"Hybrid Theory" and the Broadening of the Nephilim Dragnet (Lightning Post)

9/17/2016

One could write a book about this topic, but I'm going to limit myself to a few paragraphs. The kids were up early, I've already had three cups of coffee, and it's still not light enough to go outside and play.

One of Jason Colavito's readers made this comment on his blog post yesterday about L. A. Marzulli:

This issue came up in my Forbidden Archaeology class this week during our discussion of the Nephilim, when one student noted the apparent logical disconnect between (1) the idea that angel-human matings produced the wicked offspring at the root of a long Nephilim bloodline and (2) the idea that those wicked offspring were homosexuals.

I've watched several Nephilim-centric videos during the last week that I've never seen before, including this 2015 presentation by Joe Taylor, a portion of the round table discussion from that same conference (I'm still working my way through that one), and this 2013 video by Discover Ministries titled "Nephilim Among Us: Human-Animal Hybrids, Eugenics, GMOs & Transhumanism."

I think the content of these videos provides an answer to Ken's question: for Nephilim enthusiasts, it's all about what constitutes a "normal" mating and what constitutes a "wicked" mating. Human males and human females? That's normal. Angels and human females? Wicked. Angels and animals? Wicked. Males and other males? Wicked. The Nephilim are constantly doing things that go against nature and, therefore, against God. I'm guessing that homosexuality is thrown into that "wicked" basket as part of the generalized bundle of "unnatural" matings from which the Nephilim arose and subsequently partake in. That's my theory right now.

Without going through these videos again to carefully build and support an argument about what they mean, I'll make the following broad observations:

The Nephilim-centric view of the world now accepts as literal all ancient mythology. No longer are non-biblical traditions unreliable (because they are not biblical). Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Native American legends, Sumerian myths . . . they can and must all be taken literally. Bigfoot probably fits in there somewhere, as well.

Nephilim enthusiasts like these extra-biblical traditions because they are replete with tales of hybrid human-animal creatures, all of which are associated with the Nephilim. Mermaids? Cyclops? Skinwalkers? Medusa? Those are all Nephilim, the result of unnatural matings between Nephilim and animals. In one of the videos, one of the guys simply says "they mated with everything."

The wicked behaviors of the Nephilim, resulting in all those unnatural hybrids running (or swimming, or flying, as the case may be) around in the ancient world, is mirrored today by our own wicked tinkering with the genetics of plants, animals, and humans. The government knows it, big business knows it, the global elites know it, and they're all hiding the wicked realities from the rest of us. The logo on your Starbucks cup? Nephilim.

Nephilim enthusiasts know that physical evidence of their claims ranges from nonexistent to incredibly weak. Since they still can't provide an example of the physical remains of a single giant human, humanoid, or animal-humanoid hybrid, suppression of that evidence must also be part of a global conspiracy. The absence of physical evidence is actually presented as evidence of a conspiracy to hide evidence.

But pay no attention to the lack of giant bones. Let's broaden the dragnet and cull ancient and modern mythologies to gather up context-free examples that fit a general "hybrid theory" of the Nephilim. Let's take literally the parts of those mythologies that fit the Nephilim worldview, but leave on the cutting floor those that do not. Sure, let's play tennis, but let's take down the net first!

Do you really want to support the Nephilim agenda? Think before you drink.

I'm guessing that this "hybrid theory" and its attendant capacity to suck all of human mythology into the Nephilim whirlpool is not new. Having only just been exposed to it, its hard to know where and when it started or how long it has been brewing. The ridiculousness of Nephilim fetishists bears watching not because of the absurd claims related to non-existent physical evidence but because of the way it connects with various political, social, and religious agendas. One doesn't have to look too far back in history to find examples of how definitions of "natural" and "unnatural" matings articulated with policies used to define and oppress human populations in this country.

26 Comments

Pablo

9/17/2016 06:08:01 am

One of the photos shown as proof of the existence of giants is a version of this photo (link below) that shows an art piece (even the name of the artist is there). The claim is that it is made after "the one found in Egypt" but the story is that the bones turned to white ash when touched, so there's none of them to be shown! "The dog ate my homework" comes to mind. http://mtblanco.com/2000/12/giant-human-femur-sculpture/

Jason Colavito link

9/17/2016 07:11:33 am

Your observations are correct, but there is also an acceptance of testimony from extra-canonical Judeo-Christian sources, too. The "wicked matings" legend comes from Jewish lore about the Giants, which is reflected in 1 Enoch 7:5: "And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood." The "sin" is often said to be bestiality.

Similarly, the Daughters of Cain were likewise debauched when they produced the Nephilim, as Eutychius said in his Annals around 920 CE: "But as for the progeny of Cain the murderer, their men resembled stallions neighing with lust after their women, and the women would in like manner consort with them whorishly, fornicating and sinning with one another wantonly and without shame. Two or three men were living with each woman, and the elders were more lecherous than the youths. Fathers used their daughters with sexual promiscuity, and young men their mothers. Indeed, children could not distinguish their parents, nor parents their children." (my trans.)

