Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Giant bones?

  1. #1 Giant bones? 
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Has anyone heard of giant humanoid skelitions being dug up? Something not apeish but humanoid and about 13 feet tall?

    My brother, one of those 6000 year old earth folks, is researching the Nephelim and he says there are skelitons of giants found here and there. I don't know where he got the information, I can't say I've looked for it much, but I thought I would start here.


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    Yeah, I think they were a Neolithic Basketball team playing for the NeoBA 10000 years ago.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,194
    The only thing I've ever heard along those lines is the Cardiff Giant, but that was a hoax.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    glad to see this place hasn't changed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Giant bones? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Has anyone heard of giant humanoid skelitions being dug up? Something not apeish but humanoid and about 13 feet tall?

    My brother, one of those 6000 year old earth folks, is researching the Nephelim and he says there are skelitons of giants found here and there. I don't know where he got the information, I can't say I've looked for it much, but I thought I would start here.
    There are numerous reports all over the United States in old newspapers of giant skeletons being found. Not all in the 13' range though. Three locations I can think of off-hand are Louisville, Kentucky, Marion County, WV., & Florida. But most were in the west I believe. I have a documentary about them
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    what sort of documentary? is there a link?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,221
    I am assuming this is in regard to, or was started by the email which went around several years ago about giant bone being found in the middle east.

    The story and the photos are complete and utter fakes created by photoshoping an actually image of a normal sized skeleton in an archeological dig with to include seemingly ting men working around the bones.

    There have never been any real giants in the biblical meaning found.



    Snopes does the job better then me. here is the link:
    http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Giant bones? 
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,221
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Has anyone heard of giant humanoid skelitions being dug up? Something not apeish but humanoid and about 13 feet tall?

    My brother, one of those 6000 year old earth folks, is researching the Nephelim and he says there are skelitons of giants found here and there. I don't know where he got the information, I can't say I've looked for it much, but I thought I would start here.
    There are numerous reports all over the United States in old newspapers of giant skeletons being found. Not all in the 13' range though. Three locations I can think of off-hand are Louisville, Kentucky, Marion County, WV., & Florida. But most were in the west I believe. I have a documentary about them
    I'm willing to bet most if not all also turned out to be either fakes or misidentifications of bones belonging to Pleistocene animals such mammoths or rhinos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Giant bones? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    I'm willing to bet most if not all also turned out to be either fakes or misidentifications of bones belonging to Pleistocene animals such mammoths or rhinos.
    no clearly they were bigfoot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    what sort of documentary? is there a link?
    It was called "Giants: The Myth & The Mystery" You can download it at this link Link Removed -the posting of torrent links on this forum is discouraged. Indeed, this appears to be copyrighted material and NOT in the public domain and puts the forum at risk. WVBIG's account has been suspended 2 days since the post was previously deleted and to emphasize the gravity of the issue.

    --SkinWalker
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Shouldn't we expect that there would be a few cultures that were very tall? Maybe not 13 feet, but still tall. We find pygmies. Why don't we find giants?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    There are some VERY tall people, I don't remember but I want to say about 9 feet tall. I think the tallest person is a woman also.

    If the giants of the bible are factual, it is possible all evidence of them would be buried underneath a layer of silt and debris spread by the flood.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    If the giants of the bible are factual,
    Please, cite the evidence or data that demonstrate how biblical mythology is a fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    "Please, cite the evidence or data that demonstrate how biblical mythology is a fact."

    If there is any I would love to find it so I could. Thanks for your help bud!

    BTW creepy name
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Oops.. I was checking the forum on the sly from work and missed your "if" qualifier at the beginning of your post

    I'm an anthropologist and the SkinWalker is one of many ancient cult myths that actually persist into modernity that have fascinated me. The Navajo hold that a skinwalker is a witch who can put spells on others they deem enemies. They also hold that the skinwalker can shape-shift, becoming a coyote, a wolf, an owl, raven, etc. To become a skinwalker, it is said (as all good myths are revealed) that one can only be initiated by consuming the flesh of a family member.

