that sunk, and the Titanic remained in service as the Oceanic until it was torn apart for scrap metal during WW2.

Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're joking. Nobody could possibly be gullible enough to accept this demonstrably photoshopped image that was made for an internet photoshop contest as legitimate. Seriously, just look at what you're actually saying here.