The mysteries of ancient history, such as how the Great Pyramid was built and by whom and why, have been well established over the past four decades. Similar archaeological enigmas litter the landscape around the planet and they raise many difficult questions about the origin of human civilisation.

Erik Von Daniken’s series of books, which began with `, presented archeological evidence while recounting many mythological traditions that have “gods” arriving on Earth from a distant world and bringing technology and the arts of civilised life to primitive human tribes.

Many writers followed Von Daniken’s lead and an entire school of alternative historical thought called the “ancient astronaut” theory emerged over the years. This school must be distinguished from another branch largely defined by such writers as Graham Hancock, which we can sum up as the “lost civilisation” school.

The latter does not figure into this discussion nor is it covered in my book The Genesis Race because it never really addresses the issue of the ultimate origins of Man or civilisation. Even if you accept the idea ancient Egypt and Sumer had their origins in Atlantis, who created that civilisation and from what precursors?

The essential questions the author has been studying over the past three decades are: 1) how did life originate and evolve on Earth?, and 2) how did civilisation suddenly emerge from mankind’s primitive roots? To my mind it seemed the ancient astronaut theory could be defeated if Darwin’s theory proved to be correct, which “official science” claims it has been. That premise can be justified using several valid arguments.

The “ancient astronaut” theory generally includes the idea summed up in the first chapter of Genesis, which indicates the “gods” genetically engineered a proto-human race. The actual verse reads, “Let us make man in our image.” If Darwinism is accurate then this assertion would be untrue and the notion of cosmic intervention by an advanced race would fall apart.

The second reason is Darwin’s theory has not only been applied to biology, it is also used to explain the emergence and development of human civilisation by a process referred to as cultural evolution.

At its core Darwinism is based on a simple concept: life evolves slowly via a process of incremental adaptations to a wide variety of external stimulus. He applied it to biology and anthropologists, archaeologists and historians applied the same principles to culture and human history. If this is correct then we should not find any abrupt transformations in human “evolution” either biological or historical.

I reason that if Darwinism is accurate then there may not be any valid scientific basis for the “ancient astronaut” theory, which posited intervention and rapid-fire metamorphosis in both the biological and historical spheres. The results of this research proved surprising. Darwinism is not only unproven – it has been shown by scientists to be fatally flawed. This is where my book, The Genesis Race, begins. Chapters two and three clearly show the flaws in the theory of evolution. It has failed exactly where Darwin feared it might – in the fossil record. Here we find – instead of widespread confirmation – a large number of missing links.

The general public is given to believe the only “missing link” in the fossil record exists between apes and man. This is not true. The fossil record contains hundreds of gaps between ancient and modern plant and animal species. Darwin referred to the gap separating the primitive non-flowering plants (gymnosperms) and flowering plants (angiosperms) as the “abominable problem.” Why? Because the gymnosperms, like ferns, existed for billions of years and they still exist today. The angiosperms, like roses, appeared on the scene about 150 million years ago and they exist today. Where is the evidence showing the fern evolved through a series of slow, incremental changes into a rose?

According to Darwinism the angiosperms evolved from the gymnosperms. If this is true then where are the intermediate forms linking the two very different types of plants? They have not been found in the fossil record and none exist today. This seems impossible and it is if you accept the principles of Darwinism.

There is no scientific explanation for the lack of intermediate plants linking the ancient and modern types. In fact, there should be millions of such fossils since they would have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, far longer than flowering plants.

Scientists also have no explanation why gymnosperms and angiosperms exist side by side. Somehow all the intermediate plants they say connect the two kingdoms mysteriously vanished from the fossil record and became extinct. Logic would dictate that the older, ancient plants (non-flowering) should have been the ones to go the way of extinction. This is actually enough evidence to kill Darwinism. Official science would have us believe the only dissenters against Darwinism are Creationists that come from the ranks of the Religious Right. However, I present numerous references to bona fide scientists that slam the door on Darwin’s theory of natural evolution.

What is, or should be, of great interest to anyone interested in the pursuit of science – as it applies to getting to the truth of human origins and the emergence of civilisation – are the works of Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.

While Von Daniken’s books were becoming popular in mainstream culture, these two eminent scientists wrote books about the origins of life on Earth. Both were highly critical of Darwinism and posited that life did not originate on Earth. They said the seeds of the biosphere originated in the cosmos.

In his book Life Itself, Crick – a Nobel prize-winner and the co-founder of the shape of the DNA molecule – claimed an advanced civilisation transported the seeds of life to Earth in a spacecraft. Hoyle, an astronomer who gave the world the steady state theory of the Universe, proposed that life came from the stars borne on comets or riding on the currents of light waves. The unfortunate thing is these rigorous scientific arguments were largely dismissed or completely ignored by “official science”, and also overlooked by the same folks embracing Von Daniken’s relatively unscientific, yet popular approach. (Erik did make people question and think.)

I want to clarify what I mean by that statement. Von Daniken claimed he was presenting a theory yet the title of his first book ended with a question mark. A new theory is normally offered by presenting arguments against the currently accepted theory, as Crick and Hoyle did, and it is presented assertively with equal measures of humility and confidence that do not end in a question mark. His somewhat insecure and uncritical approach has characterised much of the “ancient astronaut” literature, which official science finds easy to debunk.

That is why The Genesis Race begins with a serious critique of Darwinism. That is followed by several chapters re-examining the account of human genesis and the early history found in the Bible. A revolutionary analysis of the first three chapters clearly shows there were two creation events of life (and mankind) on Earth. It also shows the history given in the Bible agrees with the findings of paleontology and anthropology. In the first chapter we find that an early proto-human race was created and lived in the wilderness, like other animals, as hunter-gatherers. They were given “every green thing to eat” by the gods andGenesis 1 ends with that covenant.

However, in the second chapter we are told Adam is created to be a gardener and Eve is taken from Adam’s rib and the “gods” give them clothing and self-awareness. The chronological account of Creation in the second chapter is entirely different than that of the first chapter of Genesis.

This is a critical point. Not only do the two accounts differ completely, we find Adam is not to live in the wilderness as an animal but is intended to be a caretaker and farmer. If the two accounts are compared side by side the difference is obvious: Adam and Eve are not equivalent to the race created inGenesis 1; and Genesis 2 and 3 are not a detailed elucidation of the events described in the first chapter, which is normally implied or taught in church Bible classes.

What the first three chapters of Genesis actually describe are: 1) the creation of a proto-human race, the pre-Neanderthals and Neanderthals who live as hunter-gatherers in an innocent state as described in chapter 1, followed by, 2) the genesis of modern Homosapiens (Adam) fit for the agricultural revolution. That is exactly the history given in Genesis and it agrees with everything modern science establishes about the chronology of human pre-history.

This is a radical revision giving much stronger support to the Biblical version of human genesis and how and why the agricultural revolution took place. It also clarifies who the “us” refers to when God is abruptly referred to as ‘a plurality’ that intervenes and genetically alters life on Earth, the Genesis Race; and it sets the stage for a presentation of the enigmatic archaeological and additional evidence that further supports the theory of intervention by a technologically advanced extraterrestrial race.

Archaeology has never even addressed all the questions raised by the sudden emergence of agriculture and highly advanced civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt in the 3rd millennium BCE, let alone answered the most critical ones.