    Of course, these are only stories and superstitions told by a culture, probably as a means of exercising moral control and code enforcement on its members.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    I'm baaack!
    I apologize for posting that link. I didn't realize it was an illegal download site. I never came across one before. I just did a google search for the documentary title & that's what I found
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    WV, why did you create a new account? Your old account was suspended, it should be active again if your suspension has expired.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    WV, why did you create a new account? Your old account was suspended, it should be active again if your suspension has expired.
    The suspension was suppose to end yesterday. But I tried logging in earlier today & I got a message saying I had been banned
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Thank you for trying. I'll find it.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Thank you for trying. I'll find it.
    It aired on TLC & was narrated by David Macallum a.k.a. Ducky on NCIS. It talks about old newspaper reports of alleged giant skeleton finds in different parts of the country. As well as references to biblical & Sumarian texts referring to giants
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Tales of giants are common. Paul Bunyan comes to mind as well as Stormy.

    Large skeletons are uncommon. One that comes to mind is in the Mutter museum in Philly. The original owner of the skeleton knew that people wanted it so he paid his kin money to make sure he was properly buried. They took his cash and then sold his skeleton. The man had stood 7 feet 6 inches in height. His skeleton is claimed to be the tallest skeleton in North America.

    The lack of large skeletons leads you to think that extraordinarily tall people are uncommon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Tales of giants are common. Paul Bunyan comes to mind as well as Stormy.

    Large skeletons are uncommon. One that comes to mind is in the Mutter museum in Philly. The original owner of the skeleton knew that people wanted it so he paid his kin money to make sure he was properly buried. They took his cash and then sold his skeleton. The man had stood 7 feet 6 inches in height. His skeleton is claimed to be the tallest skeleton in North America.

    The lack of large skeletons leads you to think that extraordinarily tall people are uncommon.
    Yes. As far as I know, none of the skeletons referred to in the documentary have ever been found. Just the reports in newspapers for the ones in North America. The documentary showed a Sumarian carving in stone of people in line at a throne where someone was seated that would've been much taller than the other people, but I wonder about such things. There seems to be a tendency to regard such things as depicting fact. But why couldn't it just be a way of storytelling for entertainment?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Tales of giants are common. Paul Bunyan comes to mind as well as Stormy.

    Large skeletons are uncommon. One that comes to mind is in the Mutter museum in Philly. The original owner of the skeleton knew that people wanted it so he paid his kin money to make sure he was properly buried. They took his cash and then sold his skeleton. The man had stood 7 feet 6 inches in height. His skeleton is claimed to be the tallest skeleton in North America.

    The lack of large skeletons leads you to think that extraordinarily tall people are uncommon.
    Yes. As far as I know, none of the skeletons referred to in the documentary have ever been found. Just the reports in newspapers for the ones in North America. The documentary showed a Sumarian carving in stone of people in line at a throne where someone was seated that would've been much taller than the other people, but I wonder about such things. There seems to be a tendency to regard such things as depicting fact. But why couldn't it just be a way of storytelling for entertainment?
    Images such as this might also be a visual metaphor (person X is more important/greater is rank etc) or, given that it is long pre-renaissance it could be a failed attempt at depicting perspective. And of course, it might just be evidence or a rubbish artist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Tales of giants are common. Paul Bunyan comes to mind as well as Stormy.

    Large skeletons are uncommon. One that comes to mind is in the Mutter museum in Philly. The original owner of the skeleton knew that people wanted it so he paid his kin money to make sure he was properly buried. They took his cash and then sold his skeleton. The man had stood 7 feet 6 inches in height. His skeleton is claimed to be the tallest skeleton in North America.

