-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
"Evidence" for the Nephilim.
- Thread starter Tylzen
- Start date
The skulls in pics 3, 4, 7, and 8 (counting down, not including the map) seem to be the same. They have the same missing teeth.
Are the large bones in the 3rd and 4th images supposed to be femurs from the same skeleton? They seem disproportionately large compared to the femurs in pics 1 and 2
The map seems to be referring to this spot too:
http://bit.ly/9FA35l
Are the large bones in the 3rd and 4th images supposed to be femurs from the same skeleton? They seem disproportionately large compared to the femurs in pics 1 and 2
The map seems to be referring to this spot too:
http://bit.ly/9FA35l
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Photoshop anyone?
Damn it is not that hard to spot, I bet you can do it.
Damn it is not that hard to spot, I bet you can do it.
Master_Ghost_Knight
New Member
Here is another picture of the same circle
I bet if you search hard anough you can find the originals for those pictures you have posted.
I bet if you search hard anough you can find the originals for those pictures you have posted.
the first one (and the second, which is a zoomed in version) is quite easy to see the shop.
the angle of the skeleton compaired to the person in the picture and the lighting.
the colour of the skeleton is way off to be realistic, its too chrome-coloured, too little chalk.
the angle of the skeleton compaired to the person in the picture and the lighting.
the colour of the skeleton is way off to be realistic, its too chrome-coloured, too little chalk.
The first and second ones are obvious photoshops. In many of the others, the archaeologists present are behaving very stupidly around them-using a shovel to excavate what would be the most important find ever made, for instance. Such an action implies that the person in the picture can't actually see anything. If he could he would be doing it very carefully, taking immense care not to damage it or any objects also in the pit.
TheTruePooka
New Member
All right, I admit it.
I went on a killing spree some years ago, my targets were large humanoids - the minimum height requirement for my prey being 20 feet tall.
Somehow, they discovered and unearthed one of my victims!
You can't see it, but right off to the left of photograph one is the "slip and slide". This proves that this photo is of my backyard.
You dirty archeologists, you'll never take me alive!!!
Tylzen, you may give this confession to your friend to show he was correct. Only these giants exist today. Or would have...
Had I not KILLED THEM ALL!!!
I went on a killing spree some years ago, my targets were large humanoids - the minimum height requirement for my prey being 20 feet tall.
Somehow, they discovered and unearthed one of my victims!
You can't see it, but right off to the left of photograph one is the "slip and slide". This proves that this photo is of my backyard.
You dirty archeologists, you'll never take me alive!!!
Tylzen, you may give this confession to your friend to show he was correct. Only these giants exist today. Or would have...
Had I not KILLED THEM ALL!!!
TheTruePooka
New Member
These are giants. So they decompose at a much faster rate then everything else.
Also, giants only wear natural fibers. Those break down much more quickly.
Also, giants only wear natural fibers. Those break down much more quickly.
Thank guys for all the guy info.
The guy yielded his claim, and admitted that it was probably hoax after being faced with the enourmous amount of evidence against his claim.
He then said that he thought it was genuine because the person he got it from he trusted.
I suggested that he fact checked materials before he atleast sent them to me.
He told me to do the same thing when I gave him theological interpretations of the Bible.
My mind blew that he compared him having lack of any evidence for his photo claim, and comparing it with The Bible which is open for interpretation.
And saying that he said that he took it as legit because he trusted the person, shows the sort of cult behaviour in religion, that they sucked in by a charasmatic personality.
The guy yielded his claim, and admitted that it was probably hoax after being faced with the enourmous amount of evidence against his claim.
He then said that he thought it was genuine because the person he got it from he trusted.
I suggested that he fact checked materials before he atleast sent them to me.
He told me to do the same thing when I gave him theological interpretations of the Bible.
My mind blew that he compared him having lack of any evidence for his photo claim, and comparing it with The Bible which is open for interpretation.
And saying that he said that he took it as legit because he trusted the person, shows the sort of cult behaviour in religion, that they sucked in by a charasmatic personality.
You know betterSquawk said:
Divine trust can never be broken.
I did suggest that he should stop having blind faith in what people he trust send him, and fact check it.
He got offended when I said blind faith. "If there is something we (read: Jehova's Witnesses) do not have, it is blind faith."
Finger
New Member
This is a classic.
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
Of course it was an April Fool's joke, committed to see if any creationists would be gullible enough to use the site and its photos as evidence. And guess who did? Good old lovable Dokter Kent Hovind.
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html
Of course it was an April Fool's joke, committed to see if any creationists would be gullible enough to use the site and its photos as evidence. And guess who did? Good old lovable Dokter Kent Hovind.
First and second image are both photoshopped.
Check the angle of light on shoulder of male versus angle of light on skull.
Third and fourth are both photoshopped. Check the left temporal lobe and you will notice transparency where the skull image was overlayed on the original image to color match it.
The final hole is missing alot of bones. I don't understand why the skull is attached to the spinal cord, while the ribs are missing.
Check the angle of light on shoulder of male versus angle of light on skull.
Third and fourth are both photoshopped. Check the left temporal lobe and you will notice transparency where the skull image was overlayed on the original image to color match it.
The final hole is missing alot of bones. I don't understand why the skull is attached to the spinal cord, while the ribs are missing.
EricZombie
New Member
Definitely Photoshop.