From the perspective of conventional archeological and anthropological thinking, the origins of humankind and the emergence of civilisation from the Stone Age remain enigmatic. We have incontrovertible proof our ancestors could not have built the Great Pyramid with the tools and methods they possessed. Yet official science simply ignores or tries to explain away many serious questions and issues such as how the Great Pyramid – the world’s largest precision-engineered stone structure – was constructed using only hammer-stones, ropes, manpower and sledges.

However, there are other issues that need to be addressed and today’s genetic research is shedding new light on this field. The implications of several important recent findings seem to have escaped the attention of many independent investigators. Established archaeologists and anthropologists have either ignored or railed against the findings of these controversial DNA studies. I am referring to genetic studies into the origin of the domesticated dog and into the diet of our Paleolithic and early Neolithic ancestors.

You may ask what do the dog and Stone Age dietary habits have to do with solving the enigmas of mankind’s ancient past? The answer is everything. Until recently it was believed dogs (Canis familiaris) came from a variety of wild canines such as wolves, coyotes, dingos, jackals, etc. But the latest DNA research shows that the wolf alone is the ancestral race of all dogs.

This poses a set of very difficult problems. The first dog would have been a mutant wolf. However, wolves are extremely sensitive to the genetic fitness and strength of each member of the pack. They are constantly testing and establishing a stringent social pecking order and only the alphas reproduce. So how would a mutant ever have survived and reproduced given the rigours of pack behaviour? No wolves in captivity have produced viable mutants and geneticists tell us mutants are normally unfit and do not survive.

We are faced with a real conundrum. If we pose that early human tribes intervened and bred wolves into dogs we are faced with an equally impossible scenario. How could primitive humans have known it was possible to selectively breed a wild animal into one possessing only those traits beneficial to them? We take the characteristics of dogs for granted, however, they present us with a profound mystery. A dog is the embodiment of only those wolf traits that people find useful, attractive and safe. How did genetically illiterate Stone Age humans achieve this feat of genetic engineering?

This problem is compounded when we are confronted by evidence from our earliest civilisations showing that salukis, sighthounds and the pharaoh’s hound, had already been bred in ancient Sumeria and Egypt. How is it possible our ancestors, recently emerged from the Stone Age, could have successfully engineered purebred lines at the onset of civilisation? In addition, dogs are not only temperamentally different than their wild progenitors, they differ physiologically as well.

A wild alpha male and female only breed once a year, whereas dogs can breed any time. Wolves shed their winter coats, dogs do not. These diverging physiological characteristics take time to develop, in fact, many generations. Again, how did our ancestors at the onset of civilisation accomplish this?

This mystery is underscored by the fact most of the modern dog breeds originated thousands of years ago. Science has not even addressed most of these issues let alone have the experts satisfactorily explained how wolves became dogs – 100,000 years ago – nor have they shown the step-by-step transitions. Purebred dogs just suddenly appear in the archeological record as if by magic. This is also true of agriculture and our key cereal and legume crops. Wheat, corn, beans and rice pose a second set of genetic enigmas.

Research into the dietary habits of Stone Age tribes around the globe show our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors subsisted on leafy plants and lean muscle meats. This makes perfect sense because these foods were readily available, took little or no processing, and wild game could be cooked over an open fire. The problem with our grain crops, and they are the basis of civilisation, is wild grass seeds are so miniscule the cost/benefit of harvesting them was not in favour of it. They also require harvesting, threshing and cooking technology since they have to be boiled extensively. This was technology Stone Age Man lacked.

The reason grains have to be cooked is that the human gut is not adapted to digest wild grains. This makes it very clear the use of wild grass seeds as a primary food source is of recent origin. Our Paleolithic ancestors did not subsist on them. Once again, this poses a set of formidable problems that need to be studied rigorously. If our ancestors did not harvest and eat wild grains, how could they have domesticated and bred the wild species so quickly?

Without many generations of trial and error experimentation – culminating in a vast body of agronomic knowledge and agricultural practices that would have included genetics and breeding – it is all but impossible to understand how the agricultural revolution was brought about. Official science tries to explain the evolution of nomadic hunter-gatherers into sedentary, crop-growing farmers by claiming they discovered crops quite by accident. We are told it happened when a primitive villager tossed a seed bearing plant into the trash pile and noticed that it sprouted.

But that trite tale can hardly explain how they selected the best wild species to use as the basis for the agricultural revolution. There are thousands and thousands of potential wild plants that could be turned into agricultural crops. How is it people with very little experience with wild grasses were able to pick the best varieties to breed? This represents a quantum leap. What we are asked to believe is that our ancestors, without much experience at the seminal stage of civilisation, were able to select and breed the very best varieties of wild grass species.

How do we know this is true? Because we still grow the very crops they supposedly selected even after 5000 years of continuous technological and agricultural development. We are asked to suspend disbelief and accept they also constructed the largest precision-engineered stone building the world has ever seen – the Great Pyramid of Giza – using only primitive hand tools and backbreaking labor. Something is obviously wrong with this picture.

Is it logical to assume our Earthly ancestors could (or would) have thrown together the agricultural revolution and then the entire civilisations of Sumer and Egypt out of whole cloth? No it is not; and neither do these suppositions represent sound science.

For those of us in the alternative history camp, one of the most fundamental questions we must impress upon the public and upon ‘official science’ is to ask where are the antecedents and precedents? Show us the slow Darwinian stages of development that official history presupposes. How can you explain the sudden appearance of genetically altered food crops and advanced engineering techniques at the onset of human civilisation?

We need step-by-step documentation and incontrovertible evidence and it ought to be copious and devoid of missing links since we are supposedly talking about events that occurred thousands and not tens or hundreds of millions of years ago, as is the case with biological evolution.

Where did our Paleolithic ancestors acquire the knowledge and skills to breed wild plants into food crops while also constructing planned cities? How did they achieve an exacting command of the principles of civil engineering as exhibited in Sumeria and the Harrappan civilisation of the Indus Valley? How did humans go from mud huts and collecting leafy plants to building ziggurats, flush toilets, public bathhouses (Mohenjo Daro), making bread in ovens, and inventing process metallurgy seemingly overnight? In plain language, where is the proof – the missing links – demonstrating your (official science) theories are confirmed in the archaeological record and meet simple standards of logic and commonsense?

Turning to what our ancestors in Sumer, Mexico, Egypt and Peru have to say about the origins of agriculture and civilisation we find a very different story. According to the ancient records, written and oral traditions, none of the earliest civilisations claimed they invented it. What is of profound interest is they are in unanimous accord in claiming they were given the arts of civilisation by the ‘gods’.

It is very unlike human nature to give credit to anyone else for anything we have invented or achieved. The ancient Egyptians left copious records of every aspect of their culture in a huge collection of artwork, hieroglyphics and texts. Yet we find no reference in their 3,000 year history as to how or why ‘they’ built the pyramids. What a curious lapse of documentation for such a communicative race assuming they did indeed built the pyramids. Would they have omitted any reference to their most important monuments?

That seems a preposterous supposition and yet Egyptologists gloss over it as they do the lack of mummies in the alleged ‘pyramids-as-tombs’ scenario they embrace without blushing.

These are all clues, pieces of a vast planetary puzzle, telling the story of the Genesis Race. The references to these ‘gods’ that arrived on Earth to uplift man are described in the Bible and other ancient texts and traditions. Their megalithic calling cards are found in Egypt, Mexico, Peru and China.

The Darwinian-based theories of ‘official science’, concerning the origin of Man and human civilisation, lead to a series of intellectual dead ends. If we closely examine the record we find civilisation was founded upon five primary inventions: 1) Agriculture, 2) Urbanisation, 3) Writing, 4) The Wheel, and 5) Process metallurgy.

Now, what happens when we try to uncover the origins of these key inventions in the archaeological and historical record? We find anthropologists and historians positing that agriculture was probably discovered by accident when our primitive ancestors tossed plants into the garbage heap and noticed the seeds produced new plants. Of course that does not explain what motivated them to plant and harvest wild grass seeds (they almost never ate) and how they learned to selectively breed and domesticate (alter) these plants genetically.

Well, they brush aside these queries with the same logic. This, too, was probably a serendipitous process that moved forward by a series of benign and happy coincidences. We are given to imagine the first domesticated animal, an example of perfect selective breeding, also took place when Paleolithic tribesman – via unknown techniques – domesticated a line of mutant wolves. Then we learn that process metallurgy, too, was the result of an accident, when someone dropped a piece of malachite into a campfire and observantly noticed that as it melted it produced copper.

In short, the fundamental paradigm ‘official science’ has formulated on how human life originated and how we created civilisation rests on a series of ‘miraculous’ accidents and impossible knowledge and skills! Egyptologists would have us believe the primitive tribes living along the Nile in oval huts who used mud-bricks to build mastabas for millennia were suddenly capable of advanced quarry operations, stonemasonry, architecture and corporate engineering.

Of course, they cannot explain how these primitive peoples built a massive, precision-engineered pyramid using only round hammerstones, wooden sledges and human labor. The Egyptian’s could not have built it, did not build it, and never claimed they were the pyramid’s creators. It is simply not possible to quarry, lift, drag and transport 70-ton blocks of granite 500 miles from the Aswan quarry to Giza and up 150 vertical feet and precisely position them in the King’s Chamber as Egyptologists claim was done.

I have repeatedly challenged Egyptologists, and their irrational, unscientific fellow travellers to demonstrate how the blocks of granite in the King’s Chamber can be quarried and lifted out of the quarry-bed and transported using the primitive tools and methods they claim were used. It cannot be done! Furthermore, this author claims he can show that any academics – mathematicians, anthropologists and/or engineering professors – who believe and teach these absurdities to students are lunatics running the asylums – our scientific institutions and universities.

This is certainly a serious, bold indictment and yet it must be made because it is true and it is high time to expose the intellectual chicanery and fraud perpetrated upon generations. I am not making these claims to create a controversy but to resolve a long-standing debate that has profound ramifications since it involves eliminating falsehoods and getting to the historical facts. How can I make such strong accusations with complete confidence?

First, the author has studied the engineering problems intensively and extensively comparing the building of modern-day monuments using state-of-the-art technology to the construction of the Great Pyramid using primitive tools and methods. Second, I have examined the recent record of tests conducted by Egyptologists and others trying to prove they could quarry, move and lift blocks of stone using nothing but ancient tools and techniques. Both studies yielded the same results: the Great Pyramid could not have been built with hammerstones, sledges and ramps.

One test filmed by Nova was organised by Egyptologist Mark Lehner and involved leading experts in a variety of fields. The team set out to quarry, move and lift a 35-ton obelisk into place. They failed miserably at every step. The master stonemason could not quarry the block using the primitive tools he was given. A Cat was called in to quarry the block and lift it onto a flatbed truck; sensing defeat they never even tried to transport it using a wooden sledge. The block was half the weight of one those used in the King’s Chamber.

A Nissan funded Japanese team conducted another serious test in 1978. They set out to build a small-scale duplicate of the Great Pyramid also using the primitive tools and techniques Egyptologists claim the ancients employed. This group was confident they could demonstrate how it was done. However, when they tried to quarry the blocks they found the hammerstones were not equal to the task. They called in pneumatic jackhammers. When they tried to ferry the blocks across the river on a primitive barge, they sank. They called in a modern tugboat for help.

Then they loaded a block onto a sledge only to find that it stubbornly sank into the sand when they tried to drag it to the site. They called for trucks and loaders. The final coup d’ grace was delivered when they were forced to call in helicopters to lift and position the blocks into place. Even using modern technology the Japanese team found, to their utter embarrassment, they could not bring the apex of their tiny 60 feet tall replica together. They suffered a bitter and quite humbling defeat in the unforgiving Egyptian desert. Their replica of the Great Pyramid turned out to be a joke.

We are supposed to believe men using tools marginally better than Stone Age equipment, quarried, lifted and hauled millions of blocks of stone to form a precision-engineered 4-million ton tomb. Stuff of nonsense! The conventional scenario is not just an absurd proposition that can only be maintained using intellectual smoke and mirrors, it is downright silly. The real question is, how could anyone with any commonsense have ever believed it?

There are, of course, many other problems with the primitive tools and methods scenario and the Great Pyramid. To begin with Mark Lehner commissioned an engineering firm to study the site. They found that the 13-acre base had been leveled with an accuracy equal to that achieved by modern day lasers. Are we to believe a 13-acre limestone bench was planed with that degree of precision using rounded hammerstones to grind down the rock until it was almost perfectly flat?

Furthermore, the Descending Passage was actually the next phase of this massive construction project. It too had to be dug out of solid bedrock. The problems with this phase of the project are manifold. The passageway was only about 3 by 4 feet, just large enough to accommodate one worker at a time. It was dug 150 feet underground maintaining a precise angle of 26 degrees and a negligible deviation from side to side and bottom to top throughout its length. Then it was opened up into several rooms and another passageway. How?

Why would the ancients dig a straight tunnel under a 4-million ton tomb and how was the passageway kept straight and true? Egyptian ‘engineers’ had no more than ropes in their toolkits. The author can also prove these two phases alone – leveling the base and digging the Descending Passageway – would have required half the time Egyptologists have allotted to the entire construction project. They, in fact, never even include these two phases in their calculations.

But we have other important fish to fry. During decades of research the author noted some curious similarities between Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley – the sites of our earliest civilisations – that do not add up. As we all know now, the ruins of Sumer are located in modern day Iraq. Our history and anthropology books routinely tell us that agriculture and civilisation were given birth in benign and highly fertile river valleys. But when we stop and closely examine these locations we find they are some of the hottest, driest and most inhospitable places on the planet.

The temperatures in these locations for 6 months out of the year are typically between 35-48 degrees Celsius. It is true the alluvial flood plains of the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates and ancient Indus rivers were fertile. But it takes considerable agronomic and hydrological knowledge to know this and to convert the marshes and control the floods to turn these wetlands into productive farmland. The question is how did our ancient ancestors, so recently emerged from the hunter-gatherer way of life, so quickly acquire this knowledge and develop these skills?

When we peer out from the ziggurats of ancient Sumer, the sandblasted pyramids of Egypt or the ruined cities of the Indus Valley, we do not see fruited-plains but vast, blistering, desert expanses. Is it not difficult to envision our primitive ancestors rolling out their blueprints for civilisation while squinting into the sun and deciding this is where the first cities and great monuments would be built and the first real cropland cultivated?