This material folds into Jude's equation of the sexual sins of Sodom with the birth of the Nephilim, creating the belief that the Nephilim must also have shared the sin of Sodom--homosexuality. Remember, Christian conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice, so the Nephilim can both spawn evil children (through rapine or other means) while still choosing to be irresponsible and gay. They are so wanton that they will do whatever furthers Satan's agenda.

E.P. Grondine

9/19/2016 08:11:33 am

Hi Andy, Jason -

The problem that faces us is the fact that there was a very large and tall homonid populaton group a part of X mt DNA. It appears to have evolved along the Black Sea before it flooded and they appear to have become so large that they nearly speciated from H.S.S.

Here in the Americas, despite the facts that a small population of those peoples survived to European contact, and we have multiple eye witness accounts of them, and skeletal remains and firm photographic evidence of skeletal remains, as well as multiple native accounts;

European colonists persist in fitting them into a Biblical framework.

And of course von Daniken et al. try to make them proof of alien contact and manipulation..

Given the hardness of the data, you can not defeat the nonsense by denying that data. You can either deal with it, or leave it to the nuts to exploit.

In my opinion, the professional community can no longer continue to treat Native American oral histories as trash:

Here's how I handle it, and how I handled it with a U. Penn. Indian Indian exchange student when he was dealing with these confused individuals. I have no way of controlling what happens next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQm8AC66bSE&index=1&list=PLQFjoWZeHDMQln37vSd1heFOfte_O_Rhp

I do not know how you intend to deal with that hard data, but aside from giving you an early heads up, the problem I am working is data recovery, not how you'll deal with it.

Andy White

9/22/2016 01:19:04 pm

How/why are you connecting haplogroup X to giants?

Where is the evidence that "they appear to have become so large that they nearly speciated from H.S.S."?

E.P. Grondine

9/26/2016 09:05:00 am

Hi Andy -

Based on the distribution of cultural remains and the distribution of X mt DNA as shown in the Cambridge map of world mt haplogroups.

( I need to point out here that Y DNA is almost pretty nearly useless for tracking population movements, as shown by the European experience of work on population movements.)

We can safely dispose of the Achulean hypothesis as an explanation of this X mt distribution.

As far as speciation goes, based on native traditions, the large size of babies produced by mating with "normal sized" H.S.S. females led to difficulties in childbirth.

By the way, to make it more complex, it appears that not all X mt DNA carried the height gene..

E.P. Grondine

9/26/2016 09:29:37 am

Correction: replace "Achulean" with "Solutrean"

Andy White

9/17/2016 07:45:56 am

Ah, okay. But is there anywhere in those traditions that the sinful matings produce "hybrid" creatures, or, indeed, any creatures?

Jason Colavito link

9/17/2016 10:47:32 am

Not that I am aware of. I think that is taken over from pagan mythologies, and possibly the bizarre creatures identified as the Djinn or the offspring of the Djinn in Islamic lore. The Djinn were equated with the Watchers in medieval times.

Gunn

9/17/2016 09:26:35 am

If one intends to use the Bible as a source of truth (a laughing matter to many, but not to all), source material would need to be better sifted.

For instance, the Old Testament speaks clearly about angels and demons and giants, including Goliath, but when one purposely mixes in "an acceptance of testimony from extra-canonical Judeo-Christian sources, too," many practicing Christians will balk...including me. Why?

Well, because of thinking, wrongly, that non-canonical material is as acceptable as the canonical material in the debate. This makes a difference in end-result perception when studying the subjects of giants and homosexuality.

I suppose it is politically correct to defend homosexuality these days, but back in the "old days" of the Bible (not non-canonical material denied), homosexuality was seen by God as sinful. Modern political correctness will naturally try to remove this clear viewpoint from our Creator. So, we might see that those who condone homosexuality today are not doing society any favors, according to God's own clear word.

Is it time to attack the messenger, for being too non-scientific? Or could millions of people on earth have good enough reason to believe in God.

What is truth? Better question: what is not truth? We see that there are clear distinctions between what can be seen as truthful inputs, or untruthful inputs, when considering giants and angels and homosexuality. Many Christians believe that part of the Devil's methodology and strategy is to sometimes present a page or two of truth, but then add a few lines of lies and mischief mixed into it.

Before anyone goes crazy, I'd like to mention that I believe in both evolution and creationism, which are not mutually exclusive...only in the eyes of some scientists, and educators, in order to draw improper distinctions that really shouldn't be made. So, we might be seeing improper distinctions being made, while at the same time seeing a lumping together of bits and pieces of source material, building monsters out of thin air. Reminds me of UFO's and Bigfoot...anything stupid and distracting to believe in, instead of God's plan.

There are many ways to mock God, but in my opinion there will always be consequences...wanted, intended, or not.

Gunn

9/17/2016 09:32:32 am

I meant to say "(non-canonical material denied)".

Mark L

9/18/2016 07:44:10 am

Gunn, when can we expect your article? I'm certain it's got nothing to do with actually having to do actual science and research, and have that work critiqued by real scientists, and you're just very busy at the moment. I very much look forward to reading it.

On a serious note, Andy, I feel inviting Gunn to write for you was a horrible mistake. He'll prevaricate until the course is over, and all that'll have been achieved is he'll feel his views now have a legitimacy they don't deserve. And today, both here and on Jason Colavito's blog, I discover he's a JFK conspiracist and a homophobic Christian. Why not invite Frank Joseph?

Andy White

9/18/2016 08:04:49 am

Mark (and Gunn),

I'm not sure we haven't arrived at a dead end with the stone hole question at this point, so unless there's some new angle to talk about (like an actual quantitative/qualitative dataset) I'm not that enthusiastic about continuing to work it over. I've perhaps got a few more things to pass on, but I'm not in any hurry. The holes aren't going anywhere.

As far as the "Forbidden Friday" concept in general . . . I'm still up for giving it a go at some point. I think I'll have to enforce some kind of format, maybe bullet points for "claim," "falsifiable hypothesis," and "evidence." That will be at my discretion also, obviously.

Gunn

9/18/2016 10:42:07 am

Mark L (Joe Scales), In my opinion, you are a rotten blog troll, taking advantage of Andy's space to spread venom. I believe you are truly an evil person, Lister. I would like Wolter to track you down and sue you, which can be done.

Andy, Wolter's years-long tormenter just said you made a horrible mistake for inviting me to address the subject of stoneholes. Seriously, why should he care so much? Joe Scales and his many aliases over the years have always shown up to troll and torment, without much other purpose in mind. Though he will deny it, I can trace his monikers back to over a dozen, over two years. Mark L is Joe Scales is EP is Mister Lister, Wolter's original Amazon blog attacker. He now thinks he enjoys attacking me, but, instead he's just exposed who he is, further.... I have nothing more to say to either him or his many aliases.

Lastly, Andy, whether you have come to realize it or not, I did present you with two distinct groups of stoneholes from two different eras, as seen clearly by type, if not clear enough by age. You got your qualitative and quantitative comparisons. You may look again here to see that there are clearly two different stonehole types, modern and older, being represented here.

They are on the same site, intermingled, as two different party's of surveyors made the stoneholes. I hope you may see that two different party's made two different grouping of stoneholes, at least, even if "accurate" stonehole age comparisons cannot yet be made.

http://www.hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id44.html

Catch me later....

Andy White

9/18/2016 12:17:57 pm

When I say "quantitative/qualitative dataset," I mean data (such as descriptions, measurements, etc.) that can be used to characterize an assemblage of stone holes. I don't think anyone is denying that there are different kinds and those different kinds were made using different tools. I'd like to see metric and non-metric data (not just photos) on a set (say at least 30, the more the merrier) of the non-machine-made stone holes. There is nothing in their intrinsic qualities that I have read about so far that convinces me that they're medieval and not from the 1800's.

But this isn't a post about stone holes. I admit to being frustrated how it seems like we keep getting directed back to stone holes. I'm also frustrated that you keep going to the well of attacking posters for, you say, pretending to be other posters. I have no way of checking on that, and I'm honestly not sure how it's relevant. I'm writing a blog here, not being a playground monitor. I don't have the time or energy to referee old grudges.

Can we keep stone hole discussions n stone hole posts from now on (yes, I realize I'm contributing to the drift here)? And can we leave the playground stuff alone? I'm getting tired of it.

Gunn

9/18/2016 05:44:09 pm

Yes, as you wish, Andy. I have tried to disengage from the subject, but occasionally I feel the need to address attackers who have no interest in contributing to a particular subject at hand. You may certainly compare the originating attacks to playground stuff, but if someone comes to this blog in attack mode rather than to further the study of forbidden archaeology in some way, why is that person even here? I don't think it hurts to point out purposeful blog trolls who try to derail decent inquiries into legitimate subjects. Wait 'til you're purposefully trolled...I mean you and not just your blog.

I see clearly that you would like a larger database showing stoneholes I perceive to be from the pioneering era and those I think are from a much earlier period of time. I think I can do that. I tried to satisfy your wish by comparing two diverse sets of ten from each category at the same site, with both long-shots and close-ups, thinking that could have a bit of an impact, but I think I can put together even more from each supposed era, if you wish. I was serious in an earlier post when I said I would like to eventually see a colorful, expanded poster display such as the swordsman did here.

Yes, the intrinsic qualities are crucial to this debate, and I had hoped that some looking through my photos (including you) may have seen relatively good intrinsic qualities related to aging, perceptive to the naked eye. I know this is a problem to overcome, but at least people can often see the differences with the naked eye, coupled with the shape or type differences, and then also coupled with the location/site...which I contend has to do with waterway surveying from two periods, separated by hundreds of years.

I frankly believe that the Norse Code-stone I found is connected with something being buried...as agreed to by my ferrous-only metal detector. The late 1800's stoneholes on the same site, about thirty in number, were for erecting tents against the wind. As you can imagine, the site was quite confusing to me...until I found the code-stone two years after finding the site. I saw that the code-stone was showing in miniature the same pattern of small-diameter stoneholes as on the ridge...encoding whatever was buried.

Yes, I will be happy to leave the stonehole debate behind in the dust for as long as you wish...as I attempted to do before the onslaught by your pestering blog troll. In the meantime, I'll try to put together a portfolio of even more stoneholes to possibly compare some time in the future.

As an aside, I'll admit that I place quite a lot of credibility on what I believe is the existence of authentic medieval stoneholes because of the locations they have shown up--and often in the company of other Norse-appearing artifacts.

But, yes, I'm glad to hear you say that a better, more close-up study of these peculiar oddities is needed...in the future. I agree that we've gone about as far as we can on the issue for now, until I gather together more comparison models. I will do this, as I'm positively NEVER evasive on the issue, as some would like to falsely accuse me of. (How rediculous!)

E.P. Grondine

9/19/2016 08:21:29 am

Just to prevent any confusion:

I do not know Joe Scales. I do not know how he came to use "EP".
I use it because my real name is Edmund Plourde Grondine, and most successful writers have strong Anglo-Saxon names, or create them, so thus my use of "E.P.".

Joe Scales

9/19/2016 08:35:40 am

E.P.,
I have never used your moniker, nor have I posted here or on Jason's site as anyone other than Joe Scales. I am writing specifically to you not to rattle the cage of anyone else in particular or belabor this distraction; but only to offer a clarification to a mistaken impression that has been allowed to go unchecked otherwise.

RiverM

9/17/2016 07:37:31 pm

The existence of bigfoot and extraterrestrials are much more believable than Christianity, IMO.

Mark L

9/18/2016 07:37:13 am

Here's a handy hint - every time you want to use "political correctness", substitute it with "treating people with respect". That's all political correctness is, and if your sentence now sounds crude or stupid, perhaps your sentence was always crude and stupid.

I wish my religious friends would spend as much time condemning massive corporate fraud and illegal, immoral foreign wars, as they do condemning homosexuality.

Uncle Ron

9/18/2016 10:29:17 am

Political correctness does not correlate to being respectful. Being disrespectful has always been disrespectful, even before political correctness became de' rigueur. Political correctness is having to avoid saying something simply because some person(s) doesn't like to hear it / doesn’t want to admit it's true / doesn't want to deal with an issue honestly. People shut down a conversation by accusing someone of political incorrectness when they can’t or won’t admit to their own discomfort with the topic.

If a statement is incorrect it can be disputed on the basis of its non-factuality. The fact the something is called POLITICALLY incorrect shows that the objection to it is merely part of the game of victimhood and hurt feelings without regard for objective truth.

RiverM

9/18/2016 05:13:37 pm

Uncle Ron, since there's no thumbs up button here I want to give you a hug for that post. Such words should be engraved in stone and placed for all to see, but would sadly end up buried to be embraced by a lone ash's roots.

Ken

9/17/2016 05:11:14 pm

According to all of the above logic, anything that is wicked is therefore homosexual. So a man who doesn't believe in god is wicked, therefore a homosexual. All atheists are homosexual.

Somehow there is no cause and effect except that wickedness causes homosexuality. If this is true, I guess I'm a homosexual. My wife will be devastated.

Only Me

9/18/2016 06:21:51 am

I wouldn't place any importance on the "logic" of Nephilim theorists, Ken. I don't think any of them have first-hand experience with mating of any kind, so you and your wife are A-OK.

Ken

9/18/2016 07:57:24 am

I think the lesson to be learned re archaeology is that A) A hypothesis is not necessarily wrong just because there is no evidence, but B) If the hypothesis is arrived at using flawed logic, you can be pretty sure the whole thing is false.

Only Me

9/18/2016 08:52:37 am

Agreed.

E.P. Grondine

9/19/2016 08:33:16 am

Hi Ken, Omly Me -

My observation is that there are many poor scientists who will not let data interfere with their own good models.

Keep in mind that using the scienitfic method the data always wins.

"Hybrid Theory" and the Broadening of the Nephilim Dragnet (Lightning Post)

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories