We Are the Children of the Stars
Page 10
How much closer can you get to the starmen colonizers in our Hybrid Man theory?
Sir Julian Huxley, champion of Evolution, also admitted that only if you can rule out the hypothesis of “special creation” does the principle of natural selection and adaptation become valid.10
Some biologists candidly maintain that they believe the phrase “natural selection” to be a metaphor, or only an analogy of the true forces behind evolutionary change.11 And if you once rule out natural selection as the primary cause of changing species, there is nothing left but special creation.
Yet they shy away from accepting the biblical version of creation, wanting something less “superstitious” and less mystical. Since they are looking for something logical and acceptable to their scientific minds, besides either natural selection or special creation, we wonder if they would not gladly embrace our theory of starmen who are superbiologists?
There is their “special creation,” with all religious dogma stripped away and shining forth as a quite believable and scientific explanation.
Norman Macbeth himself says, “The vitalists and other persons who see a Watchmaker or the hand of God behind the marvels of nature should not be reckoned fools. They feel this presence, and the Darwinian arguments are not persuasive enough to overcome their feeling.”12
It is such a simple step from religion or belief-by-faith-only to the Hybrid Man theory with all its immense scientific logic – if only scientists will accept it as a theory.
Macbeth adds that, ironically, after careful scrutiny of literature on the Darwin Theory, he suspects its staunchest supporters of treating Evolution as their religion. There is the same unquestioning “faith” and lack of critical attitude as in the church worshiper.
But faith cannot deny the many failings of the evolutionary theory. Too many of the “explanations” of anomalies are tautological – in other words, repetition of the same thing without really explaining anything.13
Now in this book you are reading, we are not enlisting the side of the many critics mentioned above, and we are not quarreling with natural selection – whether right or wrong – as it applies to other creatures.
But we do state unequivocally that Darwinian Evolution and natural selection do not apply to mankind at all. However, we think the thin ice upon which evolutionary theory skates in the case of nonhuman species makes it far more probable that our theory of Hybrid Man created by the starmen as an Earth colony is correct, or at least pointing in the right direction.
Perhaps all the bickering, confused, groping dissenters from classical Evolution can rally to a common cause, if they will open their minds and accept our theory for intensive investigation.
That is all we ask – a fair trial and further research. If they can't accept either natural selection or biblical Creation, what have they got to lose in trying our theory?
To resume our review of specific anomalies in the Evolution Theory as regards Man, it is intriguing to find the ethnologists and anthropologists stumped over another high hurdle in the “impersonal” workings of natural selection.
Namely – why is the human race so greatly variegated as to shape, size, skull structure, facial characteristics, and many other anatomical features?
Why particularly are there men of varicolored skin – white, red, yellow, brown, and black?
Think of the enormous variety of breeds of dogs, from the Pekingese to the Great Dane, so entirely different from one another that a Martian might deny that they could be of the same species.
And how did the dog species become so variegated – only by manipulated breeding.
So, too, how could mankind come in so many different kind of “breeds” unless somebody made them different? For one fact is undeniable, that this is unique with Man and does not occur with any other undomesticated creature on Earth. Each animal species is comparatively uniform in nature. All living gorillas are essentially the same, with very little differentiation among individuals.
In the source book frequently quoted,14 we find that there are remarkable skeletal differences between the indigenous people of Europe, Asia, and Africa, “just as there are different skin colors, different hair textures, and different facial features, though no one knows for sure where they came from or when they appeared.”
The scholars of Man's origin are baffled, but we think we know where those differences came from – via the biomanipulations of the starmen, who knew that the more variations a species had, the more chance it had of surviving and thriving. Weakness of one human variety would not appear in the other, and so on.
This utterly unique quality of the human race comprising many “breeds,” like dogs or other domesticated animals, we consider to be one of the more significant points proving, or strongly indicating, that the Hybrid Man theory is correct.
When it comes to skin coloring, we meet a peculiar situation that may be coincidental – or may not.
Generally speaking, Man is divided into three main categories throughout the world: Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro.15 It is interesting to note that the great apes are also broadly divided into three main groups: the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and the orangutan.
Can there be any relationship in this strange coincidence that there are three main divisions of Man and three main divisions of anthropoid apes?
Oddly enough, both the Negro and the gorilla have skin that is black in color. The chimp, in turn, has a whitish skin, while the orangutan has a greyish-red color.
Now these three parallel divisions of men and apes certainly cannot mean that the three main races of humans descended directly from the trio of ape races. That is totally invalid, both in Darwin's theory and ours.
The only vague thought we have is that it all goes back to before both Hominids and Pongids were clearly defined species, and that perhaps the starmen experimented with the black/white/yellow-skinned anthropoids as “controls” for their greater Man-creating project, just as biologists today use monkeys and apes as controls for testing out drugs and therapies before using them with humans.
If this viewpoint is anywhere near the truth, it must go too far back in the starmen's biogenetic juggling for us to ferret it out. We will drop the matter as leading nowhere.
Still, somewhere in these mazes of controversial information, one can sense dimly seen pattern or order. That the concept of Man being a Hybrid fits solidly into this puzzle as part of a grand pattern seems to us as certain and sure and dependable as the swing of the planets through the heavens and the slow beat of the pulse in our veins.
“There is an order in the universe,” as Einstein has said, and Man – Hybrid Man – we believe is inevitably a part of this grand universal order.
Now we come to the great and still more tangled subject of tools as related to Man.
No other animals on earth use tools – not shaped tools. Apes or monkeys will sometimes pick up a stone and throw it, or use it to smash open a clamshell, but it is a totally haphazard act, usually initiated by an individual, and never becomes a racial trait. An anthropoid may also, on rare occasions, use a stick to knock down some luscious hanging fruit, but again it is a random, nonracial act. And they never “make” or fashion rock or sticks into permanent tools.
Man was the first and only creature to discover and invent tools, to manufacture them in quantity, and to use them consistently.
And now comes the great controversy – which came first, tools or brains?
Did Man's superior brain cause him to invent tools? Or did the increasing use of primitive tools help his brain grow through the ages? Anthropologists have argued the pros and cons endlessly, without coming to any unanimous conclusion.
We have a far simpler answer. The starmen gave both tools and a superior brain to mankind.
That is, the starmen taught primitive Man to make the first stone axes, flintstone knives, and crude clubs. More than likely, the starmen introduced fire also, then later the wheel. But we won't go into the last item, for that invol
ves the whole rise of civilization. We are still back in primitive times.
As a corollary to the tool/brain problem, there is the angle that when mankind descended from the trees to walk upright, his hands were left free for other uses, leading in due time to the handling of primitive tools. But as we have seen, the transition from tree-dwelling to ground-walking is itself a bog of conflictions. It can hardly be a clear-cut clue to how Man began using and developing tools.
Our oft-quoted source book admits: “There is no separating the tangled triple influence of bipedalism, brain development, and tool using. They are hopelessly interlocked, each depending on and stimulating the others.”16 That is a weird contradiction.
If tool-making depended on ground-walking, then how could it also stimulate that trait? If brain development depended on ground-walking and tool-making, then how could the latter two turn around and become the stimulants for the bigger brain? Which came first – the chicken, the egg, or neither?
It makes no sense, really. Beyond such tongue-twisted vagaries must lie a much more direct and cogent answer – namely, starmen intervention. Suddenly, with this concise and simple answer, the confusion is over.
To illuminate the real confusion that this tool/brain/bipedalism conundrum creates in anthropological ranks, note this quote:
In any event, if two-leggedness does depend on tool use, it stands to reason that Australopithecus [of 2 million years ago] who was two-legged, must have been a good tool user. It would be nice to be able to confirm this by finding some chipped-stone artifacts in the same strata that Dart's and Broom's [noted anthropologists] fossils came from.
Now the sagging denouement: “But again we are stymied. Experts searched for tools to go with Australopithecus for years but did not find a single one.”17
There goes another pet evolutionary hypothesis down the drain.
Louis Leakey, digging in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, was particularly baffled. Whenever he found Australopithecus fossils, he found no tools.18 And when he found tools there were no Hominid fossils! “But who had made them [the tools] was an utter mystery,” the report concluded.
One cannot help but notice how many “utter mysteries” pop up in anthropological studies of the origin and development of mankind, far more than for any other species on Earth.
And those damning “gaps” in the fossil record occur over and over, too. In tools, also. “With all these advances in tool-making, it is hard not to visualize people who were also advancing. Here we encounter another of those frustrating blank pages in the history of early Man. The Auchelian industry [ancient flint tool techniques] introduced by Homo erectus, lasted from about 500,000 to 75,000 years ago.”19
But then comes that 200,000 year gap without humanoid fossils, except the two strays, Swanscombe and Steinheim.
Who carried on the tool culture so that it survived for 2 years and came to Neanderthal Man?
Who else but the starmen? That is our answer, starkly and forcefully.
When inadequate Homo erectus died out (perforce?), the starmen waited until Neanderthal Man came out of their openair genetic lab and then handed him tool-making. Neanderthal improved considerably on the simple, crude Erectus tools, again under the direct tutelage, we suggest, of the starmen overseers.
However, we must be fair to the anthropologists who have spent much energy and time and thought on this problem, and their alternative suggestions are not to be ignored. There are two main ones.
First, that Ice Ages during those 200,000 years may have lowered sea-levels down by 300 to 400 feet, exposing attractive living sites to some portion of the remaining Erectus species – or perhaps some as yet undiscovered types of submen. Then, when the sea inevitably rose again with the melting of the ice, those sites would be buried so deeply that they have not yet been located to see if the tool-making technique was being carried on.
Second, with evidence of violent upheavals in that era, great volcanic outpourings may have buried those ancient, and therefore unknown, custodians of tool-making, creating the blank of 2,000 centuries in our fossil records of who acted as the “liaison” between Erectus and Neanderthal.
The weakness in both these theories, it seems to us, is the necessary presumption of wholesale destruction by ice ages or volcanic and geological upheavals – a principle of “catastrophism theory,” championed by Immanuel Velikovsky but vitriolically rejected, oddly enough, by mainstream science.
Nevertheless, one might say that even if destruction was widespread among those tribes of early men, the law of averages would allow some survivors, at least 5% or 10%. There should not be such a total obliteration of signs of the in-between subhumans who theoretically filled the stretch of time between vanishing Erectus in 300,000 B.C. and Neanderthal in 300,000 B.C.
If the signs are missing, it seems the species must also be missing. As for our Hybrid/Earth-colony explanation, we think there are fewer, if any, glaring objections to it. For one thing, there is good reason to believe, from almost universal ancient legends, that our outer-space sires dealt quite directly with these subhuman creatures, knowing they would never figure out who their benefactors were or where they came from – a secret that the starmen are careful to keep hidden from us even today, for reasons to be explored in the last chapter.
7
Hairy Clues
IF MAN IS a Hybrid, the evidence should be all around us. Consider the human body: It is a virtual storehouse of information, though there are still many mysteries about its functions. These physiological mysteries, we believe, constitute some of the most scientific proofs that Man is not strictly an Earth product of Evolution.
Out of literally hundreds of examples, only the major aspects of Man's physical differences from other species of primates, and from all animals, will be discussed in relationship to the Hybrid theory, extending into several chapters ahead.
Man is the only truly hairless mammal.
Only Man cries copious emotional tears.
Man has delicate fingers and sensitive skin.
The human skin has a low healing rate.
Man lacks diastemata (tooth gaps).
Subcutaneous fat in humans only.
Man has extraordinary facial mobility.
Man has a unique speaking apparatus.
Man swallows slowly.
Man has incredible eyes and seeing ability.
Through these and other data, Man's uniqueness could easily be established today via computer analysis. This would prove beyond doubt that, because of Man's many points of difference from other earthly creatures, he simply cannot be claimed as the end product of classical Evolution.
He must therefore be the result of another unknown factor. Of course, even the computers could not be expected to name that unknown factor, but we can – the starmen biomasters who created us. But the analysis could at least send science searching for the “unknown factor.”
And we wish here to state our willingness, in fact eagerness, to have this book's full data submitted to computer analysis.
The voluminous “fine points” we have gathered will lend themselves admirably to comparative computer studies. Just as the computers handling election-day figures can quickly cut through extraneous matter and strike at the core of what the results will be, so could computers weigh the many unique qualities of mankind and quickly give the answer, figuratively speaking: Man is not solely a product of Earthly evolution.
Therefore, to complete our open offer to science, computer start-ups on this vital analysis await only the attention of scientists who read this book. If computer analysis proves our basic theory wrong, we will bow to the verdict.
But we will not feel it necessary to bow to the verdict of scientists and their own opinions. Let the book have a fair trial by an electronic calculator – a disinterested and completely objective third party. We feel that no scientist in advance can prejudge whether our data – which are indeed revolutionary – hold the germ of a great new truth. Scientists are pr
one to be humanly biased, at times, in controversial matters. Computers do not become swayed by such human failures.
We earnestly make this appeal to the scientific world to subject the theory of Hybrid mankind to this kind of accurate, unprejudiced evaluation by computer, in the name of fair play and objectivity.
Aside from computer calculations, scientists throughout the past century have had many doubts about the stubborn human animal who refuses to fit into the evolutionary pattern. One such man was England's Sir Arthur Keith, the greatest medical anthropologist of his time, the early twentieth century. He made such outstanding contributions to the field that he was knighted in 1921. At the time Sir Arthur wrote the data we will present below, he was the most honored member of the Royal College of Surgeons in London.
The time is 1911 and Sir Arthur is writing for a distinguished English science publication:1
From 1890 to 1900 I devoted myself to an investigation of the Higher Primates making complete dissections of more than eighty animals. . . . An extensive analysis was made of the structural characters of each of these animal forms. . . . Some characters are common to all the members of the Higher Primates (Man, gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, gibbon) . . . and then a considerable number which are peculiar to each member, and may be regarded as acquisitions.
By “acquisitions” he meant separate traits acquired exclusively by one species. He comes to this emphatic conclusion: “Whatever theory is propounded [evidently beyond Darwin's theory!] for the origin of the several members of the Higher Primates must account for their structural and functional characters.”
Sir Arthur made an analytical list of the anatomical characteristics peculiar to each species, calling them “generic characters,” and he came out with this summary: