Quote: Leevil @ June 21 2011, 9:12 PM BSTI would've thought the website "bibleprobe.com" gave that away.
I didn't even look at the title of the website, I just found it on Googleimages. The bone in that first picture is meant to be a cast of a real bone, that was tested and proven to be the real deal.
Here's some more interesting photos: http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=giants
Quote: Nil Putters @ June 21 2011, 9:54 PM BSTA friend of mine thinks it "looks lke poor grade flint/chert." Please don't ask me what that is, but he's into this stuff so I'd imagine he's right.
He also thinks it's a funny shape.
Oh right. I thought flint. But was hoping due to the odd shape it may be something more interesting.
Quote: catskillz @ June 21 2011, 10:37 PM BSTI didn't even look at the title of the website, I just found it on Googleimages. The bone in that first picture is meant to be a cast of a real bone, that was tested and proven to be the real deal.
Here's some more interesting photos: http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=giants
The point of these websites and photos (whilst some may be real-real) is to prove that certain things mentioned in the bible are real therefor everything mentioned in the bible is real/the truth. Whilst the images are interesting, I'll take most of them with a pinch of salt.
Quote: Leevil @ June 21 2011, 11:00 PM BSTI'll take most of them with a pinch of salt.
I'd go with a fistful at the very least.
There are many people talking about this stuff, not just religious people. Apparently there's been a big cover-up over the years, with many archaeologists being forced to keep their findings secret
But whhhhhhhyyyyyy??
I think your rock, Leevil, would make a nice top to a walking stick. 
Quote: Nil Putters @ June 21 2011, 11:59 PM BSTI think your rock, Leevil, would make a nice top to a walking stick.
Dirty boy!
Quote: Leevil @ June 21 2011, 11:54 PM BSTBut whhhhhhhyyyyyy??
If I told you, you wouldn't believe me. I started looking into this type of thing a few months back, completely by accident, after trying to find info for my sitcom, and the stuff I've learned has just blown my mind.
Religious quackery.
Quote: catskillz @ June 22 2011, 1:03 AM BSTIf I told you, you wouldn't believe me. I started looking into this type of thing a few months back, completely by accident, after trying to find info for my sitcom, and the stuff I've learned has just blown my mind.
Can you give me one reason why something like this would need to be covered up?
Quote: DaButt @ June 22 2011, 1:05 AM BSTReligious quackery.
Okay, forget that website by all means. To be honest, in all the months I've been reading about this stuff, that's the first time I've come across a religious website that's been discussing it. Though that's not to say that religion doesn't come into the whole thing.
How much of that site did you read anyway? Didn't you see the bit about the guy from the Johnny Carson show? Why would he have lied?
Quote: Leevil @ June 22 2011, 1:11 AM BSTCan you give me one reason why something like this would need to be covered up?
Yes, but it would take a long time to explain it all.
Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. And if something is rejected by the majority of the world's scientists this day and age it's very likely not true.
Quote: Leevil @ June 21 2011, 7:24 PM BSTLike I said. Not very exciting but a weird shape.
Those parallel lines look like they've scored on. Or is that just the photo?
Quote: DaButt @ June 22 2011, 3:42 AM BSTJust because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. And if something is rejected by the majority of the world's scientists this day and age it's very likely not true.
Very true, it has allowed the idiots who would otherwise remained in their unknown homes be heard at the very least and it is a fact that idiocy is contagious.
Quote: DaButt @ June 22 2011, 3:42 AM BSTAnd if something is rejected by the majority of the world's scientists this day and age it's very likely not true.
Or if it doesn't fall in line with their ideas/predictions, or they don't agree with it for other reasons. I would imagine the 'majority' of scientists are stubborn gits, while being staunch supporters of their chosen field/science will completely (or nearly) reject everything else.
Looks like flint to me. I see a lot of it up here.