The scenario jars the mind and makes hash out of the comfortable fantasies painted by ‘official science’. Is something starting to smelly funny or is the author’s nose just too sensitive? I do seem to detect the subtle aroma of too many skeletons and enigmas – having been shoved hurriedly into too many closets and musty catacombs – wafting up from ancient stones and bones…

We have to examine several other items that do not pass the smell test. Sumer, Egypt and the Indus Valley share some other critical features in common which make them unlikely places for primitive peoples to have developed our first civilisations. We should expect to find civilisations evolving where people had immediate access to a wide variety of resources. The most logical scenario would be in river valleys near forested, mineral rich mountains.

This is a logical expectation since people needed water, fuel (wood) for fires, tool handles and building materials as well as copper, gold and silver to make jewellery and tools and so on. We would expect to find this association not just to establish they had immediate access to these necessary resources, but also that they had been engaged in a prolonged period of extracting, processing and working with these resources.

Unfortunately, Sumer, the birthplace of civilisation, was completely lacking in forests, minerals and even stones. This is a curious, illogical fact. How did this strange tribe, speaking an odd tongue and calling themselves ‘the black-headed people’, invent civilisation in the middle of a barren desert wasteland? Egypt was also bereft of forests, as was the Indus Valley. The point is not that civilisation was or is impossible in these areas, but that it is supposed to have originated in these harsh, desert environs lacking many basic resources.

Yet we find the Sumerians ingeniously mining copper and tin and creating the first alloy, bronze, in kilns around 3000 BCE. In rapid-fire succession they invented the wheel, the chariot, the sailboat, writing, cities, labor specialisation, civil engineering and on and on. Ostensibly, the tribes of the Indus Valley and the Nile would soon follow. They did all this while most of the world’s tribes were still living as hunter-gatherers, another fact that demolishes the theories of cultural Darwinists. You cannot explain the radical departure from the human norm by several tribes without invoking some form of racism or inexplicable genetic deviations.

The other curious features we find in common among Earth’s ‘first’ civilisations are that none of them claimed they invented agriculture, laws, morality or the other prime tools of civilisation.

The Sumerians claimed they owed everything to the ‘gods’ (Annunaki) that had descended from the heavens to Earth to create and teach mankind the arts of civilised life. The ancient Egyptians referred to the Nefertu who ruled over them during the Zep Tepi (First Time) for thousands of years until they handed over the reigns to the human pharaohs.

Our real human history as handed down by our ancestors is far more exciting and incredible than the pabulum ‘official’ science has been force feeding us for many generations. Mankind is indeed on the threshold of a re-awakening to a new dawn; the time of profound revelations about the truth of our astonishing origins and history is at hand.

From: The Genesis Race

Since it is a virtual certainty that The Genesis Race reached one of the advanced types of civilzations described in the prior chapter, we have to assume that their technology would be invisible to us. Put another way it would be a stealth system to our perceptions. We would simply lack the context needed to understand it.

That does not necessarily mean that they intentionally created it to be invisible to lesser civilizations (although they may have) it simply means that it would be invisible and incomprehensible to us in all probablity.

… a Type III civilization would have knowledge and capabilites far in excess of planetary engineering since they would have the capacity to generate galactic levels of knowledge and power. It is therefore possible that we are, in fact, living in a solar system that has been seeded, frabricated and is under the control of a Type III civilzation.

At this point it is time we need to address the issue raised by Fermi and a host of other scientists, who assume that there is no evidence that the earth has been colonized by, or in contact with, an advanced race.

The ancient civilzations of earth pose many mysteries spanning the globe which have been heretofore documented in numerous books and articles. It would be redundant to go into the bulk of them. However, the author herein submits that we have a singular piece of evidence that the earth has been visited by an advanced race: The Great Pyramid that sits on the Giza Plateau at 30 N latitude O longtitude.

It is very clear that the GP was, among other things, built to be a very long lasting geodetic marker. The obvious relationship with Lake Victoria and the Nile River, the longest river in the world, is important. As was noted in the openining chapter ascribing the zero point longitude to Greenwich, England was entirely an arbitrary and political matter.

Now, considering the above facts is it logical to assume that the earth's earliest civilizations emerged along the 30 N meridian, near these river deltas, ostensibly by chance? Next, this begs the question why these early civilizations built pyramidal type structures on a massive scale? Not only why but how?

We must face the fact that there is no evidence to support any gradual evolution of the social systems, knowledge, skills and technologies needed to build them in the late Neolithic era..

Before delving into the Great Pyramid, we must step back to gain a perspective on the real issues involved. It is instructive to begin by examining the technological progress that has occured over the past several hundred years.

The Great Pyramid is 48 stories high; a similarly tall manmade structure with equal mass was not built until the 20th century. That took place after a prolonged period of infrastructure, architectural, tool and skill development that apparently took 5,000 years to accomplish. Does it make any logical sense to find a structure 4500 years old that was more sophisticated than any subsequent structure until the 20th century?

Modern Eyptians did not build the Aswan Dam until western civilization had advanced enough to provide them with the technology to construct it.

We know that technological innovation proceeds through a number of graduated steps. We are not at all surprised by the fact that the wheeled cart was turned into the horse and buggy and then the automobile. No problem, en entirely rational progression in fact. The same is true of tools. There is no mystery in seeing the thousands of years of development from stone hammers and mallets to the modern iron and steel versions.

In addition, we know without even thinking about it that our modern power tools first required the invention of AC and DC power. Crick and Watson had to discover the shape of the DNA molecule before the (DNA) genome sequence could be unravelled and bio-enginnering turned into a commerical enterprise.

All of that seems so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning. The author brings this logical pattern up because we do not seem to apply similar logic to the artifacts we find in our earliest civilzations.

You cannot have computers or an electrical grid without first having an entire industrial infrastructure to produce the metals, circuitry, wires, cords, et al., that go into computers and the delivery of electicity. We cannot separate technological advances from similar advances in social organization and education.

When we look at and carefully examine the Great Pyramid we find the automobile preceding the wheeled cart. The same is true of the abrupt appearance of crop agriculture and large-scale flood irrigation, which we find in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

There is no gradual step-by-step progression in the record that supports the notion that the ancient Egyptians possessed the knowledge, tools, skills or level of social organization required to build the Great Pyramid. The same holds true for the genetic manipulation and sudden transformation of wild grass seeds into viable grain crops.

We do not find any antecedents because none were created by primitive human cultures back in the Neolithic period. We have not created any new, major food crops because the ones we inherited already represent a high-degree of advanced genetic engineering. Wild grass seeds are miniscule and hardly worth the effort of harvesting, winnowing and cooking.

Examing the record of attempts that were conducted by Egyptologists, which were organized to show that the known Egyptian culture had the knowledge and technology to build the Great Pyramid, is reveealing. However, let us precede that examination by first establishing some facts and modern-day comparisons first.

As noted above the GP is 48 stories tall. The base covers 13 acres and was carved out of the solid, limestone bedrock that forms the Giza Plateau. It has been estimated that the structure is comprised of 2.5 million, mostly limestone blocks, with an average weight of 2.5 tons. That gives us a mass of about 6 million tons.

Most of the limestone blocks were quarried near the site. However, there are 9 granite blocks, weighing from 30 to 70 tons, positioned 175-vertical feet above the base. They frame in a room that is reffered to as the King's Chamber by Egyptologists. These blocks were put in place with a high-degree of precision. Above this room the builders placed an additional 43 blocks of granite some weighing 70 tons.

The quarry where this particular type of rose granite is found is located near the Aswan Dam. That is a distance of about 500 miles from the Giza Plateau. The pyramid was finished with an outer casing comprised of Mokattam limestone which was quarried on the east side of the Nile, opposite the Great Pyramid building site.

Just this barebones data raises a number of thorny problems for the conventional interpretation of how the Great Pyramid was constructed using primitive tools and methods. First, while limestone is not a particularly hard rock, granite is an extremely hard stone to work with. It has never been proven that primitive methods proposed could cut and chisel the blocks of granite we find in the King's Chamber to an extremely smooth finish. Remember that the Egyptians, of the period, not only lacked the wheel, they lacked iron and bronze as well.

The method of carving the blocks out of the quarry - proposed by Egyptologists - is so primitive it is hard to believe they would even dare offer it. We are given to believe that the primary tool used was a round ball of granite. Could a hammerstone really produce the precision cut stones found in the King's chamber?

Chief Egyptologist Mark Lerhner tested the hypothesis by smashing a granite ball against solid granite at the (Aswan) quarry. After several hours he was naturally exhausted. His effort produced a handful of granitic grains and dust. The granite hammer theory appears extremely weak if not impossible.

Next, the 50-ton blocks had to be lifted out of the quarry. How was this accomplished? Here we need to turn to modern-day equipment. The large construction cranes we see wielding objects upward to build skyscrapers are usually rated between a 50 to100-ton capacity. Such cranes have existed for less than 100 years.

Of course these modern cranes could lift the blocks out of the quarry. However, to claim that a team of men could muscle them out or even lever them out is extraordinarily improbable. If you want to get an idea of what 50 tons looks like, picture 10 full-grown bull elephants or a loaded railroad boxcar or even 25 average size automobiles stacked one on top of another.

Now try to image picking these objects up by hand. But the challenge is yet much more daunting. Before attempting that we must perform one other necessary task, undercutting the blocks. Though our quarrymen have managed to carve out a trench around our blocks first, leaving a 3 foot space encircling the partically quarried granite on all sides; the gruesome task of making the undercut that finally separates the block from the bedrock remains.

Again, how could this be accomplished using primitive tools and methods?

Then we have to account for the transport operation from the quarry to the banks of the Nile. A fifty-ton block of granite would, no doubt, pulverize a wooden roller before the journey's end, assuming the alleged hauling team could move it in the first place. If they did manage to roll it, highly unlikely, it would likely sink into the sand in very short order. (We shall see this is exactly what happened when a Japanese team tried to transport much smaller blocks of limestone.)

Finally, we must account for the transport boat and the dangerous trip down the Nile to the delta. The boats that were found at the Giza site could not have been used to transport these blocks and navigate -some of the treacherous stretches of whitewater - that exist between the quarry site and Giza.

The above is just one set of problems generated by one of the Great Pyramid's features. If we did allow the blocks to be quarrid and transported to the site we would still face the equally daunting task of getting them up 175-vertical feet. After that of picking them up and positioning them with precise accuracy, as we still find them today.

Hmmm...If you are beginning to wonder about the orthodox scenario, and have heretofore accepted it, join the club. Keep in mind that the Egpytian culture did not possess the wheel until centuries after the Great Pyramid was constructed.

The next thorny problem involves transporting thousands of limestone blocks across the Nile to the Giza plateau. Although the outer casing is missing from most of the Great Pyramid today, we know that it once existed because four blocks remain intact on the northeastern corner of the lowest tier.

The casing blocks in question weigh an estimated 15 tons; each is bevelled at a precise 51 degree angle; and they were so accurately fit together that there is almost no discernible space between them. However, in reality, the builders had applied a thin coat or mortar before fitting them into place.

An interesting fact about the mortar is that even though its chemical constituency is known it cannot be reproduced. The mortar is actually stronger than the limestone blocks it holds in place.

Tens of thousands of these precision-bevelled blocks had to be cut, transported across the river and then painstakingly fit into place. How? The shape and surfaces of the finished pyramid would have resembled a quartz crystal; that is the level of precision-engineering embodied in the Great Pyramid. Why would all this be necessary if it was nothing more than a tomb?.

These are but several of the numerous challenges that the building of the Great Pyramid, using primitive tools and methods poses, and they are not even the most severe at that.

Back in the 1970's when the Japanese economy was riding high and national pride was at its peak a japanese team decided to show the world how the Great Pyramid was built.

First , they consulted with Egyptologists to ascertain the kinds of tools and methods that the ancient Egyptians used to build the pyramid. They decided to construct an exact scale-model. The enthusiastic team immediately ran into trouble when they tried to create the limestone blocks using primitive tools and methods. They simply could not pull it off.

Frustrated they acquired jackhammers to do the job. Then they tried to ferry the blocks across the Niile on primitve barges but failed. They called in modern ferries. The next problem came when they attempted to drag the blocks, weighing less than 2-tons, on sleds across the sand. The blocks quickly sank and the crews efforts ground to a halt.

In all, the team had to resort to the use of use jackhammers, bulldozers, trucks and even a helicopter to get the blocks to the site and stacked up to form a pyramid. The final insult came when they discovered that it was not so easy to precisely position the blocks even with the use of a helicopter. Their finished pyramid was out of alignment and it could not form an apex.

This was a serious effort that required investments of time and money. The Japanese are a proud people and they are loathe to lose face; but in this project they walked away deeply humbled. We must keep in mind that this attempt did not include any large granite blocks, facing stones or complex interior architeture which the Great Pyramid does.

The next attempt to prove that the ancient Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, using primitive tools and methods, came in the 1995. NOVA sponsored the project (it can be viewed online since it was filmed and turned into a documentary).

Mark Lerhner brought in Roger Hopkins, an expert stonemason, to work with the granite using primitive tools. The late Aly el Gasab, one of Egypt's foremost specialists in moving heavy statues, was also brought on board to tap into his vast experience.

The idea was to create and raise a 35-ton, granite obelisk using nothing more than the tools and methods that Egyptologists claim the ancient Egyptians had used. The project started with both confidence, optimism and enthusiasm.

However, that would soon changed as they faced their first challenge. According to the orthodox scenario the ancients traditionally sculpted an obelisk from a single piece of granite carved from quarries in Aswan. Lehner sought hints about ancient quarrying at the so-called Unfinished Obelisk, a 1,000-ton monolith that some unidentified, alleged pharaoh abandoned after structurally dangerous cracks appeared during its removal.

They proceeded under the assumption that ancient laborers pounded away the surrounding granite with round, dolorite hammerstones, al la Lerhner, as we was mentioned above. Even though Lerhner had learned some hard lessons trying this method he was still convinced that ancient quarrymen spent tmonths or even years chipping away at the hard granite. Wrong.

It was not long before master stonemason, Hopkins, realized that if the team wanted an obelisk anytime soon, it needed a shortcut. Like their Japanese forerunners the crew soon requested bulldozers and other modern machinery, which of course, quickly quarried the obelisk.

Not only did they fail to make a dent in the granite quarry using primitive tools they could neither lift the block nor transport it across the sand. Strikes one and two.

In truth, these initial failures were enough to discredit the ancient tools and methods thesis. Being forced to resort to modern equipment served to show one thing: whoever did build the Great Pyramid used some form of advanced technology. After using bulldozers to quarry the obelisk and a truck to transport it the team was ready to demonstrate how the ancients raised their obelisks. In truth, a 35-ton obelisk is a peewee compared to the majority of obelisks that dot the Egyptian landscape. Imagine what would have happened if they had tried to quarry and raise the most massive obelisk, which weights about 440 tons!

Before trying to raise their obelisk, the team examined a number of related issues surrounding these sculptural wonders that the author brought up already. How did the ancients transport them from the quarries at Aswan to Thebes and other New Kingdom capitals farther down the Nile? Good question.

Once again that only scratches the surface of unresolved problems. Whoever created the obelisks also polished the sides and painstakingly carved highly artistic hieroglyphs up and down their exposed surfaces. The NOVA team did not even try to duplicate that painstaking and time-consuming work.

After trading theories and building model boats to demonstrate how the ancients ferried 30 to 100 and even a 440-ton obelisk(s) down the Nile to various sites, Martin Isler lead the team in successfully raising a smaller, two-ton obelisk using a levering technique. With that accomplished they thought they had the challenge of raising the obelisk licked.

Tensions mounted as the time neared to actually raise it. This caused further debates and discussions. Stonemason Hopkins was convinced the answer lay in building a great earthen ramp up to a specially designed chamber that contained sand. In this scenario, laborers would carefully tip the base of the obelisk into the top of the chamber, then begin removing sand from a trap door in the chamber's base.

Then as the obelisk reached a pedestal at the bottom of the chamber, team members would ease one edge of its base into a so-called "turning groove," which would hold the obelisk in position as other laborers pulled it upright. The team agreed that his plan sounded like it would work and they decided to use his strategy.

At the last minute the team decided that sand was not dependable. Instead, they chose to use an idea developed by Aly el Gasab. First, the crew put the obelisk on a sled and hauled it on rollers up the ramp. Once it began to pivot over the top edge of the ramp, workers yanking down on ropes fixed to its top, controlled its descent down another, steeper ramp into the turning groove.

That went as planned. The obelisk then rested at a 32-degree angle from the ground. Workers using levers quickly forced it up to about 40 degrees — nearly halfway to success. Once at this angle, however, the team proved unable to get the leverage necessary to raise the obelisk the rest of the way.

The workers redoubled their efforts, pulling hard at ropes fixed to the obelisk's tip. But this simply forced the shaft's butt-end deeper into the turning groove. As the sun set on the project, they realized they had to meet the challenge the following day.

Early the next morning, Hopkins set up a large A-frame, then ran the ropes tied to the tip of the obelisk over it. By adjusting the angle of the rope in this way, he hoped to give the pullers a mechanical advantage: Now they were essentially pulling up rather than down. Nonetheless, this last-ditch effort proved futile. The ropes on the pullers' side of the A-frame angled down too steeply for enough workers to reach them. Another ramp was needed — one whose angle matched that of the rope — but time had run out on the project. Strike three.

Even if they had succeeded meeting the challenges posed by each step ivolved in raising a 35-ton obelisk in this fashion it would not have definitively solved the real problem. To truly test the primitive tools and methods thesis the team would have had to face the impossible task of quarrying, transporting and raising a 440-ton obelisk. Why?

Just because you can lift 100 pounds off the ground does mean that you can lift 1000 lbs off the ground. We run into the problem of scales of magnitude and the limits of human labor; the structural integrity of wooden boats, beams, sleds and so forth. A 440-ton obelisk is an extraordinarily, massive chunk of granite equalling the combined weight of 220 automobles.

Again to gain a realistic perspective we must turn to our modern equipment. The space shuttle weighs about 400 tons. At the time it was being constructed there was no crane that could lift that much weight. One was custom designed and built for the sole purpose of lifting the shuttle.

Our modern earthmovers - gigantic machines with 13' tall tires and 500 HP motors - are used at mines to haul large loads of rocks and ore. The largest of these has a capacity of about 300 tons.

Given these indisputable facts, is it not preposterous to believe that a team of laborers could lift, transport and raise a 440-ton obelisk? If that one object poses insurmountable obstacles then the Great Pyramid presents the ultimate challenge to the primitive tools and methods theory.

Enrico Fermi

By Will Hart | TheGenesisRace

In 1950 Enrico Fermi, then a prominent physicist, put forth a paper that soon became known as the Fermi Paradox. The main thrust of his argument was simple: since all the available astronomical data suggested there was a very high probability that advanced civilizations existed out there, why then had none colonized or contacted the earth?

Astrophysicists, astronomers and other interested scientists have tripped over this seeming paradox for decades. However, the author is going to make the case that Fermi included a critical error that skewed his formula to come up with a false conclusion. Here is a list of the premises he used:

• The sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
• If the Earth is typical, some of these stars likely have planets with intelligent life.
• Presumably some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, as Earth seems likely to do.
• At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in just a few tens of millions of years.
• The observable universe is currently believed to have at least 80 billion galaxies.

After laying down those facts and logical assumptions Fermi went on to ask: Where are they? According to his model — based upon unquestioned acceptance of the theories expounded by orthodox historians, anthropologists and archaeologists — there was no evidence that any extraterrestrial civilzatiion had made contact with the inhabitants of earth.

In fact, the Fermi Paradox is a conflict between an argument of scale and probability and an apparent (alleged) lack of evidence.

The obvious flaw in the paradox is that Fermi failed to question the central dogma of orthodox historians. Apparently he did not understand that these academics had avoided or tried to explain away the hard questions posed by such anomalous evidence as the Great Pyramid.

How could the earth’s first civilization build a precision-engineered, 48-storey, stone structure weighing 6-million tons using primitive tools and methods?

The question was never adequately addressed then and still has not been rigorously explained to this day. The author submits that there is ample evidence that the earth has been both colonized and its inhabitants have had contact with an advanced, extraterrestrial civilization. That evidence is popularly referred to as "history’s mysteries".

In fact, the Fermi paradox collapses since one of its central tenets fails to pass the due diligence test.

If the proposed advanced extraterrestrial civilization had not intervened in the evolution of life on earth and the creation of civilization — no mysteries would exist. The Great Pyramid would now currently be under construction since the necessary laser surveying equipment needed to precisely level the (13 acre) base exists. However, that technology did not exist 4,500 years ago.

Strangely, the very scientists that claim to want to discover intelligent life in the universe do not seem to be aware of the forgoing issues. The fact that the base of the Great Pyramid was so accurately leveled that it duplicates the accuracy achieved using modern laser levels seems to have escaped them.

Do our current crop of highly trained, very well-educated scientists really believe that the ancient Egyptians could build the pyramid without the wheel using only stonehammers and wooden sleds? The improbability of that scenario, which Egyptologists certainly do adhere to, borders on the absurd. That seems unlikely.

A more probable scenario is that ’hard’ scientists simply pay no attention to the fields of history and archaeology but assume, as Fermi did, that their academic colleagues in the ’soft’ sciences (arts) have it covered.

The largest obelisk in Egypt weighs an estimated 450 tons. The first crane built that could achieve a lift of that capacity was constructed to hoist the Space Shuttle. But we are supposed to believe that the ancient Egyptians could achieve a feat only recently accomplished with heavy equipment using manpower, ropes and wooden levers.

Fermi should have taken the time to investigate the archaeological and cultural records, around the world, before making categorical assertions about the lack of evidence. Among the earth’s earliest civilizations none claim to have invented the knowledge that went into crop agriculture, river diversion, complex canal systems; nor did they claim to have built the massive structures i.e., pyramids in Egypt; ziggurauts and Sumeria.

It is not a matter of a few isolated artifacts suggesting extraterrestrial intervention may be plausible, there is a massive body of it. This includes everything from the sexigesimal (base 60) numeric system — still used to keep time — that civilization has not improved upon for the past 4,000 years, credited to ancient Sumeria. It includes the Great Pyramid, which our current civilization might yet not be able duplicate after 5,000 years of continuous technological development.

The author would urge — as the late astronomer Carly Sagan did — the scientific community to launch an impartial, independently funded, serious and rigorous, full-blown investigation into the cultural and archaeological data that suggests contact and extraterrestrial involvement.

Fermi failed to do so and his paradox is thus fatally flawed.

Now, there is a similar formula that arrives at the same conclusion using a slightly different course of reasoning. It has been known as the Drake Equation for decades. It forms the second stumbling block that scientists investigating the possibility of extraterrestrial life get hung up on. Dr. Drake concurred with Fermi about the high probability that advanced civilizations existed elsewhere in the cosmos.

However, he argued that the civilizations out there collapse too quickly to explore interstellar space and colonize planets like earth. The Drake Equation is not as easy to dispose of as the Fermi Paradox at least at first glance. It does seem likely that most extraterrestrial civilizations would expire quickly, as they have done on earth (and ours is likely to do) before exiting their solar systems.

Why? Our current global civilization is based upon electromagnetism. It has only been in the past few years that astrophysicists and solar scientists have realized that there is a dangerous fly-in-the-ointment embedded in the power grid and electromagnetic technologies. A single, massive solar storm could completely disrupt and probably destroy civilization as we now know it.

Drake did not make this specific point he arrived at his conclusions using analysis of other data. However, his central point was well taken. Survival is always a serious and uncertain business and there are never any guarantees; especially when civilizations proceed upon the electromagnetic/ nuclear pathway ours has taken.

Nonetheless, even if we allow the fact that most civilzations die out rather quickly, that does not mean that all of them do. What it does imply is that those that took, or are taking, our course of technological development did not and will not last very long. Massive solar storms can occur anytime and most assuredly do over the course of centuries. T he last major one slammed into the earth in 1859, prior to the advent of AC power generation.

This suggests that the civilizations that do survive over the long haul either never pursue our type of power consumption or they shift from it to another rather quickly. We would assume not long after they became aware of its inherent dangers.

Drake’s Equation cannot be ignored because it sets limits which do explain why extraterrestrial life is not as prevalent as many would like to believe. Since it is highly probable that no civilization pursuing an electromagnetically-based technology would ever get beyond its own solar system, our astronomers in the SETI project are waiting for types of signals we generate, in vain.

Any civilization capable of spanning the vast distances of interstellar space would necessarily have had a long period of time to evolve. Over that time they would have either have 1) skirted around basing their civilization on the development of electromagnetic technology and/or 2) developed an entirely unknown type of technology.

As the author posits in his hypothesis, The Genesis Race, the advanced civilization has a technology that is invisible to us as exhibited by the Great Pyramid. Whatever evidence (they) have left behind concerning their involvement in life on earth is camouflaged largely because we do not know what we are looking at or for.

Drake also failed to examine the historical and archaeological records apparently under the same assumptions that led Fermi to his erroneous conclusions. Given his rather pessimistic view of the short duration of most extraterrestrial civilizations, the author asserts that even if that is entirely true, it does not matter.

In the most conservative models at least one high-order civilization evolves per galaxy. In most models the estimate ranges from 350 to 35,000. However, we do not need a crowded galaxy to produce a ’Genesis Race’ type civilization. We only need one Type 2 or Type 3 to have evolved in the entire Milky Way composed of about 100 billion stars and nearly a trillion planets.

We will take an ultra conservative position and accept the lowest number, one.

The sun is classified as an average star, which makes the earth an average planet. Today we would be hard pressed to find any scientist, in any field, that would admit to embracing the theory of the absolute exceptionalism of the earth.

Estimates of earth-like planets existent in the Milky Way range from 1 to 30 billion. To assume that planet earth is the only one that contains intelligent life is about as regressive as believing that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

That said, it is time to move on to a more sophisticated view of the cosmos. The Kardeshev Scale is a system of measuring a civilization’s level of technological advancement, based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal.

As our own civilization, for example, has progressed technologically it has consumed more and more energy. That is occurring every day and will continue to occur into the future as more and more nations become fully industrialized.

The scale has three designated categories: Type I, II, and III.

• Type I civilization has all the available energy impinging on its home planet.
• Type II has harnessed all of the available solar energy.
• Type III all of its galaxy-wide energy.

Of course the scale is only theoretical; and in terms of an actual civilization highly speculative; nonetheless, it puts energy consumption of an entire civilization in a cosmic perspective.

As we are already facing energy shortages and shifting to renewable technologies, we are also simultaneously facing an overheating planet caused by our increasing carbon emissions. Moreover the pressure of an ever increasing population is causing loss of habitat, extinction of species, and accelerated changes to the biosphere in general. Clearly, there is no easy path to the continual advancement of a global, technological civilization.

According to the Kardashev Scale our current civilization has not yet reached the Type 1 stage. Astrophysicist Michio Kaku has suggested that we may attain Type I status in about 100–200 years; Type II status in a few thousand years; and Type III status in about 100,000 to one million years.

(As noted previously, it is unlikely that we can reach those levels using electromagnetically based technologies.)

There are those that consider any ’gods from space’ theory to be little more than science fiction. The author begs to differ. In recent years the seriousness of the discussion, of how life started on earth, has deepened and heretofore little considered scientific hypotheses have been gaining acceptance.

The notion that life originated elsewhere in the universe — and later arrived on earth — is not the stuff of any science fiction writer’s imagination. Today it is a solid scientific theory that explains how life began on this planet.

The first documented mention of the idea appears in the writings of the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras. He called his thesis, panspermia, a Greek term, that means ’seeds everywhere’.

Several millenia later, on April 9, 1864, French chemist Louis Pasteur reported his experiment disproving spontaneous generation as it was then held to occur. This was a devastating blow to Darwin’s theory (as it was used to explain the origin of life on earth) which held that life began as a direct result of spontaneous generation.

To this day many people still believe that Darwinism can be used to explain how life originated on earth. That is simply untrue. It can only be used to show how it adapted and evolved once it got started.

In the 1870s, British physicist Lord Kelvin and German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz reinforced Pasteur’s findings and argued that life might have originated in space and been transported to earth. Next, in the first decade of the 1900s, Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate, Svante Arrhenius theorized that bacterial spores — propelled through space by light pressure — was the mechanism that seeded life on Earth.

In his day the concept was pure scientific speculation because it had not been proven that life forms could survive the extreme conditions of interstellar space. In fact, most scientists at the time were not convinced that it could. However, science has since shown that such life forms called extremophiles, do indeed exist.

More recently astronomers, the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickenshrame came to the conclusion that life arrived on earth via microbes from outer space. The pair were conducting investigations aimed at identifying the contents of interstellar dust by trying to find something that would match its infrared signature.

After exhausting every established lead, they finally turned to bacteria and found the match they had been searching for. They declared their findings in a series of papers and thereby was the ancient theory of panspermia revived in recent decades. Not only has it been revived it has thrived and recently been embraced by one of the top neo-Darwinists in the world, Richard Dawkins. Moreover a growing number of highly prominent mathematicians and astrophysicists have also adopted it.

As panspermia was being put forth, world renowned microbiologist, Sir Francis Crick, published a small book in 1982 titled "Life Itself". In it he and coauthor, Leslie Orgel, proposed the theory that not only had life arrived from the cosmos it had been sent here on a space probe packed with microbes. In their view an advanced civilization had intentionally seeded life on earth.

This startled the scientific community because Crick could not be dismissed easily since he had co-founded the shape of the DNA molecule in 1950. That feat earned him the Nobel Prize. His theory became known as directed panspermia.

None of the above mentioned scientists examined the historical, cultural or archaeological records as a means of corroborating their theories. Of course that has been left to independent investigators, like van Daniken and to a lesser extent this author, who have compiled a vast treasury of supporting evidence over the past 50 years.

The Genesis Race theory is an attempt to synthesize the historical-cultural and scientific evidence into a single, unified whole. Simply put the theory states:

1. an advanced civilization seeded earth with microbial life forms which evolved.
2. this same race intervened in the planet’s evolution to genetically engineer the human race as a separate primate branch.
3. at the appropriate time they further intervened to radically alter the course of human development by teaching specific cultures the arts of civilization.

This theory is consistent with both the historical-cultural-archaeological and scientific evidence. It makes sense out of what are otherwise inexplicable anomalies (the Great Pyramid), as well as accounting for how life appeared on earth abruptly and with a fully formed DNA code.

In the first book the author made the point that we have been rapidly recapitulating the pattern of a cosmic race by engaging in space exploration; unraveling the genome; genetically altering plants and animals; and considering terraforming other currently lifeless planets.

That is exactly what one would expect to find given that human DNA is part of the cosmic DNA gene pool. The Genesis Race is not an alien race, as we typically envision them, they are human. Decoded from the perspective of modern day society and technology the first three chapters of the bible can be easily deciphered.

The singular Creator creates the universe; then at a far later point in time (Gen.V:26) a plurality of ’gods’ arrive on earth to "create humans in Our image and likeness". (Can that be any clearer?) Of course people lacked the intellectual and experiential tools to even vaguely understand what this simple, coded message really meant until recently. In the light of bioengineering we can no longer claim such ignorance.

Singular embodiment of evidence

The Genesis Race theory predicts that an artifact like the Great Pyramid would be found and not be at all understood for what it truly represented, an alien technology. Though historians cling to the theory that the pyramid was a tomb; no pharaoh has ever been found in any of the 90 true pyramids that dot the Egyptian landscape.

In addition, when discovered the interior of the Great Pyramid lacked all of the typical items associated with traditional Egyptian tombs. No artwork adorned the interior or exterior walls of any passageways or rooms. There were no attestations as to who built it. Neither was it referred to in papyrus documents. When initially investigated the two rooms ("King’s and Queen’s Chambers"), were entirely empty. Neither contained a mummy nor any treasures.

Today the edifice lacks the outer casing that once covered the exterior making a virtually seamless outer cladding. The capstone implied by the pyramidal shape is also missing, leaving a truncated appearance at the top.

The real underlying enigma that the Great Pyramid presents is the high level or precision engineering embodied in it. As noted, the massive 13-acre base was flat to within a fraction over its entire surface. It had to be to make each tier accurately level so that the edges of the pyramid were straight and so that each succeeding tier was, in turn, level. Failing to achieve that would result in a misshapen structure that could not come together at the top to receive and apex.

A Japanese team in the late 1970’s discovered this fact the hard way while trying to build a scale-model of the Great Pyramid using primitive tools and methods. Not only did they not succeed in getting the tools to perform the necessary tasks from the quarry, lifting and transport of the limestone blocks, they had to resort to a helicopter to try to place the stones in the correct positions to form a pyramid. They failed.

The fact is that Egyptologists have attempted to show how the ancient Egyptians, using primitive tools and methods, could have built the Great Pyramid. These attempts have failed spectacularly. Put simply, you cannot build the Great Pyramid using hammerstones and simple wooden devices to lift and drag the millions of blocks.

Why we keep pretending that this was done is the real question now? The only modern edifices that resemble the engineering challenges, building complexity, size and mass of the Great Pyramid are dams. The Hoover Dam was built in 1931. It too weighs 6 million tons. But to construct it every possible modern device, technology, piece of machinery — including dynamite — had to be deployed.

We have to consider the possibility that the only reason that Egyptologist’s claim — the 90 or so true pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians — is because they have no other explanation. No one has been willing to think outside the box and consider a radical alternative so the anomalous factual data is ignored, bent and twisted to fit an unacceptable theory.

Nonetheless, these kinds of anomalies are exactly what we would expect to be confronted by if the edifice was, in fact, built by an advanced civilization. The use of millions of cut blocks of limestone and then about 50 immense blocks of granite, used to frame in the King’s Chamber make no sense in the tomb scenario; they make perfect sense as features of an unknown, alien technology.

The even more obvious feature of the Great Pyramid is its immense size and the architectural and engineering sophistication required to build it. For example, four small (8"x8") ducts — two each from the two main rooms — extend upwards through many tiers of masonry for no apparent reason. Once thought to be "air ducts" the fact that several closed doors block them in mid-passage dashed that theory.

The author has presented some of the main anomalies posed by the Great Pyramid since, in his estimation, it is the singular embodiment of the evidence that Fermi stated was missing. Since the edifice has been repeatedly measured and examined for two centuries a mass of data is readily available for use in any serious study.

Fermi’s paradox is deficient at best. The Drake Equation is insightful though not useful as a proof against the possible existence of a Genesis Race Type 3 civilization. In fact, only one planet in one solar system needs to have produced one super-advanced civilization to meet the requirements of interstellar travel, planet seeding, colonization and contact.

Contrary to the opinion of the above scientists, and their present-day colleagues, evidence of colonization and contact does exist on earth. However, it has been overlooked, misinterpreted, and dismissed to date. Any refutation of this evidence — without first undertaking a rigorous examination of the record — is entirely irrational and unscientific. That may have been understandable several generations ago, however, not today in the 21st century.

The scientifically-based investigation, being herein proposed by the author, is not put forth as a mere academic pursuit with no practical value. Given the multiple crises existent in our world today we may need to piece together an accurate picture of our past to survive into the future.

By Will Hart, www.thegenesisrace.webs.com

Email: cwillwrite2u at yahoo dot com