    The lack of large skeletons leads you to think that extraordinarily tall people are uncommon.
    Yes. As far as I know, none of the skeletons referred to in the documentary have ever been found. Just the reports in newspapers for the ones in North America. The documentary showed a Sumarian carving in stone of people in line at a throne where someone was seated that would've been much taller than the other people, but I wonder about such things. There seems to be a tendency to regard such things as depicting fact. But why couldn't it just be a way of storytelling for entertainment?
    Images such as this might also be a visual metaphor (person X is more important/greater is rank etc) or, given that it is long pre-renaissance it could be a failed attempt at depicting perspective. And of course, it might just be evidence or a rubbish artist.
    The visual metaphor possibility never occured to me. Probably because, according to the documentary, there are also texts referring to a giant race of people called the Annanaki(sp?)
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Giants? - we've had them in the UK for thousands of years, here's a really early form of photography depicting one..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_giant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Giants? - we've had them in the UK for thousands of years, here's a really early form of photography depicting one..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_giant
    Is the info on it at that link accurate? I don't really trust wikipedia because of the edit buttons at the bottom of every paragraph that allow anyone to alter the info. I have used wiki here a few times, but only because others seem to regard it as accurate
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I don't really trust wikipedia because of the edit buttons at the bottom of every paragraph that allow anyone to alter the info. I have used wiki here a few times, but only because others seem to regard it as accurate
    On average, it tends to be as accurate as conventional encyclopaedias whilst having having more content. That's been studied a few times, as far as I know. The power of a million pedantic nerds keeps it fairly straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I don't really trust wikipedia because of the edit buttons at the bottom of every paragraph that allow anyone to alter the info. I have used wiki here a few times, but only because others seem to regard it as accurate
    On average, it tends to be as accurate as conventional encyclopaedias whilst having having more content. That's been studied a few times, as far as I know. The power of a million pedantic nerds keeps it fairly straight.
    Ok
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Giants? - we've had them in the UK for thousands of years, here's a really early form of photography depicting one..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerne_Abbas_giant
    Is the info on it at that link accurate? I don't really trust wikipedia because of the edit buttons at the bottom of every paragraph that allow anyone to alter the info. I have used wiki here a few times, but only because others seem to regard it as accurate
    A good rule of thumb is to look at the references and external links provided. The more the better.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Rulers and gods of the ancient world were typically displayed on cylinder seals like the one depicted above as larger than the other figures depicted. If memory serves, on this particular cylinder seal, the seated "giant" is actually a god (they exist only in the minds of their believers) and the three standing figures are rulers and/or priests.

    But the practice of depicting rulers as larger than subjects is one that is common the world over. Whenever the the tomb or sarcophagus of the ruler is found, the evidence shows that the ruler was of average stature after all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Rulers and gods of the ancient world were typically displayed on cylinder seals like the one depicted above as larger than the other figures depicted. If memory serves, on this particular cylinder seal, the seated "giant" is actually a god (they exist only in the minds of their believers) and the three standing figures are rulers and/or priests.

    But the practice of depicting rulers as larger than subjects is one that is common the world over. Whenever the the tomb or sarcophagus of the ruler is found, the evidence shows that the ruler was of average stature after all.
    Yes the Annanaki were regarded as Gods by the Sumerians. But the texts indicate that was because they were of giant stature
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Its actually Annunaki as I recall. I'm familiar with many Sumerian texts, so it might be helpful if you could cite the particular texts you're referring to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Its actually Annunaki as I recall. I'm familiar with many Sumerian texts, so it might be helpful if you could cite the particular texts you're referring to.
    I'll watch the documentary again soon & let you know. And thanks for providing the correct spelling
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    I know you guys don't take me too seriousley these days but can I ask a question here, why do (some/all) of you assume the carving on the pravious page shows a larger than life figure?

    If the carvings are actually 30cm high maybe they are life size, maybe the guy on the 'throne' is normal and his audience is composed of midgets - either way without an object of known size in the picture it is not worth the stone it's carved on!

    In ancient Egypt some of their rulers were carved up to 60 feet tall in stone with others (servants) shown normal size, this is even taller than many of the palace doors. Would you build a palace for king depicted as 60 feet tall yet build an entrance only some 15 feet tall?

    The relevant size of statues and carvings clearly only represents the persons importance in that society (I have not read the whole thread so if that's already been said I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I know you guys don't take me too seriousley these days but can I ask a question here, why do (some/all) of you assume the carving on the pravious page shows a larger than life figure?

    If the carvings are actually 30cm high maybe they are life size, maybe the guy on the 'throne' is normal and his audience is composed of midgets - either way without an object of known size in the picture it is not worth the stone it's carved on!

    In ancient Egypt some of their rulers were carved up to 60 feet tall in stone with others (servants) shown normal size, this is even taller than many of the palace doors. Would you build a palace for king depicted as 60 feet tall yet build an entrance only some 15 feet tall?

    The relevant size of statues and carvings clearly only represents the persons importance in that society (I have not read the whole thread so if that's already been said I agree.
    Well I don't know for sure, but I assume some skeletal remains of Sumerians have been found with no indication they were suffering from any type of dwarfism
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Never assume as it makes an ASS of U & ME
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I know you guys don't take me too seriousley these days but can I ask a question here, why do (some/all) of you assume the carving on the pravious page shows a larger than life figure?
    There is enough evidence of the practice to apply occam's razor in general. It is simply the most parsimonious explanation. There's some indication from skeletal studies that rulers of various ancient cultures were of larger stature. While the differences were noticeable, the dimorphism between elites and commoners was largely due to lifeways. Elites had access to more nutrients and required to do less stature-affecting labor than commoners.

    But there is no evidence of "giants" among the ruling elite. There is, however, evidence of rulers who were depicted as "larger than life" or larger than their subjects on pictographic mediums like the bas relief of this cylinder seal or the murals of temples.

    If the carvings are actually 30cm high maybe they are life size, maybe the guy on the 'throne' is normal and his audience is composed of midgets - either way without an object of known size in the picture it is not worth the stone it's carved on!
    This particular carving would be doing good to be 3 centimeters high! Its the bas relief created by rolling a cylinder seal across clay. Keep in mind, when the Sumerians and Akkadians were creating these images, writing was still in its formative stages. A mural, cylinder seal, bas relief, carving, figurine, etc. were more than mere works of art. They were intended to carry all sorts of meanings, many of which are likely lost to us forever -existing only in the ever-evolving zeitgeist of the moment.

    In ancient Egypt some of their rulers were carved up to 60 feet tall in stone with others (servants) shown normal size, this is even taller than many of the palace doors. Would you build a palace for king depicted as 60 feet tall yet build an entrance only some 15 feet tall?
    At some point, grandiosity must give way to practicality. That being said, there are many examples of grandiose entrances to temples and palaces that were large enough to accommodate elephants or giraffes, but in each case where physical evidence of the ruler's stature is found, it reveals a far more averaged-sized being. These entrances were perhaps to caricature the grandiosity or magnitude of the ruler. Or perhaps they were designed to permit the entrance of one or more gods -mythical and psychological manifestations, but significant enough in the minds of their believers.

    The relevant size of statues and carvings clearly only represents the persons importance in that society (I have not read the whole thread so if that's already been said I agree.
    Since alternative explanations introduce spurious claims absent of good reason or evidence to support, this is the most logical and parsimonious explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time. The signifigance of the two facts about the universe is that it makes one wonder how the Sumerians knew these things unless the Anunaki really were from outerspace.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Uranus, Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    I don't believe so. The thought occured to me that the relief is a fake that isn't nearly as old as it's suppose to be. But according to the documentary, it was basically unknown ina museum for some 50 years, until the 1960's. Which means it does predate the discovery of Pluto
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    I don't believe so. The thought occured to me that the relief is a fake that isn't nearly as old as it's suppose to be. But according to the documentary, it was basically unknown ina museum for some 50 years, until the 1960's. Which means it does predate the discovery of Pluto
    Well, what makes the marking Pluto? Is there some indicator of orbital radius or mass of the body itself? Are the three moons of Pluto marked near it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    I don't believe so. The thought occured to me that the relief is a fake that isn't nearly as old as it's suppose to be. But according to the documentary, it was basically unknown ina museum for some 50 years, until the 1960's. Which means it does predate the discovery of Pluto
    Well, what makes the marking Pluto? Is there some indicator of orbital radius or mass of the body itself? Are the three moons of Pluto marked near it?
    What makes it Pluto is it's position relative to the sun & the other planets depicted
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    I don't believe so. The thought occured to me that the relief is a fake that isn't nearly as old as it's suppose to be. But according to the documentary, it was basically unknown ina museum for some 50 years, until the 1960's. Which means it does predate the discovery of Pluto
    Well, what makes the marking Pluto? Is there some indicator of orbital radius or mass of the body itself? Are the three moons of Pluto marked near it?
    What makes it Pluto is it's position relative to the sun & the other planets depicted
    Well then they must have also marked in Uranus and Neptune, otherwise all they've done is marked in a speculative 7th planet after Saturn. Do you have an image of this anywhere?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    I watched the documentary again & they didn't quote any specific Sumerian texts. They just said that the Sumerians believed the Anunaki were giants from a planet called Nubeiru (sp?) & pointed out in a pic similar to the one I posted is a depiction of the solar system with the sun at the center of it & also including Pluto. Which of course were both unknown to science at that time.
    Neptune, Makemake, Eris, Haumea and Ceres would also have been unknown at the time. Did they include these?
    I don't believe so. The thought occured to me that the relief is a fake that isn't nearly as old as it's suppose to be. But according to the documentary, it was basically unknown ina museum for some 50 years, until the 1960's. Which means it does predate the discovery of Pluto
    Well, what makes the marking Pluto? Is there some indicator of orbital radius or mass of the body itself? Are the three moons of Pluto marked near it?
    What makes it Pluto is it's position relative to the sun & the other planets depicted
    Well then they must have also marked in Uranus and Neptune, otherwise all they've done is marked in a speculative 7th planet after Saturn. Do you have an image of this anywhere?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    1)At the time of the documentary, Pluto was still considered a planet
    2)I believe one of them is suppose to be the home planet of the Anunaki, but I'm not sure which one
    3)It's obvious that it's a representation of the solar system since there is a sun in the middle
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    1)At the time of the documentary, Pluto was still considered a planet
    Does that make the carving accurate? At the time of the documentary there were 9 planets. This depicts 11 which are the wrong sizes in the wrong places. We now know that there are only 8 planets and loads of dwarf planets. So the if the documentary was suggesting that this is an accurate depiction of our solar system then they were wrong and the carving was wrong too.

    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    2)I believe one of them is suppose to be the home planet of the Anunaki, but I'm not sure which one
    Ok, but do you think that this is likely to be an accurate depiction of our solar system given what we now know? Or are you just saying that it was intended to be an representation of the solar system which we've now disproven?

    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    3)It's obvious that it's a representation of the solar system since there is a sun in the middle
    Could it not also be a representation of Venus set against a given constellation of stars? It would be central in such a depiction if it were the body of interest. Similarly it could be Jupiter or perhaps even Mars. That would make the diagram some sort of rough time stamp that could be extrapolated from the location of that planet in a given constellation. Or it could just be a significant star such as Sirius or Canopus against a background of less bright stars.

    If this is a depiction of our solar system it's a really inaccurate one in many ways, so it could just as easily be a really inaccurate representation of one of the things I've mentioned above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    1)At the time of the documentary, Pluto was still considered a planet
    Does that make the carving accurate? At the time of the documentary there were 9 planets. This depicts 11 which are the wrong sizes in the wrong places. We now know that there are only 8 planets and loads of dwarf planets. So the if the documentary was suggesting that this is an accurate depiction of our solar system then they were wrong and the carving was wrong too.

    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    2)I believe one of them is suppose to be the home planet of the Anunaki, but I'm not sure which one
    Ok, but do you think that this is likely to be an accurate depiction of our solar system given what we now know? Or are you just saying that it was intended to be an representation of the solar system which we've now disproven?

    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    3)It's obvious that it's a representation of the solar system since there is a sun in the middle
    Could it not also be a representation of Venus set against a given constellation of stars? It would be central in such a depiction if it were the body of interest. Similarly it could be Jupiter or perhaps even Mars. That would make the diagram some sort of rough time stamp that could be extrapolated from the location of that planet in a given constellation. Or it could just be a significant star such as Sirius or Canopus against a background of less bright stars.

    If this is a depiction of our solar system it's a really inaccurate one in many ways, so it could just as easily be a really inaccurate representation of one of the things I've mentioned above.
    Yes. But suppose it was based on what the Anunaki told them & the Anunaki only told them the number of planets around the sun. Not exactly where they are positioned and their sizes. Plus, as you mentioned, there have been other dwarf planets discovered recently. I'm not saying I believe in beings from other planets. Just throwing this out there as a possible explanation
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Yes, but far from the most plausible especially given that the diagram is wrong. Occam's razor says some guy made it up at some point and it was accepted on authority from there on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Yes, but far from the most plausible especially given that the diagram is wrong. Occam's razor says some guy made it up at some point and it was accepted on authority from there on.
    So do you think the "diagram" could be merely a depiction of a work of art on a temple wall or something like that?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    THe ironic thing in my opinion is that of the 8/9 'planets' we generally think of only 5 are visible with the naked eye, using a pair of binoculars one can add only the 4 major moons of Jupiter. After that you need a telescope thus any ancient who could 'see' more than 5 planets would have seen the moons of jupiter and the rings of saturn - missing from all these so called ancient depictions of the solar system :wink:

    Show me an ancient depiction of the solar system complete with jupiter's 4 major moons and the rings of Saturn, and I'll give you a pound of genuine Bigfoot Faeces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    I see eleven worlds around a star in essentially random order and of random size. Neither their orbits, relative positions nor sizes at all resemble anything in our own solar system. We know of only 8 planets in our solar system and countless spherical bodies not considered planets of which 5 are currently defined as dwarf planets. If we just go by spherical shape, our sun really has about 100-200 "planets". If we're strict about what we consider a planet, we get 8.

    All this taken into account, that little diagram can't be considered an accurate prediction or depiction of anything real. Maybe the spheres were meant to represent something else.
    THe ironic thing in my opinion is that of the 8/9 'planets' we generally think of only 5 are visible with the naked eye, using a pair of binoculars one can add only the 4 major moons of Jupiter. After that you need a telescope thus any ancient who could 'see' more than 5 planets would have seen the moons of jupiter and the rings of saturn - missing from all these so called ancient depictions of the solar system :wink:

    Show me an ancient depiction of the solar system complete with jupiter's 4 major moons and the rings of Saturn, and I'll become deeply religious overnight!
    So do you think it was actually made about the time it was "discovered"?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    I don't much care, my point is the first time you see the rings of saturn through a telescope it takes your breath away, it is nothing less than Awesome, here is something in the sky with a totally alien appearance, not just round or bright but a unique shape (yes we know it has rings BUT had ancients seen this sight they might well have interpreted it as an eyeball in the sky. Certainly if they could see 8 planets they would have seen the rings and if they had seen the rings they would have drawn them, no two ways about that!

    The image to me is either that of a bright star/planet with others around a 'tailless comet, the full moon with stars around it or a depiction of the sun and stars nothing more nothing less.

    Why does every ancient carving have to show R2D2 or a submarine or space helmet? Answer because there are so many people around who's braincell count is less than their shoe size.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I don't much care, my point is the first time you see the rings of saturn through a telescope it takes your breath away, it is nothing less than Awesome, here is something in the sky with a totally alien appearance, not just round or bright but a unique shape (yes we know it has rings BUT had ancients seen this sight they might well have interpreted it as an eyeball in the sky. Certainly if they could see 8 planets they would have seen the rings and if they had seen the rings they would have drawn them, no two ways about that!

    The image to me is either that of a bright star/planet with others around a 'tailless comet, the full moon with stars around it or a depiction of the sun and stars nothing more nothing less.

    Why does every ancient carving have to show R2D2 or a submarine or space helmet? Answer because there are so many people around who's braincell count is less than their shoe size.
    As I stated in a previous post, it could be a depiction of the universe as related to them by the Anunaki. It's unlikely that the Anunaki would've gone into great detail about the universe. Sunday night was a documentary about ancient technologies & a scientist (I believe it was David Hatcher Childress) told about when the U.S. Military set up bases of operation during World War 2 on remote islands, the natives viewed the airplanes that brought in food & other things as Gods & even built wooden replicas of airplanes to get these "Gods" to return with more food
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    As I stated in a previous post, it could be a depiction of the universe as related to them by the Anunaki. It's unlikely that the Anunaki would've gone into great detail about the universe. Sunday night was a documentary about ancient technologies & a scientist (I believe it was David Hatcher Childress) told about when the U.S. Military set up bases of operation during World War 2 on remote islands, the natives viewed the airplanes that brought in food & other things as Gods & even built wooden replicas of airplanes to get these "Gods" to return with more food
    Well it could be a near-infinite number of things. Why would we emphasise the very least likely explanations when the simplest explanation is that it's a largely random fabrication (albeit an ancient one) or that it represents something else entirely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    I agree with bio

    but there is a fact overlooked: the setting

    those beings in the relief are on a planet too. I suppose it could be a spaceship ... But assuming it's a planet that would make up to 13 total planets, IF(big if) all the other dots are planets.

    Symbolism probably won't have any relevance to someone not initiated into the teachings. Take for example, any religion or language that you don't understand. If you don't understand the symbol, you don't understand what the symbol means except by correlating it with something you do understand. Doing this is probably worse than just blindly guessing or using first reactions.

    Look at it as a piece of art, because above all, it is meant to stimulate your visual centers, not your judgment centers. You might understand it more by embracing it for what it is, not what you want it to be.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I want to thank MegaBrain for reminding me of the first time I looked through a telescope. I was looking around at bright things in the sky in wonder when I happened to look at Saturn.

    It is so astonishing a sight it looks fake. I mean it. The rings are not faint. They are amazingly brilliant. I easily see the 4 moons of Jupiter using binoculars.

    For all those that have not looked at Saturn even with a small telescope get ready to have your socks knocked off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    oh darn, I would but something is missing from my telescope, I don't know what exactly
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •