Giants are mentioned in the bible in several places.
So what?
A fairy tale book mentioning something doesn't make it real.
Harry Potter also mentions Giants, that lends no less weight than the Bible.
Charles Fort documented quite a bit of evidence for giants.
Notice of a stone ax, 17 inches long: 9 inches across broad end. (Proc. Soc. of Ants. of Scotland, 1-9-184.)
Copper ax from an Ohio mound: 22 inches long; weight 38 pounds. Amer. Anthropologist, n.s., 8-229:
Footprints, in sandstone, near Carson, Nevada—each print 18 to 20 inches long. (Amer. Jour. Sci., 3-26-139.)
Those axes aren't all that large, at least if I understand those measurements correctly, especially when compared to war axes.
You also don't seem to bother reading the sources.
If you did:
The first isn't a valid reference, and he closest matches have nothing to do with a stone axe.
The second source is discussing bones, not copper axes, and they are from a cave in California, not a mound in Ohio. But that seems to be you getting the citation completely wrong. That citation appears to be claimed for a stone axe, which it still doesn't support in any way. The citation that is actually used for that in his book is Amer. Antiquarian, 18-60, but that still lends no weight to his claim.
The third source points out that they are the footprints of a sloth, not a human or giant.
He seems to just be making crap up.
As Fort explains, in our museums, being paraded around as Dinosaurs, no doubt.
And have you seen the skulls of them?
They don't look very human.
Abstract:
A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900’s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.
http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/
Why not post to the actual supreme court case documents and the actual ruling, rather than a click-bait headline from a fake news website?
Do you expect everyone to just be a complete moron and accept this garbage, or did you think it was actually true?
It is a smoking gun, showing just how desperate or gullible some people are.
Note: the tagline or catchphrase or whatever you want to call it for that site is "where facts don't matter". It is a satire site, not a news site.
It also has this discalimer:
WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.
Unnatural percentages of Carbon Dioxide and Water in southern extremities hints to worldwide fire destroying 99% of bioplane. This points to 20,000x more biolife on earth in the past. It should be noted here he is not talking about giant Redwoods and the like, but a different kind of silicone tree.
If the trees were made of silicone (also, silicone or silicon)? why would high carbon dioxide levels have anything to do with it?