of the stars
The Bible constantly reiterates that “divine” intervention lifted stumbling mankind into the light. Can it be that starmen have been the “angels” and emissaries of God, in an indirect way, with the mission of creating human life on Earth?
Are we the “Sons of God” by virtue of colonization? Colonization by a people so highly advanced in morals, ethics, intelligence, and spiritual wisdom, that it is part of a Greater Plan than we know?
This groundbreaking book from the early 1970s presents scientific evidence to prove that mankind could not have possibly evolved naturally. Binder and Flindt explore the very real possibility that we are direct descendants of ancient starmen who came from other planets to Earth millions of years ago.
We Are the Children of the Stars reveals:
- Earth has been visited more than 5,000 times by creatures from other planets!
- Evidence that starmen deliberately hid any “Missing Link” human fossils in order to keep mankind from knowing it was a colony!
- Evidence that the starmen were the “Angels” of the Bible, carrying on a “Divine” mission to bring human life to Earth!
Space researcher Max H. Flindt was the first to scientifically document, from biological evidence, the possibility that mankind may be a hybrid from a prehistoric union of terrestrial humanoids and starmen.
Otto O. Binder was science fiction author who also worked on comic books including writing forsuch characters as Captain Venture, Golden Arrowand widely popular Captain Marvel. He was also aneditor at Space World. Binder died in 1974.
Max H. Flindt served as Senior Laboratory Technician under Nobelists Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Glenn Scaborg, and Dr. Melvin Calvin at Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkely, California; and Laboratory Analyst in Research at Lockheed, where he engaged in highly classified space research.
To my wife, Elfriede, for her patience, and to George Higer, without whose intellectual aid this book would have been impossible. And to all others who encouraged me in presenting this new theory.
— MAX H. FLINDT
To my wife, Ione, for her many secretarial aids, and to my collaborator, Max Flindt, whose brilliant new concept of mankind’s origin inspired me in coauthoring this book.
— OTTO BINDER
What exactly is a scientist? A person who has run the course of a prescribed education and then belabors a certain discipline with scientific methods. The scientist becomes a specialist in his particular field when he engages in certain activities for several years, remains informed in his area of research, and, if possible, publishes something of his own in it.
The flow of information is so immense in the age of the media that every scientist is obliged to specialize. No one can any longer be sufficiently informed about everything. On the one hand, specialization leads to magnificent results, such as computer technology, landings on the moon, nuclear fusion. On the other hand, however, it harbors the danger of a simplistic perspective that, with the abundance of directed information, can lead to apparently well-founded yet erroneous conclusions.
Anthropology and prehistory are closely linked. The preparations for both branches of human knowledge run parallel up to the borderline that separates the specialists. The goals are well defined, the outcome predetermined by the training. The literature of predecessors to be consumed remains erratic while pointing the way to be taken. Where, then, is a well-ordered, concentric search for truth to be found?
Our historical past is composed of indirect knowledge. Discoveries of bones and tools, cave drawings, and so on, are incorporated into a research hypothesis. The jigsaw puzzle then becomes an impressive, interesting mosaic; but it is based on a preconceived notion into which all parts can be fitted – although the putty is at times all too clearly visible. Either, or … there is but one way. And that is it. But there we are; if one is willing to accept it, that is exactly the way it was supposed to be.
The scientific community is, in many respects, a secretive society. Its individual members “know” something, but they are not at all concerned about the fact that their one-sided information may merely give them the impression of being knowledgeable. And if their knowledge is ever attacked, familiar human defense reactions are set in motion: ridicule, arrogance, and the struggle for respect. After all, it is impossible that both parties could be right, assailant and assailed. And who wants to admit that he is wrong?
In this regard, the famous “scientific community” is actually a rather disjointed conspiracy. It has a restraining and destructive effect on new, possible truths. An unbiased attitude and objectivity are certainly promised but not practiced. Not one of us is ever completely objective, neither prosecutor nor defender. Specialization has made both camps far more subjective.
This book provides detailed evidence for the fact that Homo sapiens is not the product of natural evolution, and that human intelligence is not the result of a spontaneous mutation. Traditions, religions, and myths do, in fact, enable us to deduce that unknown beings – gods – created man “in their image.” Gilgamesh, in the Sumeric epic, is two-thirds human, one-third god. Noah, the biblical survivor of the Deluge, was, according to the Lamech scroll found near the Dead Sea, “the Guardian of Heaven (of the Skies).” The patriarch Enoch, who lived before the Deluge, unmistakably establishes this relationship between gods and men (Book of Enoch, Chapter 15):
Say unto the Guardians of Heaven … why have you forsaken the high, holy heaven above, lain with women, soiled yourselves with the daughters of man, taken wives as did the sons of the earth and sired giants? … You have … lusted for the blood of man and brought forth flesh and blood as do those who are mortal and perishable.
Can one, objectively speaking, overlook such crystal-clear passages? And around the globe, mythologies are filled with similar evidence.
I am one of those who must daily face arguments denying a visit by gods from our galaxy. The attacks are formulated in a “particularly reasonable” fashion, and behind them lurks knowledge as profound as gaping gullets. For scientific depth is onedimensional. Its counterarguments are rooted in previous (literally, up-till-now) learning, previous translations, previous archeology, previous paleontological findings, previous dating methods, previous space travel. Interrelationships between all fields of knowledge and the easily anticipated technological future are never established.
In my correspondence, and in public, I debate with scientists. Our verbal battles are fair and honest. Yet they are not objective. Paleontologists generally know too little of man’s record. And what they have never heard of they are not interested in. Myths and old books are rejected as fairy tales. They are terribly sure of themselves.
Can we, from an objective standpoint, simply ignore the old scriptures? Science should always get as close as possible to the truth. In the case here presented, the discovery of truth is rendered impossible by the mania for specialization. Thus, scientists can be accused of holding a channeled view – vide their lack of knowledge in mythology.
And should someone raise the objection that our primitive ancestors saw God in nature – in clouds, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, the sun, the stars, and natural catastrophes – this comfortable view in no way rhymes with the cave paintings that make no gods of natural events. And how dare chroniclers assure us that the gods created man “in their image”? If God was believed to be a natural event, the most stupid of our ancestors could not have thought of himself as “God’s image.” And those who thousands of years ago mastered the art of writing were not of the dumbest kind.
May the debates evoked by this book make tumultuous waves. I know of no work since Darwin’s that deserves as much attention regarding the evolution of man.
Translated by Dr. Conrad Borovski
This book is concerned with the strong possibility – almost a probability, in our measured opinions – that mankind on Earth may have had superintelligent ancestors from outer space. Man may therefore be a hybrid, partly of terrestrial origin, partly extraterrestrial. There exist an incredible number of amazingly persuasive “proofs” in support of this theory, which are duly presented in the pages ahead.
We sincerely feel we have dramatic evidence – very nearly proof – that will hopefully make a never-to-be-forgotten impact on the mind of the reader. An impact that will even affect scientific opinion, eventually.
Those proofs or evidence of the theory’s validity will be found virtually everywhere around us – in our bodies, our brains and minds, our histories, our archeological and anthropological pursuits, and in many other unexpected areas of the humanities and sciences.
This book might very well be titled On Tiptoe Beyond Darwin, for we have in reality “extended” Evolution beyond the limited scope of natural selection on Earth, to an expanded concept that might be called Astro Evolution, or Evolution from the stars.
We wish to state at the outset, however, that we do not condemn or recommend casting aside the great Theory of Evolution. We believe, along with any biologist or scientist, that its basic premise apparently explains the whole progression of life on Earth, from its earliest beginnings in primeval times to the amazing proliferation of creatures today – with one notable exception.
That exception, that one damning exception, is the creature called Man.
He, alone of all species, plagues the Theory of Evolution and, in fact, shakes its foundations. For by no stretch of available facts (or even imagination) can human beings be products solely of orthodox Evolution and its classic rules.
Starting with Alfred Wallace, codiscoverer of Evolution with Darwin, many anthropologists, naturalists, and biologists frankly admit that mankind is an anomaly, a maddening “misfit,” in the grand sweep of survival of the fittest. His physiological body might have evolved from lower forms of animals, but his amazing brain – never.
Just how large a stumbling block this is to Darwin’s theory will be fully explained and explored in this book, resulting in our boldly advancing a new theory – the concept of Hybrid Man and the Earth Colony.
Yet, we reiterate that Darwin’s theory seems to cover adequately all other animate life on Earth. It only fails, and fails dismally, in explaining you and me.
We wish to take up another subject that may bother the reader from the start. How do two nonprofessionals in the field dare to assail Evolution? How can two “amateurs” so crassly defy the well-trained anthropologists, biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, and all the other types of scientists concerned with Man’s origin?
In answer to that, let us quote from a recent book titled Darwin Retried,1 in which the following words appear (with our italics):
Darwin was an amateur. He did not teach in a university or work in a laboratory. He ‘did’ science in his own house with no trained staff and very little [fossil] equipment.2
Thus, we see that all the later adherents of Evolution, most of them very eminent scientists, were in truth only following the theory of an amateur, an unskilled (in academic terms) nonprofessional with an “untrained” mind in comparison with the later experts and authorities who took up his tremendous basic idea with the fervor of zealots.
We are amateurs and Darwin was an amateur.
That, in a sense, “equates” us as having the same full right as nonprofessional Darwin to exercise our studied viewpoints on Evolution. And to present – as Darwinlike amateurs, if you wish – a wholly new theory as to the origin of Man.
We are not, however, equating ourselves or our concept with Darwin, but simply pointing out that our “amateurism” should not in any sense be allowed to stand in the way when our theory is being evaluated. We only ask that authorities in Evolution give our theory the same due respect and on-merit-only analysis as all the world’s authorities have for a century accorded to the theory of that great amateur – Charles Darwin.
Along with this goes a final thought: a female professor of philosophy at the State University of New York writes:3
Science today, is divided neatly into compartments and niches (specialties) quite unlike the real world. The true universe, is fused in oneness and cannot be successfully analyzed or treated in fragmentary form.
If each science specialty, restricts itself to its own selected subject matter, with no serious regard for the relevance of other specialties and with no real effort toward synthesis, what chance is there for any “coherent and integrated master theory” ever emerging?
The key word is synthesis, and her plea is for an interdisciplinary approach to all major theorizing. And this is precisely what that controversial figure, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, has done with his small-theory-shattering concepts in order to bring forth a “unified” theory crossing all scientific lines and binding them into a whole that reflects the true oneness of the universe and its phenomena.
Though utterly and savagely refuted, even castigated, by the scientific fraternity in 1950, when his first book came out, Velikovsky today has been vindicated over and over by new scientific discoveries he predicted through his Catastrophism Theory. Notably, he predicted the planet Venus to be unbearably hot and was subsequently, and astonishingly, proved right by the Venus space-probes of NASA.
Velikovsky had this to say about the Theory of Evolution:4
Most controversial is the evolutionary question. I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.
It is documented that, to date, Velikovsky’s scientific predictions have never once been proved wrong. Thus, his disparaging viewpoint on Evolution must be taken seriously. He might also, be it noted, blast our theory in this book, if he saw it, but at least we do not have to make a sacred cow out of Darwin’s theory as if fully “established.”
Velikovsky had a telling answer for his success, to the scientific fraternity,5 that when one looks at all the evidence, without restricting oneself to the limited number of so-called “facts” usually considered so by one group of specialists, it becomes possible to make a strong case for catastrophism. Or any other revolutionary concept.
And we think this would indeed apply to our Hybrid Man theory also, for we have examined a wide range of evidence involving many science disciplines – anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, archeology, astronomy, anatomy, physiology (the full list is even longer) – and believe we have found a miraculous “common denominator” in all their phenomena of anomalies. We are thus using the above-recommended “interdisciplinary” system, with the aim of presenting a “coherent” theory that will stand the tests of concerted research by others, and thereby let science take one more step forward – as it always must.
The “oneness” of the universe, and of life everywhere – that is what we have striven to bring to light by our new theory of Hybrid Mankind being part of a colony largely established by extraterrestrial beings of a humanoid type. Perhaps a truly shocking theory, as shocking as when Copernicus wrenched Earth out of the center of the universe.
But has truth, through the ages, ever been less than shocking?
“The proper study of mankind is man.”
— Alexander Pope
To the Authors
— Wade Wellman
(Many of the following received Max Flindt’s original pamphlet, On Tiptoe Beyond Darwin, and kindly gave the author encouragement in producing this expanded book).
With deep gratitude to the late President Lyndon B. Johnson (who sent us his new book in return); to Nobelists Dr. Glenn Seaborg, Dr. Edward Teller, and especially to Dr. Melvin Calvin for his warm personal interest. We take this opportunity to express our appreciation to these faculty members at their respective universities: Professor Emeritus Percy Baumberger, Professor White, Dr. Olds, Dr. Krupp, Dr. McClenahan. Dr. Borovsky, Dr. Sowers, Dr. Alvarez, Dr. Milleron, Dr. Leong, Dr. Voelker, Dr. & Mrs. Carroll Berryman, Dr. & Mrs. Davenport, Dr. Elizabeth McComb. Thanks also to Dr. John Foster, Department of Defense, and to the Honorable Richard Marriot, mayor of Sacramento.
Very especially, Erich von Daniken has been a fabulous pillar of strength, believing that this book’s anthropological and his archeological approach together strongly bolster our common theme of extraterrestrial visitation of significant proportions in mankind’s past.
Credit for various aids and approving comments must also go to Arthur C. Clarke of England, and to Phil and Kathy Diacanoff, Mr. & Mrs. Francis McCarthy, Addie and Cray Lange, Pat Pope, Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Feagans, William Ruenie, William Phillips, Mr. Garden, Bernie Ellis, Mr. Bartlett, Henry Ponleither, Miss Tremaine, Dick James, Wes Barry, Cledith Jones; and finally to our parents, various relatives and friends, and dozens of others. Those not mentioned for lack of space (you know who you are) nevertheless merit our thanks too. .
In no way are any of the above named responsible for the final contents of this book. All the ideas, theories, and conjectures are solely those of the two authors, and must not be construed as being endorsed by any person to whom we’ve extended our thanks for encouragement, information, and scientific comments.
MAX H. FLINDT Born in 1915 in San Jose, California. The son of pioneer science-fiction writer, Homer Eon Flindt. Ardent studies in chemistry, physics, biology, paleontology, and anthropology led him to a life dedicated to independent scientific research. Former posts include that of Senior Laboratory Technician under Nobelists Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Glenn Scaborg, and Dr. Melvin Calvin at Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, California; Laboratory Analyst in Research at Lockheed, where he engaged in highly classified space research; and research on human blood anomalies under the late Professor Emeritus Percival Baumberger of Stanford University. Flindt was the first to scientifically document from biological evidence the possibility that mankind may be a hybrid from a prehistoric union of terrestrial humanoids and starmen, which is this book’s main thesis.
OTTO O. BINDER Born 1911, Bessmer, Michigan. Three years college: City College of Chicago, University of Illinois, Northwestern University; majored in chemical engineering. First published story, 1932 (fiction). Over forty books published, including Victory in Space, Careers in Space, and such astronomical texts as The Moon, The Planets, Riddles of Astronomy, all for school circulation. Under NASA contract in 1966, wrote the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs in chart form for educational purposes. Two UFO books published: Flying Saucers Are Watching Us by Belmont Books, 1969.
We Are the Children of the Stars
Otto O. Binder
Max H. Flindt
First published in 1974 by Fawcett Publications Copyright © 2013 by Max Flindt
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Hampton Roads Publishing, Inc. Reviewers may quote brief passages. Originally published as Mankind — Child of the Stars,
Cover design by Jim Warner Cover art by photobank.kiev.ua / shutterstock Interior designed by StanInfo
Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.
Charlottesville, VA 22906
Distributed by Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC
Sign up for our newsletter and special offers by going to
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data available upon request
Printed on acid-free paper in United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
In 1925, at Dayton, Tennessee, there occurred one of the most dramatic trials in courtroom history. John T. Scopes, a schoolteacher, was charged with teaching Darwin’s “new” Theory of Evolution. In fundamentalist Tennessee, this was illegal. Clarence Darrow, his lawyer, was unable to win an acquittal against the fierce oratory of William Jennings Bryan. In essence, the court said – “Man is not descended from the monkeys.”
Nevertheless, the Theory of Evolution eventually became universally accepted around the world. But the battle is not yet over. In November 1969, the California State Board of Education declared that new textbooks must include all other theories of the origin of Man, including that of the Biblical Creation; and children will also be allowed to learn the spontaneous-generation concept of Aristotle, the panspermia (spores from space) theory of Svante Arrhenius, and others.
The significant point here is that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has apparently failed, in more than 100 years, to establish itself without question.
Is it time now for a new theory to replace, or at least significantly modify or expand, Darwin’s Evolution theory? Decidedly so, the authors of this book feel. There are various categories of “clues,” which shall constitute the chapters in this book.
Since Evolution’s debut, many new discoveries have been made in every field of science. It is now possible, in light of these discoveries, to develop a new leap forward in Evolutionary Theory – a leap as fantastic as was Darwin’s in its time.
But before delving into the new and revolutionary two-part theory presented in this book, let us briefly examine some of the perplexing unknowns about earthly life that today remain unexplained by science, and that we hope to explain through application of this new theory, which “Tiptoes Beyond Darwin.”
1. The explosive beginnings of life on Earth, 500 million to 600 million years ago.
We do not know how to explain the fact that we have no fossil record of the beginnings of the primary classifications of early marine life (which preceded dry-land life): sponges, sea lilies, starfish, worms, water fleas, brine, shrimp, clams, and others. These genera (groups of related species) appear suddenly in the sedimentary record. We cannot find any fossils that reflect their step-by-step evolutionary development. Why don’t these fossils exist?
The following paragraph is from current authoritative literature.1
The … still deeper mystery concerns the advent of life itself, the initial rung on the evolutionary ladder. Paleontologists still wonder why fossil evidence of life on Earth appears abruptly in rocks of the Cambrian period 500,000,000 [to 600,000,000] years ago. Why are there so few traces of life in the Pre-Cambrian which lasted 1.5 billion years, [almost one-third] of the total age of the Earth? Cambrian life was not merely incipient; it had already evolved into most of the primary classifications known today.
The above deals with early invertebrate life only. The oldest vertebrate fossil found so far is in the form of footprints (pawprints) only, discovered in southeastern Australia.2 The vertebrate creature who made them existed in Devonian times, some 350 million years ago.
Only two primitive types of floral life that existed in the Pre-Cambrian era have left a fossil record. One is algae, the most primitive of plants, dated as of 1.7 billion years ago, found in 1971 by Preston Cloud of the University of California.3 The second type is fossil microorganisms located in rocks 2.5 billion years old and, possibly though less certainly, in rocks dating back 3.6 billion years.4
Are they the progenitors of every later earthly species of life? But what happened to all in-between fossil forms, which became progressively more complex during the awesome stretch of multimillions of years in the Pre-Cambrian era? Why are all these evolutionary life-steps missing, until there abruptly appear comparatively highly organized species at the start of the Cambrian era, only a half-billion years ago?
From mere one-celled creatures (including algae) to worms, sponges, starfish, and clams is quite a jump. The latter cannot be a second generation of species, but a thousandth or millionth generation. And all the generations in between are the “missing links” of marine life.
Darwin himself was bedeviled by this baffling riddle:
To question why we do not find rich fossilliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earlier periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.5
One hundred years later, a noted newspaper wrote that the “chief puzzle” in the life record of ancient earth is how, 600 million years ago, the basic divisions of species of the plant and animal kingdom had already “suddenly appeared.”6 There being no earlier fossil record, this meant “the first part of evolutionary history is missing.”
Obviously, we have a great biological discrepancy here, one that cuts at the roots of the Theory of Evolution. If no orderly ladder of life can be found through some 3 billion years since the first genesis of primary living cells, all further evolutionary patterns in the Cambrian era and onward tend to be undermined.
The “laws” of Evolution, it seems, have fallen down right at the inception of all Earthly life. We will later give a daring explanation for the missing fossils and the abrupt emergence of highly developed species of marine life.
2. Why is it that an analysis of the six spreading movements of primitive Man indicates that three of these spreading movements have come from Asia Minor?7
Why are there Men with white, yellow, brown, red, and black skin? Why is mankind a mixture of breeds, in his outward form, almost as diverse as the breeds of dogs, whereas all wildlife is relatively uniform within its own species?
3. Unexplained greater size of brain of prehistoric Man, compared to Modern Man.8
The race (Aurignacian or Cro-Magnon Man) that possibly swept away Neanderthal Man approximately 35,000 years ago in Europe had a larger brain-case by 100 cubic centimeters than modern Man. Yet there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that Aurignacian Man (Cro-Magnon) had more intelligence than modern Man. And where, in the first place, did this huge braincase, three times the volume of a gorilla’s, come from?
4. Lack of explanation for Man’s greater intelligence arising out of strict Evolution.
All of the lesser animals – the dog, cat, horse, elephant, and others – had the same number of years in which to develop – by Evolution’s natural selection or mutations, or both – the surpassing intelligence possessed by Man. Yet Man alone achieved this.
Why? How? The evolutionists don’t know.
An illustration of this dilemma, taken from current literature, follows:
And two great mysteries of Evolution remain. The first involves the origin of Man – the unique, tempestuous, rational, passionate, esthetic, irascible, proud, anxious, toolmaking, troublemaking animal that has dominated the planet for the last half million years. To the anthropologist, the evolutionary line of descent leading from Man’s dark beginnings down to homo sapiens seems physically continuous, held together here only by a segment of skull, there by a crumbling jawbone. Yet the point of Man’s emergence as a human being, the threshold he crossed to enter the realm of self-awareness, the moment of his attainment of personality and spirit – these are still shrouded in the shadows of the prehistoric past.9
5. Lack of explanation for Man’s greater brain weight compared to other animals.
Although all the other warm-blooded inhabitants of Earth have been evolving as long as we humans, not one of them has a brain that is over a hundredth (1/100) the total weight of his body. The sole exceptions are the hummingbird, one-twenty-ninth (1:29), and the chimp, one-seventy-fifth (1:75). Man’s brain on the other hand is one-thirtieth (1:30) of his total weight. Where did this great discrepancy come from?
6. Why is it that Man is unique in so many ways among all primates that roam the world?
Man possesses relatively no body hair, nothing compared to the thick pelts of gorillas, chimps, and monkeys. This is not the result of wearing apparel, for aboriginal tribes such as the Australian bushmen, who have existed for geological eras, wear virtually no clothing and yet are as hairless as modern Man.
In turn, why does Man alone have a topnotch of hair that is never exhibited by the great apes?
Also, why is Man, alone of all Earthly creatures, able to shed copious tears?
Why can only he speak words?
Why is the human female, unlike all anthropoids as well as other animals, “in heat” uninterruptedly?
Why can humans alone smile?
Why does only our species of naked ape have no diastemata (spaces between teeth)?
And why does Man display 312 distinctive physical traits that set him utterly apart from his so-called primate cousins?
7. The tool riddle.
Why were shaped tools invented and used solely by all species of early ape-men (Hominids) but never by any other animals, including the Pongids (true apes)?
8. The civilization mystery.
Why did the homo branches of both Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon, who had brain-cases larger than modern Man, never, through a period of 60,000 years, create civilization, living instead as brutes?
9. The intelligence enigma.
Why did civilization spring up with an abruptness, in Sumeria ca. 10,000 B.C., that makes all archeologists and anthropologists gasp to this day? How could mankind change from a neolithic savage who was a nomadic hunter to a social being with villages and agriculture? Overnight, so to speak?
What can explain the skilled map-making art prior to Columbus, exemplified by the astonishing Piri Reis map that shows accurate detail of South America and of Antarctica? Of Antarctica, mind you, before the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago?
Where did the ancients, as long as 2,000 years ago, learn an advanced form of mathematics that allowed calculations of the Earth’s size, and pinpoint the eclipses of the sun and moon?
What accounts for the fact that the Mayan calendar of 1,000 years ago is the most accurate ever known, even more precise than our present calendar?
How could machineless mankind in B.C. and early A.D. times perform incredible engineering feats, such as building the pyramids and other stone structures so huge they would tax even modern machinery to duplicate?
10. Mental phenomena in Man.
Why is it that no ape brain, according to exhaustive tests, displays the fantastic higher qualities of Man’s brain, such as genius, imagination, scientific inspiration, and less flatteringly, schizophrenia?
11. The thinking puzzle.
Why do human beings alone, apart from any animal, have religion? The exploratory instinct sparked by curiosity alone? The sense of high destiny? The feeling that life has a meaning?
12. Mythological enigma.
And now, perhaps the most important ancient puzzle about mankind – why does the mythology of every one of Earth’s cultures in the past tell the same general tale, that the human race either came from the stars, or that “gods” visited Earth and helped us launch civilization?
Now that we have briefly examined twelve major unanswered mysteries of Evolution, biology, anthropology, archeology, anatomy, and such, we are ready to answer the big question: Can we develop a mutually compatible and single overall solution to these frustrating mysteries? A solution that takes into account many new discoveries of science? In short, a solution that is a new leap forward in evolutionary theory, a leap as monumental as was Darwin’s?
In this book we offer such a theory, which will be treated and discussed as a mutually dependent two-part theory.
However, we must stress at this point that the reader will be shocked and perhaps angered by the boldness and seeming irreverence toward religion and orthodox science inherent in this theory. Fortunately, this irreverence will, by the end of the book, be revealed as nothing more than a mirage.
Briefly, this new theory proposes that mankind is a hybrid between early men on Earth and men from another world.
And, second, that Man and much of life on Earth may comprise a colony, an intentional colony, put here and nurtured by persons unknown, who came from outer space.
The amount, variety, mutual compatibility, and persuasiveness of the evidence in support of this theory, we believe, is nothing short of startling as we apply it point by point.
Can Man be such a star-crossed Hybrid? If so, what sense is he a Hybrid?
The first precept of this theory is that Man is somewhat like a cross between a buffalo and a cow (a cattalo), or a turkey and a chicken (a turken). In the case of Man, it is proposed that modern humans are descended from a crossbreeding or several crossbreedings that occurred many thousands or millions of years ago, between superintelligent travelers from outer space and early men.
We have a strong clue in the Bible itself (Genesis 6:2):
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the Earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Who were the “sons of God”?
One meaning instantly lifts universal mythology and religious writings of the past from mere legend and superstition to stunning historical truth – that starmen visited Earth and mated with early females (perhaps Hominids) to sire the modern human race of Homo sapiens.
The moment we provisionally accept this proposal, we at once have solutions for topic headings from numbers 3 through 12. Several mysteries of Man’s anatomical developments, three anthropological riddles, three archeological puzzles, and various psychological and philosophical enigmas, are logically cleared up.
Surely, a theory that can answer so many major riddles of the past simultaneously deserves closer examination.
Here’s how, for example, this theory explains the question raised under topic heading 3. Many anatomists agree that Man, in evolving from the present day onward, will probably have a larger and larger head and brain in the future. Presumably, 500,000 years from now, we could have 1,800 cubic-centimeter brain-cases instead of our current 1,300 cubic centimeters.
Since Stars and Men, by Dr. Harlow Shapley, explains how perhaps half of the inhabitants of the universe have been civilized and more completely evolved than we, by millions of years. The assumption is that space travelers, successfully crossbreeding with early Homo or Hominid species (by virtue of medical knowledge a million years ahead of ours), would bring to Earth larger heads and brains, plus the potential for the development of a relatively vast intellect.
Further, this explains why Man’s brain is much larger in weight ratio to the rest of his body, as compared to the brain-to-body weight ratio of the lower animals – the latter but not the former conforming to the classic pattern of Evolution.
At this point in the unfolding of our new theory, it seems wise to indicate that nothing now known about Man or his history precludes his arriving at his present state of intellectual and physical development via the hybrid route, as compared to the currently accepted evolutionary route. In fact, we know of nothing in genetics that can produce so many sudden, rapid, and tremendous changes (mutations) in a species as have occurred in Man – except enforced hybridization.
It may be instructive now to review Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and see where it fails to cover the many anomalies that block the way in discovering the origin of Man on Earth. We believe the failure hinges on Man’s development alone, and that it is possible to show that, in the past 500,000 years or more, Man continually gave strong evidence of being a hybrid rather than a strict evolutionary product.
Man has been the only animal on Earth that showed dramatic biological and evolutionary development in the last half-million years, even in the past 50,000 years. It is strange that this occurred only to Man.
Couldn’t it far more logically have been hybridization instead of normal evolutionary development?
Let us go back to the time when Charles Darwin was at last ready to publish his revolutionary Theory of Evolution. It was the year 1858.
He received a letter from his friend Alfred R. Wallace, who was in the East Indies.10 This letter must have been a devastating blow to Darwin. In it, Wallace stated that he had developed, after long thought and observation, a Theory of Evolution that had the concept of natural selection as its central theme.
By himself, Wallace had discovered the grand concept that Darwin felt was his own singular contribution to science.
In deference to Wallace, Darwin concluded that the only proper thing to do was to withdraw his own paper, so that Wallace would get credit for the original discovery. Darwin apparently had an essentially sterling character.
His friends were upset at what they considered to be a self-imposed miscarriage of justice, and they prevailed upon Darwin to change his mind. The problem was finally solved by having Darwin and Wallace present their papers at the same meeting of the Linnaean Society of London. They were then published together in the society’s transactions for 1858. But subsequently and gradually, for various reasons, Darwin was credited as the “father” of Evolution.
Darwin and Wallace remained good friends throughout their lives. Wallace conceived of the great theory independently of Darwin and denied any claim upon it simply out of regard for his friend.
There is one aspect of this strange tale of the friendship between these two gifted men that bears directly upon our argument that Man may be a hybrid. Darwin believed that Man, like all other animals, was a product of natural Evolution.
Wallace, however, finally concluded that Man was an exception to the orderly operation of biological laws.11
The principle of natural selection or its corollary, survival of the fittest, did not fit mankind.
These words have thunderous implications now. Here were two intellectual giants who simultaneously developed one of the greatest theories in scientific history. Yet, one of these two men believed that human beings were an exception to the rule that all living things developed by means of natural selection (survival of the fittest) from lower forms of life.
How did Wallace conceive that Man was an exception to the rules of Evolution, and did his arguments leave room for the concept advanced within this book, that Man may be an Earthman/starman hybrid?
Very definitely! For one of Wallace’s explosive statements was:
that some intelligent power has guided or determined the development of Man.
Either he meant God and his divine power, or he was thinking of an unknown force – which leaves it wide open that something influenced mankind’s Evolution. And that “something” could very well be the starmen.
One very important fact must be pointed out before we proceed. Though having doubts himself, Darwin decided not to go along with Wallace in the latter’s belief that Man represented a departure from the laws of natural selection.12 As Darwin gradually assumed the major credit for his survival-of-the-fittest concept, he also assumed the great burden of attempting to prove to the world that his theory was correct, inviolable, without fault or exception.
This burden inevitably caused Darwin to lose some scientific objectivity. He became a champion instead of a scientist. He championed one of the greatest and most disturbing concepts since the birth of Christ, and he fully appreciated the importance of his role.
Small wonder, then, that he chose to ignore the many ways in which Man himself deviated from the otherwise perfect workings of the great theory. In bypassing the anomaly of Man by providing less than perfect explanations based solely upon his theory, Darwin was able to convince large segments of the scientific community that his theory was, by and large, correct.
But actually, he was not at all at ease with the explanations that he had devised to explain some of Man’s deviations from the rules that obviously did govern all the rest of the animal kingdom.13
For instance, he was at a complete loss to come up with a truly satisfactory answer to the amazing phenomenon of why Man alone is relatively hairless.
Just as it is true that Darwin lost scientific objectivity by assuming the burden of champion, it is also true that Wallace was thereby given the role of using ultimate objectivity. He had nothing to prove to the world and consequently could be, if anything, more objective than before.
So Wallace, the naturalist, was able to analyze the available data more searchingly and dispassionately than Darwin. He was able to take the first hesitant (if unknowing) step toward the concept, rather shocking at first glance, that is being proposed in this book.
Wallace noted some strange facts about Man that caused him to conclude Man was a contrary exception to the classic workings of the laws of Evolution.
In an alarming number of ways, man’s great brain and mind, for instance, did not fit into the laws of natural selection. Nowhere in the animal kingdom was there to be found anything like the quality of mathematical or scientific capabilities of the human race. Moreover, nothing could be found in the environment of Man that could, by the inexorable laws of natural selection, produce any sort of genius in any individual.
Wallace put it down in black and white:
Nature never over-endows a species beyond the demands of everyday existence.
Further, Wallace knew that Man had desires and esoteric yearnings that were never observed in the mind or behavior of other animals.
The most revealing is Man’s need for religion, a need to feel that he is not alone, but a part of a larger and more important order in the plans of a creator. This order assures Man that he, and he alone, has “connections” – what might be called “cosmic connections” – with God and the lesser gods of the vast universe. There is nothing in human environment that could cause Man, by natural selection, to develop in such a way that a need for religion would be “natural.”
If anything, Man has less need than any other animal to devise religion.
Man is dominant over all other animals. He is king of all he surveys.
Why is it, then, that he feels a need to be assured that he was, and is, a part of some much greater scheme of things – all of divine origin?
Wallace knew these things and he also knew that Man had a greater gross brain-weight than any other animal except the dolphin, elephant, and the whale. He felt sure that Man was an exception to the rule that all living things grew from one primal living cell.
Wallace may also have know that Man is the only primate that cries “emotional” tears. A small thing, but still a great barrier when no explanation for this odd and irreconcilable fact could be derived from the principles of natural selection.
He knew, too, that the unbelievably advanced cultures of the ancient Sumerians and Egyptians had sprung up overnight, apparently without cause, certainly without counterpart in the animal or primate world.
Wallace knew that the laws of natural selection could not explain the sudden explosion of those ancient cultures without also insisting that the cultural advance should go forward. This had not happened, and Wallace knew that the failure of cultural advance to continue to new heights was of great importance in the story of mankind.
Does Wallace’s belief surprise you? Namely, that mankind has not really progressed – except technologically – since earliest civilized times?
Outside of arrogant and egotistic scientists among the establishment leaders of today, many sober scholars and thinkers see undeniable evidence that all the basic rules of ethics, morals, philosophy, social structure, and religion – everything important to mankind as a whole – were laid down long, long ago, starting with the Sumerians around 10,000 B.C.
Peaks of human thought were already reached in B.C. times, particularly in Greece and Rome. And we will see in a later chapter that there is strong evidence for believing that there were more geniuses per capita in ancient times than today. The advent of modern science and technology has not changed or “advanced” the fundamental rules and precepts of human nature and human society, no matter how much we would like to think ourselves “superior” to our ancestors.
Will anybody deny that there is much unrest in the current world, much searching of souls, dissatisfaction, doubt, and uncertainty over what the “meaning” of life is? We are really less secure today than the well-enlightened people of certain B.C. eras. Our vaunted “advancement” is largely illusory, based on pure materialism.
Wallace knew that there was a logical explanation for the cessation of forward movement in human affairs, and that, without doubt, Man was therefore an exception to the otherwise universal law of natural selection and its relentless drive for improvement in all creatures.
This great man, freed as he was from the responsibility of proving the Evolution theory to be correct, could dispassionately analyze the available facts.
He came to the inescapable conclusion that Man was not the result of natural selection by itself but was the result of natural selection plus some other unknown variable.
That unknown variable, which we propose will solve the mysteries that plagued Wallace and even Darwin, is the concept that Man is a hybrid and Earth a colony of starmen.
During the past 500,000 years, Man has particularly given evidence that he is a hybrid of only half-earthly heritage. His tools of shaped stone are the only tools produced deliberately by any animal that lasted through the ages. Wallace knew about these tools and knew they were mute evidence that years ago, somewhere, mankind had undergone some change that forever set him aside from the other animals.
Wallace knew that Man was not the result of Evolution alone, but if he guessed the truth as to the probability of hybrid humans, he dared not voice it.
There are many other voices that at times have pointed out the “holes” in the Evolution Theory. Not so much in the case of other creatures, for whom the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest seem to apply quite well, but most definitely in the case of the human species.
At times, very peculiar fossils of the lower animals are found, associated with ancient human or subhuman bones, as pointed out in an authoritative compendium of anthropology.14
In 1924, the Taung Baby (child specimen of Australopithecus africanus) was unearthed by anatomist Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, South Africa, and later examined by Robert Broom, a South African anthropologist. Animal fossils were also found among the ape-man child’s bones, no less than fifteen different creatures.
But, amazingly, not one of these extinct animals had been previously known.
Even more mystifying was the discovery the late Louis Leakey and his wife, Mary, noted anthropologists, made in the 1950s at the Olduvai Gorge dig in northern Tanzania. Associated with Australopithecine skeletons were the fossil bones of several hundred extinct animals new to paleontology.
The appearance of great groups of unknown fossils, centered around or near subhuman bones, has a peculiar ring to it. Almost as if the starmen were bringing new species from their world and introducing them on Earth. In order to give early Man more game to hunt? Or perhaps the species are mute and startling evidence of certain hybridizing experiments among lower animals that were carried on by starmen biologists. Later, we will give more attention to this distinct possibility.
In a book that attempts to present a sweeping and overall picture of what the cosmos is all about, a question is asked:
Granting the truth of Evolution’s quantitative development here on earth, what about Evolution’s qualitative development – these periodical appearances of new genera and new species, or even of new varieties in these species so radically different as to cause science, unable to account for their source, to call them “mutations. (Italics added)15
The author goes on to state that we know only “half of Evolution” and that:
“mutations” into unexpected species must come from “someplace beyond earth-life.”
A noted biologist first points out that the elephant or buffalo, when trying to escape a hunter, will cannily go upwind, while the rhino may blunder downwind in panic. He then states:
If Darwin was right – which I do not believe – that only the fittest survive, it is a miracle that this prehistoric idiot [the rhino] exists, unless by fitness Darwin meant only physical fitness, which is absurd.16
The biologist goes on to affirm that he staunchly supports the “whole notion of Evolution” as being a natural process. But:
I could name hundreds [of species] that don’t appear to be fit for anything.
He is obliquely referring to the idea of survival of the fittest. He concludes:
Maybe they evolved by natural selection but the point is how have they managed to survive?
Natural selection and the survival-of-the-fittest concept are both sore points among various evolutionist factions, since they are hard put to account for sudden, strange mutations that thumb their nose at the orderly progressions of classic Evolution.
Biologists today often create their own mutations, among fruit flies and guinea pigs in general – in laboratories. Were mutations in the long sweep of Evolution also created in the laboratories of the starmen? And was their most notable mutation Homo sapiens, the creature with superior intelligence beyond the scope of natural selection or survival of the fittest as it applied on Earth?
Gunther Rosenburg, scholar and researcher into human origins, states that:
Man is a unique animal. He stands out like a sore thumb when comparisons are made with his cousins, the apes. The differences are more numerous than the similarities. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is simply unproven.
This doubt seems to be shared by other scientists. Vernon L. Gross, a physicist, recently remarked that:
Creation and evolutionary theories are not necessarily mutual exclusives. Some of the scientific data may best be explained by a creation theory, while other data substantiate a process of Evolution.17
Also, we noted before that the California Board of Education decided that the biblical Creation theory of Man’s origin would have equal parity with the Evolution Theory. Shades of the Tennessee Scopes trial!
But, obviously, much more enlightened investigation and evaluation went into the decision to demote the Evolution Theory – because it could only lamely explain the origin of Man – and therefore to place it on equal terms alongside the old standby of biblical Creation.
However, this “sharing” of theories to explain a single phenomenon hardly constitutes an advance in solving the mystery and leaves it more unexplained than ever. It means that a single, all-embracing theory remained to be found.
And that single, all-embracing concept, in all its pristine simplicity, is what this book hopes to supply. We might say that, even if Darwin’s theory wins out to scientific minds against the vagaries of divine creation, it still cannot compete, we believe, with the sheer logic of Hybrid Man’s creation by starmen. In the following chapters, we will try to solidify this homo hybrid concept as fully as possible in the scientific way.
The need for a new theory to supplant the Evolution Theory (but for Man only, not animals) is highly apparent from the following quotes:
An authoritative book on primates candidly admits that:
Unfortunately, the early stage of Man’s evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery.18
Another paleoanthropological work states forthrightly, as follows (italics added):
Man is not just another species of animal. He is the first in the history of the world who at last understands something of his place in it and of the laws that govern his own activities here.19
The voice of an esteemed Soviet anthropologist adds to the chorus:
Some scientists maintain that our planet is not old enough for intelligent beings to have spontaneously developed on it, from the protozoans to the present day species [of man|].20
Most significant of all is a quotation from a recent book exploring the relationship between mythology and Man’s origin:
Man’s alleged ascension from anthropoid to human being remains unproven simply because the famed “missing link” is so elusive. Sober scientists have declared that the bones of this ape-human will never be found because they simply do not exist. The “missing link” could have been a shipload of space travelers from another world.?21
Starmen as the “missing link” of Man’s baffling evolutionary history! Despite its rather “romantic” flavor (and with little factual data to back it up), no other statement could express so briefly and succinctly what this book is about and will attempt to prove viable in a scientific way.
The previous chapter reviewed the various shortcomings of Darwin’s theory in regard to explaining Man – the “misfit” of Evolution – and investigated the strong evidence that Man may be a star-crossed hybrid of two worlds.
Now we take up the second part of the theory – that mankind is a colony. And that we humans are a colony of the starmen by conscious design or plan that is still being withheld from Earth people.
Why the colony and the secrecy?
Perhaps it would be best to explain with a brief tale:
Many millions and perhaps billions of years ago – and no human on Earth knows how many light-years away – Man evolved on a distant planet. They were people as human as we are. In a short space of time, say 100,000 years after his early ancestors, Starman arrived at our present state of development. For something like one to five hundred thousand years more, he continued to develop socially, politically, and scientifically.
Then, in time, his planet became too small, too cold or too crowded for him, and he colonized one or more young nearby planets. Eventually, perhaps millions of years later, he had to move again. His planet was losing its atmosphere, or perhaps population pressure was the cause.
But then came the saving discovery: Starman’s mind was marvelous and highly developed, far beyond the capabilities of our present-day Earthling minds. At the same time, unfortunately, Starman’s body was totally inadequate for pioneering jobs on other planets.
This discovery forced Starman to make a momentous decision.
Mankind, as a race, would henceforth be divided into two branches, as a means, the only means, of preserving the race. There would be the ancestral race, the keepers of wisdom and knowledge, the pursuers of scientific inquiry. And the other race, the hybridized colonial race, would always be physically more able, but also always mentally inferior to the ancestral race.
And so, time passed while the starmen spread. Planet after planet was colonized, then discarded in the course of time as its atmosphere drifted away or as it became cold or otherwise unsuitable. Many millions of years passed. The system of colonizing became standardized and very successful.
Scientific progress continued. The search for ever stronger physical specimens with which to colonize the planets gradually grew into the system we are partly aware of here on Earth today, which we call “Evolution” but which is in reality, a part of colonization: namely, planned Evolution through artificial hybridization.
Contact between the ancestral race and each interstellar colony was never permitted in the beginning, in the sense that no colony was ever allowed to know it had been created. However, when the colony evolved into a sufficiently mature form and ventured into space under its own impetus, conscious contact was at last permitted.
The reason for this apparently unreasonable procedure of secrecy was as follows:
Man learns best that which he learns for himself, in his own good time. (And this is just as true for the Earth today and its problems as it is for one of our youngsters growing up.)
So the colonies on other worlds grew politically, scientifically, philosophically, and in other ways important to the ancestral race. They grew along these paths by trial and error, learning and gaining mental stature, just as we have done for several thousands of years here on Earth.
When the time arrived for the colony to become aware of the presence of other intelligences throughout the universe, and to begin the process of probing outward to meet or communicate with these other people (we are close to that position today), then at last the first knowing contact could be made between the ancestral race and the colony.
From then on, for some period of time, the new world gasped in wonderment at the seemingly endless succession of marvels that came to bless its scientific and cultural life.
Gradually, the purpose of the colony became clear to its inhabitants.
The colony was to act as a host to the ancestral race. A willing host, because, in return for doing the spadework desired by the ancestral race, the colony was given the marvelous super-scientific knowledge gleaned through eons of time – the philosophical wisdom, the social achievements, the political astuteness, and all such finer benefits.
Thus, the colony fulfilled its destiny and became one more of the endless succession of planets chosen to be the home of original interstellar Man. And there the tale ends.
This is not meant to be an authentic version of how original Man – or Starman – spread through the universe. Naturally, it must be mainly guesswork. But certain fundamentals are presented that we believe are true – that Man evolved elsewhere in space, that he in time colonized many other worlds, and that on each he used some form of crossbreeding or biogenetic manipulation literally to create rational life ahead if its slow, evolutionary time.
We now see that this second, colonization part of the theory, along with the first, hybrid part, offers explanations for all the topic headings in Chapter 1.
It would be wise to note that the main attraction of this story and the theory it gives rise to, is that it reinforces mankind’s strong feelings of “special destiny,” his sense of “preordained superiority” among living things.
Therefore, this theory tends to be relatively compatible with Darwin’s work, at the same time partly removing the one feature of his theory the public found repulsive in the extreme: that “Man has descended from monkeys.”
This hybrid theory proposes that Man is not quite as bestial as that phrase implies. And, in fact, that Man ascended from the apes, through the crossbreeding program of the wise, ultra-intelligent planet-hoppers who visited Earth long ago.
Further, not quite as obvious but equally as important, is the implication that if we can only get out into space, meet our ancestors, acquire their knowledge and their timeless, surpassing wisdom, then perhaps “Peace on earth, good will to Man” can be ours forevermore.
But all of the preceding, of course, hinges on one looming question – is there life and intelligence elsewhere in the universe? Is the rest of the cosmos filled only with dead planets whirling around their fierce suns? Or are there other worlds propitious to life, where living things sprang up as they did on Earth?
And where does life come from in the first place, on any ripe planet?
Did the primeval atmosphere of Earth, containing several gases – hydrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, among others – act as a giant chemical laboratory and accidentally toss together atoms to make molecules? Did these molecules shuffle around in violent waters under fierce heat and radiation until they formed the first organic compounds? Then, finally, did those compounds further unite to form amino acids, the basic units of protein – which is living matter?
Such is one theory of life’s genesis on Earth.
And it could happen on any other world similar to Earth and with comparable conditions.
In fact, biologists and biochemists almost unanimously agree that such Earth-like planets could not remain sterile. That life must spring up on them, given sufficient atoms and molecules that are basic to life hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, carbon dioxide – and billion-year stretches of time for random forces to juggle them together into the first bits of living protein.
More importantly, the process can no longer stop there, by theory.
It continues until the first primitive one-celled creatures are formed in the condensing seas of the planet, making an “organic soup.” Now the classic process of Evolution – building up of lifeforms – takes over, and the tiny single cells form larger aggregates that become increasingly complex as nature stirs the brew. Invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals – it may all be a sort of inevitable “pattern” that occurs on any and all Earth-like worlds.1
However, another theory of life’s origins has recently sprung up, tied in with cosmology, so that the Evolution of the material universe and of life itself become strangely interwoven.
This theory is, in reality, a revival of a concept a century old, when Svante Arrhenius, the famed nineteenth-century chemist, propounded his theory of panspermia. In brief, he envisioned tiny life-buds, or virus-like spores, that were wafted through space by the pressure of light waves from star-suns. If they landed on a “ripe” world ready for life, the spores came out of their suspended animation and formed one-celled life, which then again launched the whole climb of species up the evolutionary ladder.
Oddly enough, this seemingly “way-out” theory has recently been taken up and expanded upon by serious scientists. John A. Ball of Harvard brings forth a peculiar fact, well known to evolutionists, that spontaneous generation of new life has utterly stopped for ages, as if evolution itself had come to an abrupt halt.2 He then offers an astounding conjecture:
Most evolutionists believe that it [life] was generated long ago but perhaps it never was. Perhaps the Earth was infected from elsewhere [in the beginning]. (Italics added.)
Two other leading lights in biological science published a paper in which they suggest that living spores did not merely drift through space, but came as colonies of microorganisms sent in a protective (unmanned) spacecraft by intelligent beings elsewhere, and deliberately aimed at Earth.3
There are two strong points favoring this concept. One is that all life on Earth has a uniform genetic code in its most basic DNA form, from amoeba to man. If life had formed spontaneously on Earth, it seems more than likely several kinds of genetic codes would have arisen.
The universal genetic code, say the scientists, could be compatible with the idea of a single ancestral source – such as ancient microorganisms dumped on Earth by a spacecraft, thus “seeding” our planet with life.
The second odd point is that molybdenum, a very rare metal, plays an important role as a trace element in the physiology of all Earth creatures. It is surprising, therefore, that life so dependent on a rare metal should arise on a molybdenum-poor world like Earth, rather that on some world rich in that metal – a world from which, perhaps, the “microseeding” originated.
What has excited astronomers and cosmologists in the past ten years is the amazing discovery of organic gases in “empty” space, existing as gigantic clouds along with dust and debris between the stars. They are extremely attenuated gases, so that space is still almost “empty,” but our galaxy is so huge in volume that the total aggregate of the scattered atoms and molecules runs into staggering tons almost beyond count.
Radio-telescopes were the first to detect the spectral lines of hydrogen gas in the open areas of space, thus opening a new branch of science called molecular astronomy.
As of May 1974, some twenty-nine different substances had been detected in outer space.4 There will probably be more by the time you read this. Among the detected substances are such organic radicals (parts of organic molecules) and pre-organic molecules (which make up living matter) as water, ammonia (NH3), formaldehyde (CH2O), methyl alcohol (CH3OH) and acetaldehyde (CH3CHO).
Biochemists must be utterly astounded that such complex organic substances can exist in the cold, empty reaches of space itself. For by a variant of the panspermia theory, organic chemicals rather than spores can descend on any planet whirling through the space cloud to have its seas saturated with the building blocks of protoplasm.
Science News reports:
The discovery of an increasing number of organic molecules in interstellar space, has led a number of scientists to suggest that the first chemical steps in the evolution of life may have taken place in the interstellar clouds.5
Another fascinating hypothesis is that of Dr. J. Mayo Greenberg of New York State University, who set up a laboratory experiment in which he produced “grains” of chemical debris comparable to the estimated size of grains of space dust.6 He then arranged for the grains to collide under ultraviolet light (rampant in space) and found he could produce molecules of high molecular weight. He thinks this mechanical accretion-process, in giant interstellar dust clouds, could produce grains of a size and composition similar to viruses.
His conclusion is that here may be the very origin of life itself – out in the colossal chemical laboratory between the stars. Hence, according to this theory, every planet in the universe is floating through this thin “space soup,” which can trigger off life in the warm seas of any and all suitable planets.
Life is, then, not the exception but the rule, throughout the myriad of star-families of planets.
An entirely different clue leading to this same deduction comes from the examination of the “Murchison Meteorite,” which fell to Earth in 1970. Scientists of the Ames Research Center of NASA have found definite traces of amino acids (building blocks of living protein) in the meteorite, substantiated later by the researchers of two universities.7
Two scientists of Arizona State University independently examined another meteorite that fell near Murray, Kentucky, in 1950, and detected the presence of all eighteen of the known amino acids. They also found two pyrimidines that are basic ingredients of the nucleic acid vital to living cells.
Significantly, those meteoric amino acids and pyrimidines have a molecular structure different from Earthly types in various esoteric ways, such as “left” or “right” configurations.
Hence, they are living matter not of this Earth, and almost a dead-sure clue to extraterrestrial life.
The consensus is that these findings enormously increase the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe.
Even before the great breakthrough discovery of organic compounds in no longer “lifeless” space, astronomers and cosmologists were convinced by other evidence, not only that living worlds were widespread throughout the galaxy, but also that an immense number of them had evolved thinking beings who might be “signaling” their brother worlds.
Back in 1960, at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory of Green Bank, West Virginia, Project Ozma, under the leadership of Dr. Frank Drake, attempted to pick up intelligent signals from two nearby stars, Tau Ceti and Epsilon Eridani.
Results were negative but now in the works is Project Cyclops, an international endeavor including Russia and the United States, which may cost up to $5 billion and involve no less than 10,000 radio-telescope dishes and antennae.
Purpose? “Its mission would be to add a new dimension to cosmology. It might establish the science of biological cosmology.” Namely, set up communications between intelligent biological beings on different worlds.
If top-notch, sober scientists boldly ask for the enormous sum of $5 billion to set up apparatus to contact other civilizations in outer space, then surely they must be going by more than flimsy clues that such civilizations exist.
And they may, in time – to their own surprise – receive a staggering message from the very starmen who colonized Earth long ago and created Hybrid Man!
Hence, the discovery of organic-space clouds was only a confirming factor in a belief that scientists have almost unanimously held for a quarter century. This belief is based on certain astronomical data about stars that statistically indicate more than half of them must have planets revolving about them, as our sun with its family of planets.
One of the first famed astronomers to speculate about the presence of life on other planets in the outer universe was Dr. Harlow Shapley, former head of the Harvard University Astronomy Department, who in his famous book Of Stars and Men states:
Exactly where these other life-bearing planets are we cannot now say; perhaps we never can, lost as they are in the glare of their stars, isolated as we are in space, and equipped with sounding apparatus that is still, we hope, primitive (and will improve). Although not seen or photographed, those planets are deduced as statistical probabilities. There must be at least 100,000 of them in our galaxy, if we accept the frequency the writer prefers.8
This estimate of Dr. Shapley’s is so conservative that it amounts to not more than one populated star per million in our galaxy.
He ignored in that paragraph the rest of the universe, and we know that the universe contains ten billion other galaxies.9
More recent estimates are truly mind-staggering.
We find in one publication the statements of Dr. Harrison H. Brown of the Division of Geological Sciences, California Institute to Technology, Pasadena.10 He estimates that virtually every star in our galaxy has a planetary system, in each of which from two to four planets might have an Earth-like environment and chemistry that encourages our kind of life to exist. He gives the enormous figure of 100 billion stars with planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone.
That would mean 200 to 400 billion planets like Earth, or perhaps Mars, on which life would almost certainly arise.
He also makes another startling observation: that, because a large part of the theorized mass of the universe is “missing,” there may exist innumerable “dark stars,” or suns that have burned out and are thus invisible to our optical telescopes.
Dr. Shiv S. Kumar of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York City, has also speculated along this line and hypothesizes that the “invisible” or dark stars may outnumber the visible stars by twenty to one.
Dr. Harlow Shapley himself did not ignore this possibility and also spoke of many millions of tiny unseen stars sprinkled through the vast reaches of space, hanging between the giant burning suns we see. He added boldly that it was not impossible that life would exist on the surfaces of these dark and cool stars, which would be in the nature of large planets, but circling no sun.
And some of these “living” stars would by statistical certainty be between the Earth and Alpha Centauri, the so-called “nearest” star, which is somewhat over four light-years away (about 25 trillion miles).
It is quite a mind-boggling thought that small dark-sun planets that have given rise to life may be close “neighbors” within a mere light-year or two of Earth, making the possibility of alien visits even more likely. Because, as we have seen, any planet that first spawns life at all almost certainly will produce intelligent beings, simply because Evolution cannot stop at any point – or because the colonizing starmen have visited those dark-sun planets too.
Dr. Shapley brings forth a really earthshaking idea when he states:
There is no reason not to believe that the biochemical Evolution on … one-half of the suitable planets has equaled or attained much greater [technological] development than here [on Earth].11
This means that more than half of his estimated 100,000 inhabited planets in our galaxy are occupied by people who are chronologically, and thus (according to Darwin) intellectually, more advanced than we are.
Obviously, since we have already started an astronautics program, space flight has been known by the inhabitants of some of these planets for thousands or millions of years. Now, the mystery here is – at least the mystery to orthodox science – why have we not been visited?
The answer is – we probably have been visited! That neatly solves the mystery, if the science establishment will only accept it.
No, this is not a reference to the controversial “flying saucers” and Unidentified Flying Objects that have been in and out of the news for more than fifty years, although we shall take up that subject later in some detail.
UFOs aside, even hard-nosed scientists believe we may have had at least one space visitor in recent times.
A very huge and puzzling “meteorite” fell thunderously in Soviet Siberia on July 30, 1908. It fortunately fell in a remote uninhabited woodland, but peasants heard the awesome explosion as far as 620 miles away. A large area of forest was flattened as if an immense object had fallen.
It was put down as a giant meteorite until several Soviet expeditions began exploring the site from 1921 on. They found a series of strange mysteries. No remnants of the alleged meteorite could be found anywhere underground.
Second, radioactivity had initially been released in enormous amounts. Third, the general destruction showed that the energy released had been far greater that the mere impact of a falling stone, no matter how huge.
Most significantly, the aerial path of the falling object had not been uniform but had seemingly changed during descent.
Various Soviet scientists then put forth an amazing theory – that it had been a spaceship, driven by intelligent beings and loaded with great power from a nuclear powerplant, which had exploded through some accident.
Or, a variant of this was that an antimatter spaceship had attempted to land on Earth and had met the fate of antimatter particles when they meet norm-matter particles – instant annihilation.
However, most scientists are dubious about any recent visits by starmen, preferring to consider that this happened only in ancient times (why?). Dr. Albert Einstein, for instance, stated that he was in complete sympathy with the idea of a visit by spacemen back in prehistoric times.
Then we come to the words of an internationally acclaimed scientist of today, Dr. Carl Sagan, planet sciences expert of Cornell University. In a monumental book jointly written with a Soviet scientist,12 Sagan estimates that super-technological starmen with interstellar spaceships may have visited Earth – hold your breath! – some 5,000 times since life first proliferated on Earth 500 million years ago.
Five thousand times! But if we divide that into 500 million years, we get one visitation every 100,000 years. So he is not suggesting a constant flow of starships back and forth.
The reason he suspects visitations from space is to account for the sudden uprise of civilization in Sumeria, ca. 8000-10,000 B.C. There are “legends” he cites as almost direct evidence that starmen landed there and launched mankind on the road to civilization.
And Sagan’s speculations, of course, immensely bolster the theory of Hybrid Man as a star-colony – even if unwittingly on his part.
In a talk before the American Rocket Society in 1962, Sagan also gave the more accepted figure of how many civilized worlds should exist in our galaxy alone: one million as a minimum.13
Now, an odd thought arises – how many of those inhabited worlds are also colonies of the starmen who colonized our Earth?
This brings up a new picture about the origin of life throughout space. Perhaps life did not spring up independently on each and every world. We can assume that one, or several, planets were among the earliest to form out of the amorphous condensing galaxy, between 10 and 25 billion years ago (cosmologists do not yet agree on the age of the macro-universe).
If life first arose – whether earth-bred from primary biochemistry or from space-cloud organic chemicals is not relevant – on just a few worlds and flowered into human or human-like intelligences, then they may have achieved space travel and eventually explored the entire galaxy.
Not waiting for the slow process of life arising spontaneously from “organic soup” or “life clouds,” they may have “seeded” any planets with primeval life.
And, as in the planet-hopping theory given before, they then “colonized” other worlds, including Earth.
Whatever the true answer is, many scientists have stated their belief, like Sagan, that our galaxy (as well as all others, inevitably) simply teems with life and with super-technological worlds. Many of them talk of vast organizations of “United Worlds” who cooperate with their neighbors in stupendous projects like galactic exploration and colonization.
Our starmen who produced Hybrid Man on Earth may thus actually be a group of advanced worlds who jointly colonize other planets. These are profound revelations we may not be told for some time to come – when we can withstand the shock without blowing our minds.
But orthodox (and opinionated) science as yet is not ready to accept any such radical explanation for the genesis of intelligent life on Earth. However, the real joker is that they still unconsciously supply grist for our mill in their general beliefs about the cosmos.
Soviet scientists have taken a step beyond other scientists in their attempts to contact the postulated civilizations in outer space.
Their huge, radio-telescope assemblies – both radial dishes and linear antennae – have for several years been trying to pick up nonrandom or patterned signals, which would instantly indicate other sentient beings deliberately sending such signals.
Several times, Soviet radio-astronomers tentatively announced exciting signals that seemed apart from natural ones, especially in connection with pulsars – stars that peculiarly pulsate in the radio spectrum with an intricate set of frequencies that are so utterly precise they seem man-made.
But theory indicated (rather shakily) that pulsars could send such “patterns” purely by natural nuclear processes.
But that did not discourage the Soviet searchers, and on October 16, 1973, Tass the official bulletin of the Soviet Union, “jubilantly announced” that their scientists had definitely picked up alien signals from other intelligent beings.14 The feat was performed by three top-grade Russian astrophysicists, who said:
We have been receiving radio signals from outer space, in bursts lasting from two to ten minutes. Their character, their consistent pattern, and their regular transmissions leave us in no doubt that they are of artificial origin – that is, they are not natural signals, but have to be transmitted by civilized beings with sophisticated transmission equipment.
If you doubt their word and think they are overexcited visionaries, it would be like doubting the word of Dr. Edward Teller and Dr. Harold Urey of the United States, or any of our top-flight scientists. Vsevolod Troitsky is Director of the Research Radiological Institute in Gorky. Nikolai Kardashev is Laboratory Chief at the Institute of Space Research of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Higher than that you can hardly get in Russia. Samuel Kaplan is also eminent as chief astronomer at Gorky University.
But with their electrifying revelation came a baffling, and perhaps significant, mystery. In their own words:
So far, we have not been able to establish exactly from where the signals emanate, but we can say the source is located in our solar system.
Not from a distant star, but from within our own solar system?
That would place the alien transmitter somewhere within 3.5 billion miles, the orbit of Pluto, our outermost planet. But even more startling were their peculiar qualifying words:
It is possible that they [the signals] come from the upper layers of the atmosphere.
That would place the source far closer to Earth, depending on what is meant by “upper layers of the atmosphere.” An immediate thought comes up, but relax, the Soviets stated positively:
For the moment, one thing is sure – the signals do not come from satellites launched from Earth.
One always has to read between the lines of any tight-lipped Soviet report, and that last phrase is again peculiar – not from any Earth-launched satellite, they say. Which leaves it open that it could be from an alien satellite within Earth’s vicinity, and that would tie in with the signals coming from the “upper atmosphere.”
What is the answer to this riddle? What are the Soviet scientists trying to say, without giving too much away? Do they imply that a robot probe sent from a distant star is orbiting within the solar system and sending us messages?
Or – is it a UFO?
Like the U.S. government, the Soviet government has taken great pains to deny the existence of the many reported UFOs, or flying saucers. Are they too ashamed now to admit that they were wrong and that their radio-telescopes picked up UFO signals? More likely, they are too canny to call it a UFO, because they need stronger evidence.
Though the Russians seem positive about the signals, there has been no confirmation yet from any U.S. or European scientists, as of this writing. Before you read this, however, the signals may have been corroborated, with worldwide scientists tuning them in and no doubt trying to translate them with computers.
And that would mean the theory of Hybrid Man and colony Earth is boosted high in probability.
But even more of a boost comes from one of those three scientists. Listen to the arresting words of Professor Nikolai Kardashevy, of the Soviet Space Institute:
I also believe there is intelligent life elsewhere but, unlike most of my colleagues, I think there is only one other civilization in our galaxy, a supercivilization. It would be millions, even a billion years older than we are and fantastically more developed (scientifically). To the beings of this civilization we would be insects. (Italics added)15
Or a colonial anthill?
Why would Professor Kardashev make such a peculiar statement? Surely he does not believe that only Earth independently developed civilization besides that single supercivilization. Unvoiced in his opinion, for fear of ridicule, no doubt, must be the implied belief that the original great civilization then spread out and populated or colonized the rest of the galaxy.
If his suspicions are based on any sort of clues at all in his astronomical work, then certainly the theory of a colonized Earth, if not Hybrid Man, is bolstered at a top level of science.
Now another problem enters the picture. Even if there are civilized worlds, how could their spaceships ever have reached Earth? By the law of averages, the nearest inhabited worlds might be at least 100 light-years away, and more likely over 1,000 light-years.
A light-year, of course, is the distance light travels in a whole year at the fantastic speed of 186,300 miles per second, making a total of just under 6 trillion miles. If light is the “fastest thing in the universe” (according to Einstein’s relativity), then starmen would require 100 or 1,000 or even 25,000 years to get to Earth. Such trips would, in short, occupy lifetimes.
This seems to make the Earth-colony concept untenable, but only at first glance. If the light-speed barrier cannot be broken, let us list some of the possibilities:
- The starmen are long-lived, with lifetimes of 1,000 years or more. (Why not, if the Bible lists its Methuselahs living for centuries on end?) In that case, a trip from a star within 100 light-years would take only one-tenth of their lifetime, comparable to some of the years-long sailing trips unhesitatingly made by Magellan and others to explore Earth.
- The starmen put themselves into “hibernation,” or suspended animation, for the bulk of the trip. Thus, they could lie blissfully asleep for a century or even 100 centuries and wake up only upon arrival on Earth. And remember, such a major project as colonizing another distant world would call for those or similar heroic measures.
- The “time dilation” angle to Einstein’s relativity points out that the closer the spaceship gets to lightspeed itself, the more time “slows down” for the crew aboard. There have been many examples given in literature of how space travelers going at 99 percent of the light-speed would only age ten or twenty years, while the planet of departure would experience ages going by. Though a rather unsatisfactory solution to long-range space travel, with the penalty of returning to their home planet to find it an age ahead, determined starmen could be willing to come and colonize Earth under those conditions.
But the answer may be far simpler than that, if the light-speed barrier of unknowing Earth science is fallacious.
And just as scientific orthodoxy at one time rather recklessly said that aircraft could never fly, that the sound barrier could not be broken, that rockets could never reach to the moon, so today the science establishment opposes the possibility that the light barrier can be broken.
It would, however, seem safer to say that a world of science-technology a million years old could have found the golden way to speed through space at fantastic rates measured in multi-lightspeeds and reach any world they wish.
We will drop the matter there as too nebulous to pursue. If the starmen have been and are here, does it matter how they got here?
However, making it possible for starmen to go faster than light in their vast planet-hopping project is of interest only if the starmen truly exist. And that brings us back to the question of whether there is life, and particularly intelligent life, in the universe. A question that may soon be solved.
There is a sort of “exobiology race” going on today. Exobiology is the embryo science of extraterrestrial life, or life anywhere else in the universe than on Earth. So far, it is almost entirely theory, with little empirical (experimental or material) proof.
- The radio-astronomers are racing to pick up the first provable intelligent signals.
- The space-cloud bioastronomers are seeking to nail down the existence of life molecules between the stars.
- The meteorite specialists are attempting to clinch the fossil evidence of life in stones from other parts of interstellar space.
- And the planetary scientists are striving to detect the first true signs of nonearth life on the planets of our own solar system.
We will take up this last category in the next chapter, for it may furnish us the first thrilling proof that life can spring up – in whatever fashion – on another world than our own.
First of all, let us mention that the classical concept of our solar system with eight other dead planets and thirty-odd lifeless moons surrounding the living Earth has rapidly changed in the past decade. Scientists are no longer willing to state categorically that there is no life at all on the other planets, even on the coldest and most remote ones.
Jupiter, for instance. This most gigantic of planets, 88,770 miles in equatorial diameter and 484 million miles from the sun, was always thought to be abysmally frigid, somewhere around minus 202°F. But studies with ultraviolet and infrared instruments that could penetrate clouds showed that this low-temperature reading was at a high altitude above the surface, just as Earth’s upper air is fantastically cold.
Down below, according to some data, the temperature of Jupiter could be as high as 70°F. In short, like a balmy summer day on Earth. Under such thermal conditions, and with a known “reducing” atmosphere much like that of primeval Earth, there was little reason why life should not have sprung up there too.
In fact, Dr. Carl Sagan, the expert on planets at Cornell, had even postulated the possibility of teeming life there, whose variety of forms and sheer quantity would be hundreds of times greater than on Earth.
With an assist by Pioneer-10’s data, Sagan’s daring hypothesis may well turn out true. The Pioneer-10 space probe made a flyby of Jupiter on December 3, 1973. Its many sophisticated sensors discovered surprising new phenomena. One of them was that Jupiter’s thick atmosphere thins out considerably at lower altitudes because it is boiling hot. In fact, the surface temperature may hit as high as 800°F, as hot as Venus.1 If the giant planet has any lofty peaks where temperature would drop to reasonable levels, then indeed Jupiter may fairly crawl with life all over its vast surface.
Saturn, too, has gone through such a revision as to its temperature and whether or not it could support life. In 1972, several colleagues of Carl Sagan at Cornell University used the gigantic radio-telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, to probe beneath the huge planet’s cloudy atmosphere and pick up long radio wavelengths indicating that “Saturn, like Jupiter, is not entirely the frozen wasteland it was once thought to be.”2 And, furthermore, that “there are areas in Saturn’s atmosphere much warmer and possible more conducive to life than scientists have previously thought likely.”
The very latest is that solar-system scientists are now considering whether even remote Uranus, and perhaps such big moons as Titan (Saturn) and Ganymede or Calisto (Jupiter) might not be warm enough to harbor some kind of life, even if primeval.
We must make a point here. If any kind of life, even the lowly lichen, algae, or some other one-celled microorganism, is detected or found anywhere out in space away from Earth, it will instantly make tenable all speculations that the universe is filled with living worlds. And that will make intelligent life of such high probability that it will amount to dead certainty.
Exobiology will then no longer be a set of theories seeking a science.
In passing, we might mention that Venus is not yet to be marked down as so super-hot that no life as we know it can possibly exist there. Even though scientists using radar techniques, and our close-approach space probes (Russian and American), have measured temperatures anywhere from 540°F to above 800°F, they have been careful not to claim that this makes life impossible there.
Some probings have indicated much cooler temperatures in the polar-zones of Venus, where life might still lurk. Or it may be that living creatures, unable to evolve on the furnace-hot surface, instead made their debut in the cool regions of the upper atmosphere. With an estimated atmosphere at least ninety times more dense than Earth’s, huge gelatinous creatures could float comfortably in the aerial reaches without ever touching the hell-hot surface.
And so, the exobiology race may be won (if the Russian space-signal claim proves invalid) by evidence of extraterrestrial life right in our own backyard, among the sun’s family of planets.
Now we come to the “great white hope” – or red hope – of exobiology, the planet Mars.
As one science writer puts it:
Discovery of living organisms in other places [than Earth] would vastly expand the biologists’ perspective. The immediate target in the search for extraterrestrial life is the planet Mars.3
In laboratory experiments with gases simulating Earth’s ancient atmosphere, scientists have bombarded the gaseous mixture with high-energy radiation and have found that organic molecules were formed, including amino acids, the building blocks of vital protein.
A similar experiment was recently performed for Mars, with one difference – the gaseous mixture represented the Martian atmosphere today.4 When bathed in ultraviolet radiation, the gases combined into organic molecules.
If nothing else, this proves the Martian atmosphere is not unfavorable to life there, if life exists at all.
By far the great majority of scientists of all disciplines believes someday word will come that life exists on Mars. Primitive life is the consensus, perhaps only rudimentary plant life and no animal life whatsoever, although some scientists more cautiously cover their bets and allow even simple animal species to be included – worms, slugs, insects, and the like.
One of the main reasons Mars has fascinated scientists, and given rise to speculations of indigenous life there, is because the planet’s disk in any good-sized telescope has regularly displayed a spreading of greenish-gray colors during the spring in either hemisphere, plus a withering away of such plant colors during the winter season.
Large portions of the ocher-red areas on Mars are thought to be deserts (and give Mars its reddish hue as a star), but these are invaded regularly each Martian spring by the creeping green-gray mystery.
If there is plant life on Mars, what kind of vegetation is it? Is it utterly alien, or is it something akin to the Earth’s greenery?
Recent spectroscopic examinations of the green areas of Mars show that the observed spectrum resembles the spectrum of lichen as observed here on Earth more than any other Earthly vegetation.5
In 1956, a new green area about the size of Texas was observed. It was located in an area that had shown only reddish desert hues before.
It is not surprising that, when a U.S. scientist undertook to grow lichen, it was in a partial vacuum that simulated, as nearly as possible, the conditions and gases that are understood to exist on Mars. The lichen grew and prospered.
The astounding conditions under which this lichen grew should be examined.6 The temperature ranged from approximately minus 100°F to plus 80°F, and the pressure was approximately 0.75 pounds per square inch. (The pressure on Earth’s surface is about 14.7 pounds per square inch.) The only moisture was vapor in the form of dew. The oxygen was very low – so low that Man would die in it.
Yet this lichen grew and seemed to thrive.
There is a most happy agreement between the spectroscopic observations that indicate there are lichen-like plant growths in the green areas of Mars, and the astounding ability of Earth lichen to grow in a simulated Martian atmosphere.
Now, how does this information apply to the Earth-colony theory? In this way: It might well be that when the starmen first came to the solar system, ages ago, Mars had more atmosphere and water, thus offering them a liveable colony-world.
Or Mars may simply have been used as a convenient base of operations for the starmen in making visits to nearby Earth during their grand experiment in creating Hybrid Man. Either possibility is valid.
If Mars was their base in the past, it still may be that today. This would account for the continued phenomenon of probable green-lichen crops sprouting each year and spreading widely over the planet, and particularly for the surprising new areas that suddenly turn green for the first time.
It is unlikely that natural vegetation would so successfully encroach into territory that had apparently been arid and lifeless before. It is far easier to think of starmen agriculturists using advanced techniques to prepare the soil, furnish irrigation, and increase their edible acreage as needed.
We might also mention briefly, just for the record, that there seems to be a correlation between the oppositions of Mars to Earth (nearest approach) every twenty-six months, and the increased numbers of UFOs sighted around the world.
Second, strange radio-signals seem to be periodically picked up from Mars, according to claims that are unsubstantiated or, at least, rejected by scientists. Still, such famous electrical wizards as Tesla and Marconi firmly believed they had tuned in alien radio-messages from Mars.
And still today, stubborn reports come in from ham-radio operators of inexplicable shortwave signals from the same source.
Can they all be wrong?
It is hardly likely that the starmen at their presumed Martian camp are trying to communicate with Earth, but it might be that the signals picked up are simply “leaks” in their own communications links on Mars or from Mars to Earth – if they are acting in modern times as watchdogs on their Earth colony.
Again, we will not pursue the above nebulous speculations but will point out that if the Earth-colony/Hybrid Man theory is correct, all those points someday might well turn out to be close to the truth.
At any rate, we may soon find out if the spreading green-gray mystery of Mars represents plant life or not. In 1976, U.S. Martian-landers, aboard Viking spacecraft borne there by rockets, investigated the surface at first hand (perhaps preceded unfortunately by Soviet landers who will steal the glory).
Both Russian and American lander vehicles (unmanned, of course) will be equipped with one or more life-detection systems, ingenious, if tiny, “chemical labs” that will draw in Martian soil or air and analyze it for key life-ingredients. If something like nucleic acid is detected, or DNA, RNA, phosphates – there are a dozen similar key organic substances – that will do it!
Biologists will instantly announce that there is something alive on Mars, even if they haven’t the slightest idea what form of life, whether primitive plant or protozoan representative of animal life.
But nothing more will be necessary to establish the fact that there is extraterrestrial life, from which will come a thundering series of “therefores.”
- Therefore, there can and must be life on staggering millions of other planets of other solar systems.
- Therefore, by certain overwhelming statistical data, there must be evolved life on countless worlds, including intelligent beings.
We will add one special “therefore” of our own.
- Therefore, the concept of starmen visiting Earth long ago to start a colony, and creating Hybrid Man, should take a strong position as the most likely theory as to the origin of mankind on Earth.
Yes, the discovery of life on Mars, or intelligent signals picked up by radio-telescopes, or the observation of organic space-clouds forming protein, or the presence of fossil protein molecules in meteorites, or perhaps the unexpected arrival of a spaceship itself, any one of these can infuse tremendous vitality into our theory of colony Earth and Hybrid Man.
And one of these signposts to universal life can come to fruition any day, or may have occurred before this book is published. (In fact, if the Russian claim of picking up alien outer-space signals in October 1973 has been verified, then the radio-astronomy people have won this “exobiology race.”)
A word should also be said about the so-called canals of Mars, a controversial feature of the Red Planet for almost a century, since Schiaparelli in 1877 first announced the intricate pattern of lines he saw on the face of Mars through his telescope.
The pros and cons over whether the canals were real or optical illusions raged for over half a century, with the negative forces slowly gaining ground. They have seemed fully vindicated through the U.S. Martian Mariners, the flyby and orbiting space vehicles that, since 1967 have taken many thousands of pictures and TV scannings of the planet’s surface. The photos first of all turned up the rather jolting surprise (except to Immanuel Velikovsky, who predicted them in 1950) that the Martian surface was pitted with craters much like the Earth’s moon.
But nary a canal showed up, except very vague streaks that could be some shadowy distortion or other geological formation.
That is, all black-and-white photos and TV transmissions (the only kind there are so far) show no canals.
Yet the authors wish to state firmly that we believe the canal controversy cannot be resolved until color pictures are transmitted from Mars-orbiting vehicles for a period of at least two years.
Why two years? Because the Martian year is almost twice as long as Earth’s. Therefore, it takes two Earth years for Mars to go through one complete cycle of the four seasons: spring, summer, autumn, and winter.
And only by photographing from space this complete cycle in full color, to bring out the advance and retreat of the gray-green areas, can we then get a glimpse of the still-possible canals. For the green color will be most “alive” and thriving along any waterways that are filled, in the spring, with melting polar ice.
Earth’s biggest telescopes could never photograph the canals that the human eye apparently detected on Mars. Neither can black-and-white cameras aboard orbiting vehicles detect them, for they are probably very narrow channels. Only by capturing the intense new green pathways of plants invigorated by fresh water can the implied presence of canals be registered – in color. The canals may be far too shallow to cast any shadows or give any direct hint of their presence.
There are certain clues to that possibility. For one thing, many observers through the years, independently of one another and without knowledge of the others’ work, drew sketches of the canals they believed they saw.
And some of those canals were in precisely the same places in various drawings. Furthermore, certain photos that showed vague canal-like markings, when superimposed over the hand-drawn sketches also fitted in a way that seems beyond coincidence.
Still, why are those canals, if really there, not visible to the sharp lenses of space probes orbiting nearby?
There is one possible explanation. As is now established, Mars is not a “quiet, dead world” as once thought but is in a dynamic phase of constant “storms” and geographical changes. Among its most spectacular and regular weather features are huge dust storms of such a violent nature that they cover half the globe at a time.
The 1971 Martian probes met this kind of storm of yellowish dust, which obliterated the surface for months before the atmosphere finally cleared.
Dust? Yes, dust. And what does dust do when it is blown around over a planet’s surface with many pits, craters and cracks in it? It fills or partially fills them, as proved by various Mariner photos.
Therefore, it is not at all unreasonable to suspect that those dust storms, operating for almost a century since Schiaparelli first saw his sensational lines across Mars, have filled in the canals. And just as high-altitude space satellites above Earth’s surface have detected the outlines of subsea formations and, on land, of various kinds of terrain unseen in any other way, it may be that only from the distant vantage point of Earth can the dust-clogged canals of Mars stand out. It may even be that Martian orbiting probes with color cameras will in the future also trace out those buried canals, whose existence is so far denied.
Let us put it that the last word has not yet been said on whether the canals of Mars are myth or reality.
Canals aside, the Martian pictures that came back from the orbiters in 1971 and 1972 showed other gross features that stood out with sharp clarity. If the pictures did not show canals as such, they did show many signs of abundance of water on Mars in ages past, and other clues that indicate water may still exist on Mars today in free form, in greater quantities than expected.
Erosion, for instance. The photos clearly show faults, ridges, and sand dunes, all definite signs of erosion by water, nothing else.7 And such erosion signs could not all freeze into eternal surface features lasting for millions of years. Some of them must be recent erosion effects, in line with the current dynamic model of Martian meteorology.
Volcanic structures on Mars, and striated sediment layers, also proclaim the past or present action of water in considerable quantities – enough, in fact, to discard the old bone-dry Mars theory (as we discarded the dust-covered-moon theory after our astronauts landed there).
That Mars once had extensive water-resources is highlighted by a report from the U.S. Geological Survey after their experts pored over the Mariner photos from Mars.8 In that Science News report Harold Masursky says:
All along the northern edge of the high plateau, one can see stream channels that vary in size from very small to a kilometer in width and thousands of kilometers in length. They are highly braided tributaries. These sinuous channels [sic!] could be the result of ubiquitous water, or a fantastic series of volcanic channels that we do not understand.
Another great puzzle in Martian topography is the “canyonlands” bordering the Nix Olympica region in the planet’s east.9 “The canyonlands are a real puzzler,” reports Masursky. “They seem to be a series of innumerable fissures, some of which may represent cracking of the crust by itself.” But, he goes on, “Something else has gone on there. What that something is, is the biggest mystery at the moment.”
The report goes on to give another hypothesis, that the precession cycle of the Martian poles might mean that alternately, every 50,000 years, one pole gains a greater ice cap than the other. “In between these periods, weather on Mars would be unstable, producing lots of rain.”10
Interesting, indeed, for a planet supposedly as arid as a desert! Furthermore, “water may be trapped and frozen in the form of permafrost and released episodically into the atmosphere.”
A space scientist who has thoroughly studied the Mars-Mariner photos also states he believes that water-ice (as distinguished from frozen carbon dioxide) is present as tiny crystals in two other areas – in the clouds that appear in the afternoon, and in two higher layers of haze (thin clouds) over the planet.11
Each report seems to find more evidence of water or ice or water vapor on the Red Planet.
Scientists are also baffled by the enormous system of rills (cracks) existing elsewhere on Mars. They are parallel fissures (many drawings of Martian canals show them as two parallels!) extending more than 1,800 kilometers and up to 1.6 kilometers wide. These too could be evidence of long-enduring action by one-time bodies of water in the ancient past of Mars.
Thus, even if our camera-eye space vehicles saw no canals, they did even better and showed that Mars was once well-watered and even today may exhibit actual small streams as the polar icecaps melt – when more and better photos are obtained. And the possibility of life on Mars has thus been enhanced a hundredfold, canals or no canals.
Scientists who disbelieved in Martian life have become very quiet.
As some within anthropology has said – down from the trees but not out of the woods, bipedal mankind must go back to his prehistoric ancestors for knowledge about his origins.
Anthropology is the study of mankind from ancient, extinct species into the present day, and much of it is based on fossil finds of early men, overlapping somewhat with paleontology, the search for fossilized bones of any and all creatures. In fact paleoanthropology is the combination of the two that deals with manlike fossils.
Anthropology is one of the most fascinating fields into which the human mind is today making inquiries. Some of the finest contemporary work is being performed within this science discipline, and some of the most talented men available to science are attracted to the field. No one reading through the great number of excellent publications in this field can help but admire the ingenious means by which these researchers have managed to wrest information from the silent and buried records of the past.
If, in the following pages, we seem to be severely critical and sometimes outspoken against orthodox views, it is not the anthropologists personally we are jumping on, but their theories. And then only if the theory deserves castigation for being speculative, misleading, or downright unscientific.
This means no lack of respect for the fossil-hunters themselves, nor for their hard and often dedicated work; but we reserve the right to analyze and, if necessary, reject or even tear apart any concept or theory that is patently untenable. There will probably be a few hardnoses with arrogance and inflexibly orthodox attitudes, who will react only with scorn and even rage at our criticisms of so-called established facts in the field.
But the “facts” of one generation often, in the light of new knowledge, are the discards of the next.
And who can set himself up as a guarantor of such facts, which are often tentative and short-lived?
Let us remind the anthropologists in general that their greatest authorities for some forty years proclaimed the Piltdown Man’s fossil bones as being unquestionably authentic before the blatant hoax was exposed. Anybody can be wrong – anybody. There are few absolutes in anthropology, and all is subject to change, review, reinterpretation.
Perhaps it might be considered impertinent for laymen like the authors to cast doubt on the theories and testimonies of the experts and authorities, but we do so only with honest intent to point out fallacies, inconsistencies, and below-par postulates, insofar as they can be reinterpreted as supporting a totally new theory – namely, the one we champion in this book.
And if we are “amateurs,” we must reiterate that Darwin himself was a “rank amateur.”
If the gentlemen of anthropology will be unbiased and examine our suggestions on merit alone, without prejudgment or partiality or condemnation out of hand, we feel that perhaps a whole new avenue of research into Man’s origin can be revealed, to their own eventual benefit. We ask only for a fair hearing.
We, the authors, are not anthropological “authorities,” but we do quote and present the comments of very authoritative experts whenever possible. We submit that even the amateur can have sufficient discrimination and common intelligence to point out errors and misdirections that crop up in any area of scientific endeavor. The important thing is for the authorities not to isolate themselves haughtily as unassailable, thereby protecting false premises and sterile concepts as well as the body of valid material.
Although anthropologists on the whole probably cannot readily accept the quite radical theory proposed in this book, it will undoubtedly have some impact on the field in ways unforeseen as yet. We do not claim all our ideas are correct, any more than all presently accepted anthropological data are correct, but only that some ideas may hit the truth and thereby earn some respect for our new theory.
Certainly, we do not expect and cannot accept a blanket denial or wholesale rejection of our entire work.
We feel that the same respect we have toward the anthropological experts should in all fairness be reciprocated and extended to the two nonexperts who have compiled this book and its – admittedly – blockbuster theory.
One thing we would like to emphasize should give pause to any reader, authority or not, before our theory is “laughed off” the stage.
If Man, unknown to himself, is a colony of hybrids of men from the stars, then it naturally follows that the anthropologists (who are part of the same colony) would be just as unaware of this fact as anyone else. No special or divine knowledge of theirs allows them to state categorically that no such colonization of Earth has happened.
They will have to examine all the anomalies we have listed, which do not fit the general anthropological milieu and, indeed, throw it out of kilter, and prove that those anomalies do not exist. It would be quite unscientific of them, and crassly arbitrary, to try to ignore all the unexplained and baffling mysteries of Man’s origin, in order to hang onto their pet theories and consign ours to the scrap heap.
That is our measured and respectful challenge, in the interests of truth.
Now, if Earth is unknowingly a colony of starmen, there may have been acts committed in the dim and distant past expressly designed to prevent our present-day anthropologists from guessing the truth.
To be more precise, these acts were presumably done to prevent Man from proving, or knowing, that he is a hybrid, for reasons we will discuss in the last chapter.
If Man’s ancestral race from the stars ever spent any great length of time on Earth, members of the expedition could have perished here from natural causes. Their remains may have been carefully carried off to their home planet for burial, to prevent future discovery of the bones by Earth scientists.
A contemporary anthropologist would be staggered to find an ultramodern skeleton with a 3,000 cubic centimeter brain-case, twice the human capacity and more. It would create havoc to try to fit this creature into what is known about Neanderthal Man, Cro-Magnon Man, and all early submen. This would be especially true if the remains of this superman were found in earth strata of an era prior to the earliest advent of Hominids on the earth scene.
A modern anthropologist would be in dire straits if he attempted to integrate such a find into the presently held picture of Man’s pattern of Evolution. One thing stands out. When Cro-Magnon Man appeared upon the scene, Neanderthal Man was a cave tenant of long tenure but already dying out.
Cro-Magnon Man appeared with mysteriously improved skeletal characteristics and with a cranial capacity that is amazingly in excess by 100 cubic centimeters of that of modern Man.
We will briefly digress here to point out that there are various estimates of those cranial capacities that are different from the figures we are using. For example, in one anthropological work, brain sizes are given as 1,500 cubic centimeters for modern humans, about 1,590 cubic centimeters for Cro-Magnon Man, and from 1,400 cubic centimeters to 1,600 cubic centimeters for Neanderthal Man.1 The latter had a variable brain size because his skull changed noticeably during an evolutionary period of 75,000 years of existence on Earth.
Whether we use one set of figures or the other, the main point is they both show that brain sizes were definitely larger in two species of prehistoric men than in present-day humans, surprising as that fact is. For simplicity, we will use the first set of figures – about 1,400 cubic centimeters for Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, and 1,300 cubic centimeters for Homo sapiens of today.
Regardless of those different ratios of brain size, it is necessary to question where the oversized prehistoric skulls came from, and whether the concept of natural mutations by Evolution only can explain the mystery. A similarly large degree of brain expansion occurred in absolutely no other species on Earth in all the ages of the past, nor has any genus shown evidence of brain mutation of a comparable magnitude since antiquity.
If the above surmise about the starmen’s “secrecy code” is true, however, then such a Starman skull of 3,000 cubic centimeters may never be found. Since all evidence may have been removed to maintain deliberate ignorance among humans, the anthropologists cannot help but assume that Cro-Magnon Man arose from unexplained sources rather than being a cross between starmen and dawn men.
But the Hybrid Man theory does encourage speculation on the difference of Cro-Magnon’s 1,400 cubic-centimeter skull capacity and modern Man’s lesser 1,300 cubic-centimeters. It could explain why no intermediate skeletal remains were found in the Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon time period that trace any gradual cranial Evolution of one species into the other, which did not happen, according to authorities.
This is only one example of how our Hybrid Man theory can be used to explain a mystery of anthropology. There are many other areas in the field to which it can be applied, and they are treated elsewhere in this book.
It is important to stress here that the modern anthropologist should carefully follow imminent discoveries in space exploration. His interest should exceed that of the simply intelligent citizen, for fossil-hunters most likely will find that they have a deep professional interest in the results of space pioneering on other planets.
The presence of intelligence on Mars in either past or present, whether indigenous or not, may soon be confirmed. This would instantly put pressure on anthropologists to determine, as a matter of intellectual duty, whether among the myriad artifacts and skeletal remains here on Earth, some evidence may be found of past visits by outer-space creatures.2
If one specimen or a series of strange specimens (in spite of our previous “secrecy” surmise), were found among femurs and tibias that could not be fitted into the accepted evolutionary picture, the discovery might represent a stage of mankind we have not yet reached. These would be the bones of the starmen.
Such dusty and forgotten specimens may already be resting on museum shelves.
The trained eye may have passed them off long ago as being “unexplained mysteries” or “freak” anomalies not to be taken seriously. Some researcher may already have catalogued them as they cropped up over the years throughout the world. This would be fortunate, for it might save a great deal of time if we find bona fide evidence of outer-space intelligence in the future.
Some of the most important characteristics of Man – the ones that truly separate him from the apes – are virtually impossible for anthropologists to discover in skeletal remains. For instance, the vocal cords of skeletons are almost beyond detection or even conjecture. Their presence or absence must be deduced through patient detective work of a type that constitutes a none-too-certain method of discovery.
For all its good work, anthropology has failed to penetrate one major mystery in the fossil records. Why is there a 12-million-year gap between the earliest man-ape fossils and the fossils of the more recent Hominids?
Hominids is the term for primate species that authorities admit to the pre-human family, as distinguished from the Pongids, or pure ape genera.
To continue basic definitions of terms that will appear frequently through the book, we will include here the system of classification of all fauna (animal life) and flora (plant life).
A species is an individual group of the same kind of creatures who can interbreed only among themselves (with some few exceptions) and have common characteristics.
Species that are similar to, yet distinctive from one another, and incapable of crossbreeding, are grouped together in a genus.
The genera (plural of genus) are again lumped together into families, a broad conglomerate of animals that follow a basic pattern of some sort.
The families, in turn, are filed in a still larger grouping called an order, and may by now include thousands of species and genera.
Orders of animals join a more generalized and wide-ranging fraternity called a class.
Finally, the classes with a few common denominators but widely divergent individual species, are indexed under a phylum.
All the phyla (plural of phylum) together make up the animal kingdom as distinguished from the vegetable kingdom.
Another set of definitions is less important but perhaps edifying, to help the reader understand the relative importance of various ideas and statements made by scientists.
A postulate is an assumption of what might be possible, in any field of science, but without any positive proof. Sometimes, if it is axiomatic, it is taken for granted.,The hypothesis is one rank below a theory, usually offered as a tentative new idea requiring investigation before it can be accepted or rejected. It is meant as a possible stepping-stone to a theory, if all goes well.
Finally, the theory itself may be born out of one or more hypotheses that graduated into the big time, so to speak. Though it cannot be accepted as established fact, a theory carries considerable weight by way of a good deal of firm evidence and some empirical (experimental) proof. Yet a theory is always subject to modification and change, and sometimes final rejection if too many adverse facts against it come up.
Note that Evolution is a theory only, not an established body of factual data, with few of its “laws” of natural selection being accepted universally among the authorities in the field. It is, and has been, in a definite state of flux since its inception over a century ago.
Armed with these clarifying definitions, we can end our digression and return to our topic – the fossils of Man’s extinct predecessors.
A book combining the views of the latest and greatest authorities on anthropology states quite frankly:
Considering the number and variety of primate fossils recovered in recent years from the late Miocene and early Pliocene, we should [expect to] be able to look confidently ahead to finding even more illuminating ones to fill the gap between this time and the beginning of the Pleistocene.3
Our italics follow: “Astonishingly and maddeningly, we find nothing. Almost the entire Pliocene is a total blank as far as human ancestors are concerned. That exasperating and cryptic epoch lasted for some 12 million years.”
Some authorities will challenge this conclusion, but, for what they are worth, we will give the basic factors involved.
The earliest Hominid fossil known is that of Ramapithecus of 14 million years ago, who teetered between ape and human attributes, being neither one nor the other.
The next oldest accepted fossil specimen of a Hominid species is that of Zinjanthropus (nut-cracker man), found by the late Dr. Louis Leakey at the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.4 Some anthropologists insist this specimen does not belong to the Australopithecus line but represents a new family, which they have named Paranthropus.
Under either name, this subhuman fossil has been dated as of 1.75 million years ago. There is a claim that the African Hominids go back 2 million and possibly as much as 2.6 million years, based on a fragment of an armbone found in northern Kenya5 and also, recently, of a skull in Tanzania.
But even if this latter figure is admitted into the Hominid-fossil parade, it lops off less than a million years from that “maddening” blank of 12 million years in the human story. Even 11 million years without a valid humanoid fossil unearthed is still an enormous gap in the anthropological record, one that gravely weakens the Theory of Evolution as applied to mankind. True, that gap may be further closed by other finds of Hominid fossils, but it is unlikely that they will form an unbroken line back to Ramapithecus.
That gap, large or smaller, is what the anthropologists have long been trying to fill with the notorious “missing link.”
Or perhaps the missing link goes still further back, as certain anthropologists feel, anywhere from 15 to 50 million years ago (which indicates how varied the views of the experts are in this uncertain field). What they are all looking for is some common ancestor of both apes and men, from which the two branches of anthropoids and Hominids split off.
For this purpose, proconsul was invented as a purely theoretical creature without any fossil pieces of him being known. When Leakey found some bones of an odd creature 20 million years old, older than Ramapithecus, he named it Kenyapithecus and believed it might be the very first ancient Hominid.6 Or the “mythical” proconsul.
Few other authorities go along with him. This is the fate of many special theories or concepts in anthropology. As one writer in the field expresses it:
Paleoanthropology has been the most argumentative of sciences since its beginning. Experts who agree are rare.7
Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, University of California at Berkeley, says it in another way that might bring scowls from his colleagues:
The study of human Evolution is a game rather than a science in the usual sense.8
As for any authority thinking he has the correct solution to the mystery of the Hominids and the missing link, F Clark Howell, who has dug up many puzzling fossils says:
Anyone who feels that we already have the problem [of Man’s origin] solved is surely deluding himself.9
With this clear mandate to us to take none of the claims of anthropologists as established fact, we can go on with the confused picture of how and when Man’s progenitors appeared in earthly history.
The whole controversy centers around the Australo-pithecines, the general name (Australo meaning southern hemisphere) for several different kinds of Hominid fossils, some found in Asia but most in southeast Africa. Various authorities recognize (or deny) various Hominids, such as Africanus Boiset, A. Robustus, A. Africanus, Paranthropus, and A. Habilis.
The last one has led to the most controversy, and one school of fossil hunters claims it is the first ancient Homo species, as distinguished from the Hominid ape-men.
Homo habilis would thus be the proto-man, first of his kind, and would presumably have evolved into the well-known Homo erectus. This would put the origin of Man’s direct ancestors back to about 2 million years ago.
Still, this does not solve the mystery of the missing link, for there is no fossil lineage for Habilis (Hominid or Homo) that stretches back through that big 12-million-year gap between Ramapithecus and the Australopithecines.
Thus, the reward for finding that “missing person” of dim antiquity is still uncollected and unclaimed by any anthropologist.
Perhaps the answer is easier than they suspect.
We suggest, as mentioned before, that starmen are the real “missing link.” That they came along 12 million years ago, when Ramapithecus roamed his apelike knuckle-walking way, and began experimenting with methods to improve him.
In short, artificial Evolution, by incredible biogenetic “magic.”
The result, some 12 million years later, was a manlike creature of the Australopithecus genus. Or A. Habilis. And the “missing” fossils in between?
There might not have been any.
The starmen, for instance, rapidly developed small numbers of mutants in their biolabs, too few to leave fossil remains, or even took them away to be Homogenized on another world and replanted on Earth later. At any rate, their grand experiment took 12 million years to jump from primitive Ramapithecus to much more advanced Australopithecus.
Whether the above admitted speculations are anywhere near the truth is not relevant, only the undeniable fact that there is no record via fossils to show Man’s turnabout from apehood to manhood via Evolution.
And there is no evolutionary record because the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest did not operate in the classic manner.
The laws of biogenetic selection by the starmen could much more logically have operated in perhaps some fantastic way inconceivable to our less-advanced science.
We will find in another chapter that this concept of biogenetic hybridization of Hominids is bolstered considerably when it comes to explaining Man’s great brain.
One more example of how anthropologists deal with palpably misfit aspects of Evolution, by hazarding explanations that can only be called “wild,” is as follows. It is known that, contrary to the “smooth” transitions demanded by evolutionary theory, there were, at certain periods in the past, very sudden and wholesale changes of species.
Immanuel Velikovsky, who is considered a maverick by other scientists, has given his own theory for those gross changes in species – his “cataclysmic” theory of Earth periodically undergoing major geological catastrophes that wipe out most existing species, requiring a whole new line of species to appear through “emergency” mutations. Though we do not necessarily agree with Velikovsky’s explanation for how the new species arise (we suspect Starman intervention), we do agree that the abrupt and worldwide changes in species, at certain times, is not explained by classic Evolution.
“The boundaries between eras, periods and epochs,” reads one study of this phenomenon, “on the geological time scale generally denote sudden and significant changes in the character of fossil remains. For example, the boundary between the Triassic and Jurassic periods of the Mesozoic era [about 180 million years ago] was supposedly marked by spontaneous appearance of [many] new species.”10
Even they admit that – “Researchers have sometimes come up with drastic explanations for these changes, such as an increase in mutation rates due to cosmic rays.”
Then, offering a more “reasonable” explanation, a German authority denies that there are “sudden” changes of species, only sudden diversification of established species.11 He claims that is “normal” Evolution and offers a sweeping change in worldwide ecology as the spark causing “diversification.” Somehow, that explanation seems less acceptable than even cosmic rays! It’s simply juggling words semantically.
Yet, the cosmic-ray angle itself simply does not hold up, for it would mean that periodically the cosmic-ray bombardment of Earth shows sudden and enormous increases. But there is not one shred of proof that such cosmic-ray “bursts” occur at all, at least of sufficient strength and duration to affect the genes and cause mutations of living things all over the Earth.
The experts are definitely straining, and sacrificing credibility, when they offer suggestions like that out of left field.
The true answer? It comes out in a more credible way, we believe, from our Hybrid theory. The starmen, in order to increase the mutation rate of their widely flung Pongid and Hominid guinea pigs, showered down their own “cosmic radiation” by deforming the Van Allen belts from a spaceship, for instance.12 The radiation inevitably struck other forms of life under this “shotgun” method and resulted in wholesale changes in species.
Since cosmic rays do not come in significant “bunches” at random times by natural means, certainly our guess as to deliberate radiation showers does not similarly violate any science facts or laws.
Nevertheless, still standing out like a sore thumb is that 12-million-year gap in the fossil record of prehuman species, with the elusive missing link still missing – and perhaps nonexistent.
Let us go back on the trail of Hominid and Pongid fossils and see what other snags the Theory of Evolution has run into that seriously undermine its whole application to the mystery of Man.
Even the picture of the Pongid apes, long before the Hominids appeared on the stage, is murky indeed from the fossil record. For instance, as a noted zoologist states in a famed best-seller, “What happened to the early apes?”1
He points out that about 30 million years ago, the ape family spread through a wide, forested area from western Africa to southeastern Asia. Then, about 15 million years ago, they began to vanish here and there until today they are in very restricted areas and are reduced to a total of 192 living species of monkeys and apes.
These great apes include the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, gibbon, and baboon. Since 15 million years ago there were no big-game hunters and no commercial trapping for furs, we must look to another reason for the decline of the great apes.
This mystery may or may not be related to the Hybrid Man story, but it indicates again that Evolution can only give weak explanations for such ancient events.
If the apes were class-A specimens from the school of natural selection, why should they decline as if unable to compete with other animal species?
Now, the primate line in general, apes as well as man-apes and true men, displays one characteristic vastly superior to all other creatures on Earth – brainpower. Therefore, it is not out of line with our theory, even if lacking any firm proof, to suggest that, not inconceivably, the primate line was imported to Earth by the starmen. The primates would be their basic starting point for creating an eventual species of intelligent human.
We must keep stressing the point that the age-old civilization of original Man or Starman on a far-off homeworld would not be dismayed at a long-range biological project spanning millions and millions of years.
And that biological project was tested and tried previously on uncounted other worlds. The goal was sublimely worthwhile – populating the universe with humankind so that the glorious gift of intelligence would never die out.
We have several clues to the possible importation of extraterrestrial forms of life on Earth, fitting our basic theory.
One is the mystery of the complete lack of fossil remains of the present living desert flora and fauna.2 No one knows at the present time why it is that, while countless fossil specimens of grasses, trees, ferns, and shrubs of tropical and semitropical climates can be found in many geological strata, not one single desert plant has left its fossil traceries in places where it can be found today. The desert palm tree is the one exception.
Another point difficult to understand is the rather astonishing basic difference in structure that exists between desert plants and most other Earth plants.
But these odd mysteries can be solved, if we assume that many hybridizing visits to Earth by our outer-space ancestors were required in order to infuse the proper mixtures into Hominids to create modern Man. It is not unreasonable to assume further that, on one of these fairly recent visits (geologically speaking), our outer-space sires brought desert forms of plants to Earth.
These desert types may have, all too often, been the only plant forms they knew. For, as was shown earlier, some of our outer-space ancestors might have spent the major part of their lives and times on waning planets that were not nearly as green as our lush planet Earth. Because of incessant population pressures, they would have had to dwell on planets that were drier, older, and dustier than we care to think about.
Consequently, desert-plant species that we see only in our dry regions are forms that may have been familiar to the starmen for perhaps millions of years. When our deserts developed, our starmen relatives may have seen an opportunity to bring some seeds from their dry and dusty homes elsewhere to plant in the new Earth world.
Our outer-space ancestors knew all too well that in a few million years or so, the desert areas on Earth would grow and grow. In time, earthmen would be thankful for the starmen’s foresight in planting imported desert-plant species so soon, so well, and in such profusion.
There is another clue, among animal species, that the starmen may have planted certain creatures from other worlds on Earth. We refer to the puzzling “living fossils,” or species that have existed through hundreds of millions of years practically unchanged and seemingly extinction-proof. Yet, by far the vast majority of species that go back that far have completely vanished except for their bones.
Among the “living fossils” are included the following:
The queer duckbilled platypus, which – most any reasoning biologist would say – because of its “mixed up” characteristics of being a mammal that lays eggs and has a duckbill, had the least staying power through the ages. Yet there it is today, flourishing as if eons of time had not gone by since its kind first appeared on Earth.
The oyster is another long-lived specimen of early life; also the opossum, the Australian lungfish, the horseshoe crab, the coelacanth fish, and, to include a botanical item, the ginkgo tree.
How much of a riddle they represent can be seen from the following review of what evolutionists think about these “time anomalies.”3 The so-called living fossils puzzle and annoy the evolutionists, who feel obligated to explain why, in a world of change, these forms continue in their old placid way without either changing or becoming extinct. In hundreds of million of years [since they originated] there must have been changes in climate, changes in the environment, new enemies, new parasites, new diseases. Yet these creatures, without showing any special virtues or abilities, continue unchanged.
Then the redoubtable G. G. Simpson of Harvard is quoted as saying that these unchanging and persistent species “are a standing challenge to the hypothesis of ceaseless flux and have defied the explanatory efforts of many famous biologists.”4
We think the explanation might be profoundly simple: that they were imported to Earth by the starmen, for reasons not to be guessed at, unless it was as a test of the earthly environment, important for later Hybrid Man experiments.
Perhaps those time-lasting species came from some harsh world, so that earthly conditions, even though fluctuating wildly, seem like soft living to them, thus giving them their amazing durability.
Since other worlds can have an Evolution quite parallel to Earth’s, those species might be closely related to similar but extinct species here and thus, to the paleontologist, would not seem grossly “alien” or out of line.
But now to return to our main theme in this chapter – early mankind.
In the so-called Evolution of humans there are two major steps to be accounted for. One is the use of crudely shaped tools by early Man, an attribute shared by no other creature, not even the apes. This subject will be taken up in detail in the next chapter.
The second question we will take up here: When did apemen come down from the trees to become prehumans walking on two feet?
Again, a source book of anthropological authority presents that mystery in a nutshell:
From squatting in a tree to strolling upright in a meadow is an enormous leap. Any explanation of the change can be only speculative. But the speculations, even though there are no fossils to back them up, have an uncanny way of hanging together.5
The key phrase is “even though there are no fossils to back them up.” Again the “stones and bones” men (archeologists plus anthropologists) must admit their fossil method of piecing together mankind’s origin has the annoying habit of leaving gaps marring their pet theories. The 12-million-year gap between man-apes and submen again hides this major transition from tree-swinging apes to ground-walking men, and from knuckle-walking (when apes did occasionally descend to the ground) to full-time ground locomotion on two legs as practiced by humans.
Another authoritative work on early Man also has trouble bridging the gap between tree-dwellers and ground-walkers:
When Man’s apelike ancestors descended from the trees, they must have been exposed to attacks from predators and, like male baboons, macaques and gorillas, the male Hominids almost certainly possessed [one would think] long canines which they used to defend themselves, their females, and their young.
Had they not done so, the Hominids would surely have been wiped out.6
Then comes the damaging admission:
Yet, the Australopithecine fossils show these little apelike men possessed canines no longer or sharper than modern Man.
All of which is pithily highlighted by another quote:
This problem [how Man got from the trees to the ground] has puzzled experts for a long time and many imaginative theories have been put forward.7
“Imaginative” is the word!
Which is the trap the authorities fall into, trying to explain Australopithecines of about 2 million years ago were not the earliest representatives of the ground-walking Hominids.
But, as we saw before, the great Hominid fossil gap intrudes by furnishing no pre-Australopithecus species for a long age, thus giving them not the slightest evidence that their theory is valid. It is not very scientific to predicate a hypothesis on what should be, when the fossil proof is totally lacking. That is little better than unscientific guessing.
Can our theory do any better? We believe so.
First of all, it is part of our concept that whenever Hominid species in the past made inexplicable leaps ahead, in any area, those leaps had one common cause – the biomanipulations of the starmen. We, too, must resort to pure speculation (which at least places us on an equal footing with the anthropologists) and imagine that, as part of their plan to bring out the step-by-step creation of Hybrid Man, our star-sires somehow got early Man down to the ground on two feet.
But how? Here is where we will make another daring proposal – it was done by genetic control. By the deliberate introduction of specialized genes into the systems of the early Hominids.
As we now dimly realize in modern biology, the genes are a complex “ladder” of chromosome trails within each cell that control some memory-pattern or instinct or biochemical process for the whole body. Thus, if the starmen simply incorporated dominant new genes for walking upright, while turning the old tree-swinging genes into recessive traits, early Man would, in a few generations, abruptly switch from being an arboreal acrobat into a walking plainsman.
This was vitally necessary, for one cannot build civilization in the tops of trees. The starmen had to get the dawn men down on the ground before their magnificent earth colony could come to fruition.
Read any anthropological work that tries to explain just how the early men did exchange their tree life for prairie life, and you will see a tortuous interweaving of how the need for game, use of tools, seeing further when standing up, and other somewhat irrelevant or farfetched ideas are thrown together, begging the question entirely.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It forms the forlorn basis for every tautological attempt, under evolutionary theory, to get early mankind out of the trees and down to solid ground.
And the theorizers only leave themselves higher in the air than Man was in the treetops.
If the forests did not decline but grew more lushly as time passed, why in the world should a tree-dwelling species of animal desert his original habitat? It is questions like these that tongue-tie the anthropologists.
We do not mean to denigrate them, but their “authority” on such ancient mysteries, when not backed up by any fossils – their basic tool – is certainly far from authoritative.
It is another big “hole” in Evolution, as applied to Man, that neither Darwin nor Wallace could ever cover in the first place.
Where did the Homo family of species come in, according to Evolution? Homo, meaning human or the true men as distinguished from the ape-men Hominids.
Homo erectus is the first such specimen following the long chain of Australopithecine ape-men (although Leakey, as we have seen before, sees Habilis as a Homo going back almost 2 million years).
Back in the 1890s, the famed Java Man’s fossil was found, but it was first thought to be a non-Homo type and labeled Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning an ape-man who walked upright. But careful study revealed that he was much more manlike than apelike. A new genus was started under the Homo tag, and the Java Man became Homo erectus. He lived from 300,000 to 600,000 years ago (perhaps, according to some authorities, up to a million years ago).
Subsequently, many Erectus specimens were found, including the Peking Man and others around the world. Two major riddles arose.
- How did Erectus, without vehicles or transportation of any kind, spread around much of the world?
- Why did Erectus disappear completely about 300,000 years ago?
Classical Evolution cannot permit any single species of any animal to appear simultaneously at several different points around the Earth. A new species arises in one certain place under propitious conditions and then, if it is vigorous and prolific, it gradually spreads out. But for primitive Erectus to start from Africa, his presumed place of genesis, and eventually spread into Europe and Asia (but not into the New World), makes him an extraordinary globe-trotter.
Since the world of half a million years ago was still filled with fierce predators, and Erectus had no weapons beyond crude sticks and sharp flintstones held in the hand, his bold invasion of far-distant domains is entirely incongruous. There are many other controversial aspects of this “world conquest” by Erectus, too numerous to go into, that make it a deep mystery.
Again, as smoothly as gears locking into place, we can use our new Hybrid Man theory and simply propose that the starmen moved members of the Erectus species around the Earth.
Why? Because Erectus was a culmination of their strenuous hybridization program, representing the breakthrough, so to speak, from ape-man specimens to manlike specimens who could in time lead to true Man.
Such a hybridization program is perfectly plausible, even in terms of the budding science of biogenetics on Earth today. The spokesman for one team of Harvard biologists said that a well-financed crash program (a la the Manhattan Project) could make genetic engineering on human beings a reality within a few years. By that, he meant manipulating the genes of people to “make them over” in any way desired. If our kindergarten biogenetics know-how is already that close to the goal of “engineering” humans in miraculous ways, then surely the college techniques of the aliens could easily accomplish their programmed plans in changing around the subhuman species of prehistoric times.
As for Erectus then melting away into oblivion 300,000 years ago, this too may have been planned by the starmen when the next-higher type of Homo was bred. Not that Erectus was ruthlessly exterminated by them but was perhaps simply left to shift for himself. Prey to carnivores and to a hostile environment, and without the brain development to survive against such odds, Erectus huddled helplessly to be sent to the limbo for extinct species.
Erectus had to go because Neanderthal Man showed up, a far more advanced type of prehistoric human being with a much larger brain. Which leads to another “gap” that severely damages the case for Darwinian Evolution.
As our previously quoted book of anthropological authority puts it:
“The Auchelian [toolmaking] industry, introduced by Homo erectus, lasted from about 500,000 to 75,000 years ago, but Homo erectus [himself] did not. The last we know of him [via fossils] is more than 300,000 years ago, which means that there is a stretch of nearly 200,000 years from which no definite Homo erectus fossils are known, and at the end of which an entirely different type of man appears on the scene – Neanderthal man.”8
An entirely different type of man! Is that part of the smooth, uninterrupted process of Evolution in which species gradually change in many transitions, with each step traced in fossils?
Borrowing a physics term, it is a quantum jump of a whole magnitude, from one species of early Man to one totally different and far more advanced.
It almost seems unnecessary to point out that such an abrupt leap forward in subhuman species is not only covered by the Hybrid Man theory but is essential to it. It almost shouts aloud that some outside factor manipulated the development of the human species, not in slow steps by natural selection but in giant steps, by means of “unnatural selection” or planned hybridization techniques.
From the evolutionary viewpoint, 200,000 years are unaccounted for. But, in the Hybrid Man theory, these are 200,000 years in which the starmen found the way to create Neanderthal Man from the basic stock of Homo erectus.
Of course, the anthropologists and evolutionists will always say confidently (or in wishful thinking?) that more and more digging in the ground will eventually reveal the “missing” fossils that will fill this gap and also will fill the 12-million-year gap between the earliest and latest Hominids.
In fact, Richard E. Leakey, following in his great father’s footsteps, has recently announced new fossil-finds at Lake Rudolph in northern Kenya, including “what is almost certainly the oldest complete skull of early Man.”9
He means a species of genus homo, not a Hominid of the Australopithecine type. This would antedate Homo erectus by far and put true Man’s ancestry, back to 2.5 million years ago. However, these finds are too new yet to be fully evaluated and accepted, and Leakey’s opinion must be called tentative. He first of all makes the startling suggestion that the Homo genus was contemporary with the Australopithecines, and that they both came from a common ancestral line (another unfound missing link), from which Homo broke off about 4 million years ago. This is highly speculative, it must be said, and will have to await much more close study by others than Leakey himself.
Obviously, Leakey is striving to fill that 12-million-year gap between the early and late Hominids, and he puts his faith in further fossil finds to bridge the chasm. But this easy way out of thinking more fossils will conveniently be found – is sternly denied by Ernst Mayr of Harvard, leading authority in evolutionary matters.10 He refers to the Sewall Wright Effect which postulates that missing fossils are those of a species of such low population, or of such short duration in the geological scale, that there was little chance of a highly accidental event like fossilizing to occur. In short, an extinct species of numerous members existing for millions of years will, by the law of averages, leave a few of its fossilized skeletal parts around, whereas species of low numbers and brief tenure may leave none.
It sounds very logical – except for the fact that fossils of the second type have been found many times, notably Steinheim and Swanscombe Man. The rarity of the species is no guide to whether it will show up or not. And the finds of the bone-digging anthropologists cannot depend purely on geographical luck. They most often dig in the most likely places for any particular type of fossil, hence putting the odds strongly in favor of finding even the rarer species.
At any rate, Mayr chided his fellow evolutionists on this score, saying that bringing up the Sewall Wright Effect as an “explanation” for gaps in the fossil record is very “far-fetched” – a “cover-up” that may soothe the mind of the harassed anthropologist with the thought of missing fossils, but hardly scientific when it is a wholly “manufactured” excuse.
True, new finds like those of Leakey in Tanzania are great “bonanzas” that help fill the fossil gap for recent Hominids, but to blithely believe that “the more digging, the more fill-in fossils” is tantamount to believing in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Some fossil gaps will never be filled out, simply because there are no such “progressive” fossils. That is a false hope based on one great fallacy of Evolution – that an endless chain of microchanges in any certain species eventually results in a macrochange. This is disputed by the majority of evolutionists today.
In fact, Evolution Theory today no longer follows classical Darwinism, except for a stubbornly faithful group. Not that the remaining majority of evolutionists have agreed on any single concept or principle to replace Darwinism.
They have instead fragmented it into three separate “modes.”11
- Speciation: The formation of new subspecies and species by means of “point mutations,” a complex viewpoint that is sponsored mainly by geneticists.
- Phyletic Evolution: Paleontologists work at this phase, sorting out large groups of fossils into phylogenies, or “family trees.”
- Macro-Evolution: The concept that major changes in a species result from a long series of micro-changes.
But a fourth group has arisen that denies any evidence of micro-Evolution being necessary for macro-Evolution. Instead, they believe in Quantum Evolution, wherein species, for some unaccountable reason, make a sudden jump into a major change.
In the case of the origin of Man, this form of Quantum Evolution is plain to see and is the only possible concept that fits the facts.
And the cause of these “mysterious” quantum jumps would not baffle the experts if they accepted this book’s proposal of wholesale biomanipulations by the starmen who created Hybrid Man and “jumped” from Homo erectus to Neanderthal Man to Cro-Magnon Man (the human race) in “macro” style.
The authors believe that, by the end of this book, they will have presented overwhelming evidence that this can be the only answer to Man’s origin.
We are now done with the pre-human Hominids and will deal with the various genus Homo species, or the “true” men, who have hardly any simian characteristics. The time period advances to about 600,000 years ago, the final days of Australopithecine Hominids. As we saw in the previous chapter, the first Homo species came in at that time – Homo erectus.
When Homo erectus rather mysteriously died out 300,000 years ago, we suggested that this might very well have been an extinction planned by the starmen to make room for newer and better Homo species.
The picture is not at all clear, from the fossil records, as to just what happened next. Anthropologists only know that Homo neandethalensis sapiens appeared 110,000 years ago, after that fossil gap of almost 200,000 years. Neanderthal Man was a great leap forward in the Evolution of Man, for his brain was much larger than primitive Erectus – 1,400-1,500 cubic centimeters and about 975 cubic centimeters, respectively.
There are two fossils that form the only possible link between Erectus and Neanderthal, but they both appear “out of place” in the time scale and hence are among those baffling anomalies that give anthropologists sleepless nights.
One is Swanscombe Man, of perhaps 250,000 years ago, who amazingly has a skull shaped almost like modern Man’s, plus a brain capacity close to ours. As one paleoanthropological writer puts it when talking about the Swanscombe skull bones found:
Their size, their proportions and particularly their curves are much the same as modern Man’s; they are definitely not those of Homo erectus. This is absolutely astonishing. What on earth was a modern-looking skull like that doing way back there?1
A verbatim quote! From an apparently stupefied anthropologist.
He goes on to say that the Swanscombe skull:
seems to indicate a kind of precocious modern Man sneaking into the picture along with, or even before, Neanderthal Man.
The reason he and his colleagues are “absolutely astonished” should be apparent. If a more modern skull and brain (Swanscombe) shows up ahead of a less modern skull and brain (Neanderthal), then Evolution is working backward. This almost undermines Darwin’s theory in itself (in the case of mankind only), for the whole concept of natural selection is that Evolution always goes forward to better and better species.
Yet how easily Swanscombe can be accepted in the Hybrid Man theory!
He would simply be the result of an abortive genetic experiment by the starmen, an attempted “improvement” on Erectus, say, one that didn’t work out. Perhaps, in spite of his “modern” skull, his brain was inferior because of a low blood-supply, or a paucity of nerve paths, or some other cerebral blemish that made him an inferior specimen of Homo. Only three bone-parts of one Swanscombe skull have ever been found, and we can assume this rarity means his stock was not allowed to perpetuate itself. The starmen superbiologists did not want this “freak” with faults to continue as a species.
One other skull, that of Steinheim Man, comes from that 200,000-year gap, and is also too “advanced” for its time. Unlike anthropologists to whom this threatens the very foundations of Evolution, our Hybrid theory can again accept it without fear – in fact, welcome it – as another abort in the great biogenetic program of the starmen.
We want to repeat this point: that out-of-place skulls and misfit Homo specimens bolster the Hybrid Theory, strongly indicating that a Man-controlled kind of “Evolution” was being practiced, with certain setbacks coming up during the experimentation.
But the evolutionists can only wish that those two missing links (Swanscombe and Steinheim) were missing in the fossil record.
Exit Swanscombe and Steinheim. Enter Neanderthal. But he, too, was apparently an abort, for he also vanished from the scene by 35,000 B.C.
This again is astonishing, because Neanderthal lasted some 200,000 long years altogether and spread widely over the Old World, with very heavy concentrations in Europe and the Middle East. His population might have been in the multiple thousands or even millions at its peak. And his brain-case of 1,400 cubic centimeters was larger than a modern Man’s (average, 1,300 cubic centimeters).
Then why should this seemingly successful Homo species die out to the last man?
To this day, anthropologists have no positive answer, though many vague theories have been presented, none of which holds water. One example is that three Ice Ages that occurred in its time wiped the species out – but the Ice Ages never reached the Middle East, where Neanderthal was firmly entrenched.
This seems to fairly shout that the true answer, again, must lie with the starmen. Something was “wrong” with Neanderthal, which finally became apparent after his “trial” period on Earth of 75,000 years. What that “wrong” factor was can only be guesswork. A big brain but small mental capacity? A muscle-bound body? – Neanderthal was a mass of muscle. Some defect in his hands that made him clumsy with tools?
Nobody knows – except the starmen.
When the sad truth faced them, we can picture how the starmen sighed and again consigned an experimental Hybrid human to the list of extinct creatures. In what manner, we cannot fathom. But that it was humane seems unquestionable, for superintelligent colonizing aliens like that must have long ago bred all cruelty out of their systems and their society.
However, Neanderthal may not have been totally wiped out. One school of anthropology sees distinct traces of the Neanderthal physique in certain members of the human race, those who are extremely bulky in build, with low, beetling foreheads and hairy bodies. If true, this means that, though Neanderthal as a species vanished from the scene, he had managed to intermarry with Cro-Magnon to some extent and thus left his mark in Homo sapiens to come. (Again, other anthropologists believe that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, being two distinct species, could not interbreed at all.)
But whether or not Neanderthal disappeared without a trace or left something of himself in the human gene-pool, this prehistoric Homo once again adds support to the Hybrid theory. Every great anomaly in the chain of subhuman species is a bad blow to classic Evolution but a big boost for the Hybrid concept.
And the greatest riddle of all now comes up – where did Cro-Magnon Man, the first of our own Homo sapiens species, come from 35,000 years ago?
Not from Erectus, too great a jump. Not from Swanscombe or Steinheim, offshoots showing no cranial relationship. Not from Neanderthal, a quite different species.
Then, from where? From the starmen.
And that, quite simply, would solve another enormous anthropological mystery if our premise is right. Starmen at last made earthmen, in their worldwide “biolaboratory,” in their own image. Or something similar.
The disappearance of Neanderthal Man and the advent of Cro-Magnon Man at approximately the same time is one of the truly big stumbling blocks to the Evolution theory, for they are non sequitur species. Neanderthal most decidedly could not be the direct ancestor of Cro-Magnon, for they were two distinctly different types of human, physically and even skeletally.
Neanderthal was a squat, heavily muscled, beetle-browed kind of Man whose culture, from the numerous relics collected with his fossil bones, was at the most primitive level. He was the traditional “caveman.”
Cro-Magnon was taller, slimmer, with finer bones in his skull and face. His culture was a great magnitude above Neanderthal, as evidenced alone by the exquisite cave paintings he left depicting people and game animals. Cro-Magnon was classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, or the same species as modern Man.
Oddly enough, the early Cro-Magnons of 35,000 B.C. had a larger average brain-case than we do today (1,400 cubic centimeters compared to 1,300 cubic centimeters). Cro-Magnon is called our direct “ancestor,” meaning that by gradual and subtle transitions, he became modern Man.
Since Neanderthal vanished around 35,000 B.C., and CroMagnon came on stage at the same time, one theory is that the latter killed off the former as an inferior competing species. But anthropological consensus now holds this as very doubtful and believes that the two species never really met except in sporadic encounters.
The abrupt disappearance of Neanderthal remains one of the greatest “whodunit” mysteries of mankind.
Neanderthal gave rise to another anomaly that again deals Evolution a low blow. As reported from the book quoted before:
Neanderthal Man endured both cold and mild cycles with apparently equal success. He continued to exist in western Europe right up to about 35,000 years ago, and then he abruptly disappeared. The evolutionary tendencies that he exhibited during this period are extremely puzzling. For he seems to have gotten more “primitive,” not less so. The last fossils we have from western Europe are even squatter, bulkier and more beetle-browed than their predecessors.2
In addition to stopping abruptly, the classic Neanderthaler is replaced with equal abruptness by people like ourselves [Cro-Magnons]. There is no blending, no gradual shading from one type to the other. It is as if modern men came storming in and dispossessed the Neanderthalers.
Classical Evolution theory simply cannot account for these two events. First, the abrupt disappearance of a whole well-entrenched species, plus the abrupt debut of a better species. Second, the fact that the Neanderthal species retrogressed and became more primitive as time went on. Natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest are square pegs that cannot be hammered into those round holes, whereas the Hybrid Theory easily accounts for them.
Who else but bio-overseers of a grand Man-creating program brought about the abrupt disappearance of Neanderthal, and then suddenly ushered in Cro-Magnon? Those events almost cry aloud that someone behind the scenes was manipulating early men as they would characters in a play.
Moreover, the de-evolution of Neanderthal even more loudly proclaims that the starmen perhaps introduced retrogressive genes into the race in order to wipe them out humanely over a period of time. Any species that becomes progressively more primitive is sure to lose out in the great worldwide struggle for survival, where competition is so keen.
Again, if Cro-Magnon was not, by any stretch of imagination, a descendant of Neanderthal nor from Swanscombe and Steinheim Man, where did he come from, with such a grand sweep he could take over the whole world, unchallenged, from 35,000 B.C. to date?
The fossil record, on which the anthropologists depend so heavily, leaves them out on a limb. But the Hybrid Theory forthrightly fits the Cro-Magnon enigma into its mold as the final great climax of the starmen’s project in molding Man out of his primate breeding stock. The “abruptness” of his appearance is then no longer a riddle but simply the expected culmination after the starmen built up an original nucleus of humans and then sent them out to “inherit the earth.” And it may well prove that the Bible is mainly a history of the starmen and their colonizing project.
For example, we have it from both the Bible and fossil finds that mankind seems to have had limited focal points from which he spread out, in six movements. Three such focal points are Africa, Asia, and the Mediterranean. But by far the greater focal point is in the Holy Land, from which three huge, spreading movements spoked out.
Could nature devise such a perfect system for spreading mankind over all Earth? Or was it a Starman-made plan, in which groups of Homo sapiens were separately “raised” in those focal areas and then sent to migrate around the planet?
Even among evolutionists, there is a suspicion that there may be an unknown guiding force behind the workings of natural selection. It is called the “Watchmaker,” an allusion to a master craftsman who alone can put the tiny and intricate parts of a fine watch together. So, too, there is hypothesized a Watchmaker who is “putting together” the parts in the mysterious “plan” of Evolution.
Norman Macbeth, in his critical book on Darwinism, finds that many evolutionists write as if influenced by anthropomorphism.3 That is, they forget natural selection is an impersonal force, working at random and not a planning force.
Darwin himself, he points out, said that:
natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing … every variation [in the species], even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working … at the improvement of each organic being. (Italics added.)4
The words we have italicized certainly are anthropomorphic, as if natural selection is a sentient force. Darwin did not mean it that way, but perhaps subconsciously he wondered if someone or something – a third party – had a guiding hand in Evolution.
And, of course, the someone or something would be the starmen, even though Darwin apparently had no inkling of them.
Again, a sober and well-known botanist repeatedly speaks of natural selection as a “guiding” or “directive” force, at one point likening it to a sculptor creating a statue by removing chips (species that become extinct) from a block of marble.5
That book’s author remarks on his own that natural selection is supposed to be a random force that replaces all Watchmakers or other guiding powers, so that Evolution can be explained without calling in any external agency. Then he quotes another eminent evolutionist who speaks of the “opportunism” of Evolution, yet tries to deny any anthropomorphic implications.6
But if natural selection is opportunistic, that means it does things that are not due to blind chance.
If something does not work solely by blind chance, who is tipping the scales?
As an example of natural selection working in inexplicable ways, G. G. Simpson quite frankly admits that he cannot explain (by the rules of Evolution) why the average stature in the United States has increased since 1900.7 There is simply no reason for it, if the rest of the human race does not also increase its average height.
We, too, will frankly admit that if the starmen biologists are behind that oddity, neither do we know why. Our theory cannot answer everything, naturally. Still, that anomaly further undermines the foundations of natural selection, which in turn bolsters the theory of an Earth colony guided by Watchmakers from the stars.
Again and again, top-notch biologists, anthropologists, and all-round evolutionists speak of certain “marvels” and “wonders” in the evolutionary history of various species that seem beyond the workings of natural selection.
Simpson, in 1969, made an extraordinary statement that is really food for thought. He said that natural selection:
is usually and most strongly a stabilizing, normalizing influence preventing or slowing down and not hastening evolutionary change.8
Stabilizing and slowing down evolutionary change!
Then natural selection certainly did not make mankind spring forth and develop a great brain in a few million years. It would have slowed down that process. That practically eliminates Evolution as the factor behind the origin of Man and leaves it wide open for our theory – that the starmen biogeneticists speeded up mankind’s debut, circumventing the slowdown tendencies of natural selection.
Just as the California Board of Education stipulated that the biblical Creation theory must be given equal status with Darwin’s Theory, some scholars in the evolutionary field have voiced similar thoughts, apparently disillusioned with the shortcomings of the concept of natural selection.
Dr. Robert Broom, noted paleontologist, came out with a pronouncement that probably staggered all his colleagues, saying it was clear to him that Evolution was accomplished not by natural selection or mutations, but by spiritual beings of various grades and various kinds of intelligence.9
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 involves 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 anthroologists] 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 200,000 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 open-air 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.
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 prone 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:
In short, each of these animals can be set apart from the others by individualistic traits. And this table, prepared by one of the world’s foremost anthropologists, is of paramount importance as scientific support for the Hybrid Man theory.
Out of it leaps this tremendous fact: Of the higher primates, Man has 312 physiological characteristics peculiar to humans alone, many more than any other species.
Does this sound as though Man were some “close relation” to the great apes? Not if Man has three times as many differences from his “fellow primates” as any of the other specimens.
This seems to us convincing evidence that significantly lifts our concept out of the hypothetical class into a bona fide theory. And into a theory with such immense supportive evidence that it can, in our opinion, seriously challenge the classic Theory of Evolution.
Or, to put it another way, let us advance our thinking one more enormous step.
Let us suppose that if we knew all the facts of Man’s origin, each and every one of those unique peculiarities of humans could be perfectly explained by reason of those characteristics having evolved elsewhere than on Earth – namely, in Man’s space-ancestors on some other planet.
That puts us in new country again, breathing the fresh air of pioneer thinking.
For now we can begin to sketch in the first faint outlines of what our outer-space sires looked like and how they acquired unique non-earth-evolutionary characteristics that exist in their bodies – and perforce in our bodies here on Earth.
Is this to be our first glimpse of people we will meet some day? A meeting of ancestors and Hybrid progeny?
First we will point out that beyond Sir Arthur Keith’s purely physical and anatomical attributes setting mankind apart from the primates, there are almost as many physiological differences, as partly listed before.
We shall now take those up one by one and also try to explain each in turn. In this chapter we will take up a major human mystery – why is Man the only truly hairless mammal on Earth?
In an authoritative book quoted from before, we are told that out of some 4,237 species of mammals existing today, all are hairy or at least partly haired.2 Some semi-hairless creatures can be eliminated for special environmental reasons – ground-burrowing moles who always remain warm underground, armored animals like the armadillo, the wings (only) of bats, and aquatic animals like the whale and dolphin where streamlining has dictated a paucity of hairiness.
But, the author concludes, “the naked ape [Man] stands alone, marked off by his nudity from all the thousands of hairy, shaggy, or furry land-dwelling mammalian species.”
Then his “punch line,” so to speak:
If the hair has to go [in any species’ evolutionary development], then clearly there must be a powerful reason for abolishing it.
But how does an animal species devise of its own doing such a “powerful reason”?
According to Evolution, there is nothing unique in Man’s background that could be classified as a “powerful reason.” The sentence should really read, “then clearly there must be a powerful reason, in the hybridization experimentation of the starmen, for abolishing it.”
Doesn’t this statement suddenly make great sense? Now, just why would the starmen want Hybrid Man to be hairless, when a fur pelt is such good protection against cold and wounds and other hazards of daily living?
Explanation. It may have been an accidental gene-trait transmitted to mankind during mating experiments of the starmen with the early men, simply because the starmen themselves were already hairless.
Why hairless? Because an intelligent race that has existed for long ages would obviously have worn clothing all that time, long enough to cause their own evolutionary change to hairlessness.
An Arctic explorer’s skin, in his single lifetime, will adapt and become “tough” to withstand bitter conditions (even though it is not a trait inheritable by his children). But if the opposite happens, and men are constantly protected from any adverse environment, then the skin will not toughen up and will, indeed, let its hairy pelt wither or thin out.
In time, that is. And remember, the starmen had tens of millions of years for such evolutionary processes to operate, to the point where the gene of hairlessness became universal in all their race. But they, in turn, speeded it up and changed Man on Earth from the hairy Homo erectus to hairless Homo sapiens in a mere 500,000 years.
Doesn’t that one glaring fact admit of no other explanation than the Hybrid theory? Darwin and Wallace both, and most evolutionists to this day, find Man’s naked skin the greatest stumbling block to claiming earthbound natural selection for being the sole origin of Man.
To recapitulate: A hundred years ago, Darwin himself asked why Man did not have fur (hairy pelt) and found no really satisfactory answer.3 He knew that the Australian aborigine, who has never worn clothes, is as hair-shy as Western Man. The monkeys and apes had an equal amount of time in which to develop hairless skin, but they did not.
We are maintaining that only the concept of Man as a Hybrid explains this enigma fully, completely, and perfectly.
To reiterate for clarity’s sake, Man’s lack of a pelt could be a direct inheritance from his outer-space ancestors. It is probable that a race which has been evolving for many millions of years would have worn clothing for eons and thus lost the need for protective hair.
Then, when Man’s outer-space ancestors came to Earth and crossbred with the highest ape forms, a similarly hairless manlike creature was produced. This hybrid creature developed not just as a median form of Man with a reduced amount of hair but as an advanced form with no coarse hair, like the American Indians, who have no facial hair and do not shave. There is, however, apparent among humans a retrogressive type that has a virtual coating of real fur or, at least, very heavy hair. These varieties have been seen at the beaches. We will show how they, too, fit our theory, in a later chapter about simultaneous regression.
It almost seems axiomatic to say that, if evolutionary forces were entirely and solely responsible for Man’s relatively hairless condition, then monkeys, apes, and other primates should show various gradations of hairless and hairy skins, for they have had equal time in which to develop such a condition.
But all the primates are thickly endowed with hairy fur. Man’s hairless skin, therefore, supports the concept that Man can only be a unique hybrid, setting him completely apart from every earthly beast known.
A whole book by a noted zoologist, under the title of The Naked Ape,4 was devoted to this strange “anomaly.”
We are not yet done with the question of hair.
Each earthman carries another mystery of Evolution with him at all times – in the mop of hair on the top of his head. For, although Man is classified as a primate, he has very long hair on the top of his head – a characteristic possessed by none of the anthropoids.
If it is thought that only the ape’s arboreal life keeps him “bald” by means of branches constantly yanking out his head hair, zookeepers have observed that, when, living in safe cages rather than trees, apes still do not grow hair on the head.
The female of our species also possesses very long hair on the head, which is again a characteristic that no other mammal displays. Where did this extraordinary topknot come from? What is its purpose, and why did Man evolve it though no other member of the primate family did? Then, too, how does the long-hair characteristic tie in with the Hybrid theory?5
We again go back to when Man (Starman) evolved on a distant planet many millions of years ago. The passage of time and the unfolding of normal social patterns would, in the due course of time, cause Starman to adopt clothing, as we have stipulated.6
But in time, extraterrestrial Man would also adopt the custom that still prevails in many sections of our world, of covering the head with some form of hat or cap. An unusual and disturbing discovery may have been made one day. It may have been recognized that the cultures that adopted and maintained head-coverings for use indoors and out become slightly and, in some cases even greatly, decadent. Culturally, scientifically, ethically, and in other ways, their progress began to stop. These conclusions may have been at an unconscious rather than a conscious level.
It is sufficient for this book’s theory, to speculate that our outer-space ancestors concluded that those cultures that went bareheaded were the ones that evolved most rapidly toward the ultimate in civilization.
No, we are not violating the scientific procedure and fitting a fictional fact to our theory. There is a real reason for bareheadedness being conducive to mental progress, because during cold weather the unprotected head needs an additional supply of blood in order to maintain a normal temperature. This increased blood-supply is then accompanied by nourishment that produces an increase in mental and creative activity.7
And so, long long ago, Starman progressed, did research, and invented. He toiled toward ever more shining goals, and he did it all bareheaded, whether knowingly or not.
The hair may also have become lengthy because there was a long period of time on Starman’s original home-world – perhaps a stretch, say, of a million years – in which the head was the only unclothed part of the body in fair weather or foul. Nature gradually evolved hair follicles on the head that would grow long, luxuriant hair.
Thus, we can see how our own earthly topknot of hair, possessed by no other primate, is no mystery at all if it came as a direct hand-me-down from our outer-space ancestors. It is one more physiological piece of evidence that we humans may indeed be hybrid creations of starmen by odds, perhaps, of, in our estimation, ten to one.
No hair over our bodies, unlike the primates, yet flowing hair atop our heads, again unlike the anthropoids. Evolution could never have pulled that double trick, which is totally against the principles of natural selection.
One more point, based on sound scientific fact, adds to the “hair clue” for Man’s hybrid status.
In the womb, a human fetus is endowed with hair all over – which is lost a month or two before birth. Dwell on that a moment.
As is well known, the human fetus goes through all the rudimentary stages of total Evolution, from a fish-like and amphibian form to the mammalian, finally. But if all other primates and animals produce fetuses that remain hairy at birth, why should Man alone come out naked?
We are apes only up to the prenatal moment when we become Man.
That magic moment, in the womb, brings forth a touch that can perhaps be called divine, for the starmen too are the creatures of God. At that magic moment when we lose our hair as an unborn child, we are forever human … nonearthly … exalted above all lesser animals. We are also consigned to being alone on this planet, estranged and separated by a vast gulf from our animal companions, who are at best distant half-cousins to us. We are demigods among common creatures.
And this, you see, goes into the mystic reaches of religion itself, an attribute of Man’s mental and spiritual life unknown to animals that very likely was also brought to us by the starmen.
And still we are not done with this “hairy” anthropological problem of Man with his naked skin.
Note this quotation from a book referred to before:
In order to clear up a strange feature of our [slight] body-hair tracts. Close examination reveals that on our backs the directions of our tiny remnant hairs differ strikingly from those of the apes. In us they point diagonally backwards and inwards toward the spine.
This follows the direction of flow of water passing over a swimming body and indicates that, if the coat of hair was modified before it was lost, then it was modified in exactly the right way to reduce resistance when swimming.8
From this, the author mentions how certain anthropologists drew the daring thought that before he [Man] became a hunting ape, the original ground ape that had left the forests went through a long phase as an aquatic ape [italics mine].… He is envisaged as moving to the tropical sea-shores in search of food (and) during this process, it is argued, he will have lost his hair like other mammals that have returned to the sea [dolphin and whale, for instance].
This rather farfetched theory does seem to explain one thing: why humans are so agile in water while our closest living primate relative, the chimpanzee, is so helpless he quickly drowns.
However, the fossil evidence for Homo aquatis is absolutely nil (at least so far), and thus the above hypothesis perforce becomes null and void at the start.
Still, how can this “patterned hair” be accounted for, if not by earthly Evolution?
Again, we can fit it into our theory of Man’s extraterrestrial-in-part origin, along with certain assumptions.
Let us assume that after the “space age” began for the starmen, they thereafter indulged in a tremendous amount of space travel. This would include perhaps lifelong trips to faraway colony worlds, or even generations of travel with periods of high-g acceleration and deceleration.
Now, as NASA has pointed out, the easiest way to survive high-g forces with aplomb is to be immersed in water. Most of the shock and strain of accelerative forces are canceled out by the cushioning liquid medium in which the crew is submerged.
If we postulate millions of years of space travel by the colonizing stem of the Starman race, we see that evolutionary forces would have time to work and streamline their body hair for swimming. For it would be deadly dull to merely float for years in a tub of water aboard the spaceship. A bit of ingenuity would devise huge tanks in which the crew members – including women and children on colonizing trips – would swim and enjoy aquatic sports.
Or we might make the alternative assumption that during their planet-hopping activities the starmen settled at times on “water worlds” consisting of vast oceans and little land. Quite logically, they might gradually switch to an underwater life; evolutionary and mutational strains might have been produced that became perfectly adapted to a “swimming life.” In due time, this would genetically cause the hair on their backs to become streamlined for swimming, and this trait would be pooled into their racial genes.
Speculative as this may sound, it is no more speculative than the “missing marine link,” whose fossils have never been, and perhaps never will be found on Earth at the seashores. And most disastrous of all to such a theory is the implication that our Hominid ancestors first lived on the land, then took to the sea for an age, and once again returned to the land. But why haven’t the whale, dolphin, or seal likewise returned to the land from the sea? This triple switch-about never occurred with any other creature and becomes highly untenable when applied to humanity.
Evolution is here standing on sand – wet sand. If it has no better way for explaining mankind’s patterned hair, displayed by no other earthly primate, then we think that this hair anomaly comes from the superadvanced “primates” of space who fashioned Hybrid Man.
We will now take up further key physiological clues that point to Man being a star-bred Hybrid and not a product of purely earthly Evolution. The points below are all human peculiarities that anthropologists, anatomists, and physiologists have been unable to fit into what Man should be, according to evolutionary rules.
We will then show how these arresting details of Man’s makeup can only be successfully attributed to inheritance from nonearth beings.
1. Man alone sheds copious and “special” tears.
The shedding of tears – from dust in the eyes, an irritation, or when crying from emotion – is a commonplace we take for granted. But it becomes a truly singular ability when you suddenly realize that no other primate, or any animal, can shed tears as we do.1
Yes, many animals can shed tears too. But of a limited quantity, with a vast difference in both degree and kind.
The tear-making ability is obviously for the protection of the eye, mostly to “wash” it. But where it takes heavy dust, severe irritations, and painful injuries to make an animal’s tear-ducts work, Man’s eyes water at the wispiest kind of dust of the finest particles, and Man will even find his eyes watering in a strong wind or from the sting of coldness. Animals display no such sensitivity to outside conditions.
But one factor is not duplicated at all by animals – the fact that humans shed “psychic” tears. By that we do not mean anything connected with the paranormal, simply connected to his psyche.
For instance, no animal sheds tears of grief or joy, nor any other emotion, as does Man. No animal can match the feat of actors who can upon demand produce tears when so required by the role they are playing. And humans shed tears far more copiously than animals.
It is this “psychic” tear-making ability that sets Man apart from the lower creatures by a margin far too wide to be accounted for by natural selection. In that case, chimps and other primates should shed emotional tears but never do.
Another curious sidelight to this matter arises. It is possible that early men were like the animals and could only shed basic, nonpsychic tears. Unfortunately, skeletal remains cannot tell the anthropologist whether or not the specimen under consideration had the ability possessed by modern Man to shed emotional tears.2
It seems quite likely that, before the advent of Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon Man) some 35,000 years ago, all prior species of submen lacked the necessary highly developed nervous system that allowed for tears of grief, joy, frustration, anger, and all the other powerful emotions to activate the tear ducts.
Homo erectus probably only watered his eyes when volcanic dust or the smoke of raging forest fires blew fiercely into his face, or when he was suffering from the agonies of a mortal wound. He looked upon the death of others stoically, without being moved to tears. We can assume that other, finer emotions were either absent or rudimentary.
At any rate, no adequate explanation for this singular ability of a modern human to shed tears copiously, not only for the eye’s protection but from an overwhelming emotional bout within himself, has ever been advanced by the evolutionists. They leave the subject strictly alone.
In our considered opinion, it seems quite likely that on Earth, Man alone acquired the large-capacity tear ducts that could supply endless quantities of tears.
And the moment it is assumed that Man is a Hybrid, a possible explanation exists of how Man acquired the ability to shed tears. It could simply be an ability that came from Man’s interstellar ancestors, who brought it with them across the vast cold of space, and that they, in turn, inherited from their forebears.
This, of course, does not explain why and how our ancestors acquired this peculiar ability. An interesting line of reasoning can be used, however, to solve the mystery.
Previously, we have postulated that planet after planet was colonized, then discarded in due course of time as its atmosphere drifted away. It is well known that planets have a fairly well-defined life course: They grow green, they gradually decline, and they fade away.3 This life cycle is intimately bound up with several variable factors, but it is sufficient to comment here that planets like Mars, Venus, and Earth probably have somewhat similar life cycles, and, of course, this would include countless worlds in Outer space.
It is reasonable to suppose that once a colony was established on a planet, it tended to attempt to continue exercising tenure upon that planet. It would seem to follow that as moisture drifted away from a planet, as it has on Mars, the colony would try, perhaps by canal systems and other irrigation projects, to make up for the extremely dry conditions that were gradually overtaking the planet. Great dust storms would then be commonplace on those planets nearing the end of their human-habitable cycle.
Our ancestors have presumably lived through dozens of those terminal struggles for existence on dying worlds. It thus seems logical to suppose that over the millions of years of time, the planet-hopping starmen evolved a supersystem of washing away from their eyes the continuous irritating clouds of dust that were their lot.
In other words – tears and tear ducts were gained. Starman’s ability to have tears available to wash out his all-important eyes is most likely a natural product of his Evolution. Not Evolution as we know it here on Earth, but Evolution that took place millions of years ago, on planets that are now old and cold and dead. Mars, today, would be an excellent place to have our tear-making capabilities, for it is known that great dust storms rage over that planet during certain times of the year.4
Along with this protective mechanism for the eye, we can assume a parallel development of Starman’s emotions, finer and more complex all the time. His ever closer ties to his fellows, his growing sense of love, his keener and sharper empathy would cause him to shed tears for reasons other than physical protection of the eyeball.
He began to shed tears when his eyes somehow became the focal point or perhaps the outlet for powerful emotions at either end of the scale – grief or joy. For, after all, he could be hurt by more than a painful injury, such as the painful loss of a loved one. And he could display more than the slight glistening of basic “joy” in the eye of an animal coming upon delicious food. Starman’s soul-stirring emotional joys were triggered by far greater psychic rewards than mere food.
There we have it – Starman gaining another subtle and almost sublime means of expression, so vital in human relationships, of shedding emotional tears that told far more than words.
Therefore Man – the only earthly primate that sheds psychic tears, and very copiously – cries because he is a Hybrid of the crying starmen. If this is not the true explanation for human tears, then it still remains to be discovered by the evolutionists why Man evolved this ability when no other primate did. The other primates had the same conditions to combat as humans on Earth and the same length of time to evolve tears of emotion, but did not do so.
A telling point, we submit.
2. Man’s flexible hand and fingertips.
Another bit of mystery about the human body that fits well into the concept of Man as a Hybrid is the mystery of the extraordinary sensitivity of the skin on the hands of Man as compared to similar areas on the lower animals.5
Not only does the ten-times-more-efficient brain of Man analyze and process information sent from his finger tips with far greater efficiency than that experienced by all lower animals, but far more information is sent to the human brain per second than is sent by the paws and digits of the lower animals.
Second, Man has an intricately boned hand that can grip strongly like a chimp, yet so finely organized in structure that he can wind a watch – which no ape can do. None of the anthropoids can use his thumb and index finger to pick up small things like BB-shot, nor can he type, nor hold a pencil with enough control to fill a page with fine writing.
There are, at present, approximately 4,300 species of mammals. There is no doubt whatsoever that nature would very much like to endow many of these creatures with a sense of touch equal to that of Man. But Mother Nature has been unable to do this for exactly the same reason, we may argue, as holds for the extraordinary neural capacity of Man’s brain.
It is simply that there has not been enough time, here on Earth, for these most unusual human qualities to develop they could only develop over many millions of years upon some far-off planet or planets.
Understandably, some people will argue that Man’s use of tools through the last few hundred thousand years has cased this extraordinary skin sensitivity of the human hand. Well, if this is so, why hasn’t the kangaroo developed equal sensitivity? Kangaroos move around on their hind legs as we do and thus have their front paws free to use for a great many things. Maximum sensitivity in the skin of their “finger” pads would definitely give them advantages over other competing life-forms in their ecology.
Let’s face it, considering that kangaroos have been around this old planet far longer than Man, the concept of Man as Hybrid – whose ancestors came from outer space is the best available explanation for the supersensitive fingertips of humans.
3. Human skin’s low healing rate.
Another factor that sets mankind apart from all other animals, including the anthropoids, is the appalling ineptitude of the human skin to heal itself quickly. Our skin has no self-healing capacity comparable to the animals, whose skin wounds heal relatively swiftly, almost like magic. No stitches are ever required, either – anytime, anywhere, with any animal.
Man alone, among all earthly creatures, requires stitches to close skin wounds over a certain “threshold size,” otherwise immobilization or disfigurement results.
The starmen, as a consequence of refined and completely safe living through great technology for eons of time, probably lost the power to self-heal skin wounds. It is a tenet of Evolution that if any natural endowment of the body is not used it will in time atrophy (our append is a racial example) in the species, just as the muscle tissue of an individual will become lax and useless if it is not exercised during long hospital-confinements in bed.
Strange, isn’t it, how so many of Man’s “alien peculiarities,” as contrasted to other animals, instantly make sense through the application of our premise of extraterrestrial hybridizing intervention, which gave us an inheritance of the traits of our galactic sires.
Traits that Evolution totally fails to account for by natural selection as it occurs here on Earth among all other animals but not by Man.
4. Man’s lack of tooth gaps.
This may seem to be a minor or even trivial point, but it is not. The shape, size, and jawbone setting of teeth in fossil skulls are a major means of determining whether extinct species are Pongid apes, Hominid ape-men, or Homo representatives.
And, as has been mentioned, if our basic theory of the origin of Man is correct, there should be many odd peculiarities in the anatomical structure of Man that can be explained only through application of this theory. Happily, in the dental profession, one finds an odd fact that can be explained only by reference to the theory that Man may be a Hybrid.
In fact, nothing about human teeth is very mysterious except for one little item, and this goes by the uncommon word, “diastemata.” Diastemata means “usable, appreciable space between the teeth.”
In the dog, diastemata occurs in the very front part of the upper jaw, where the lower canine projects upward between the upper canine and the incisor. In order for this lower canine to be as long and as smoothly fitting as Evolution dictates, there is a definite space between the upper canine and its adjacent incisor tooth. This space is easily discernible and has a very useful function. It allows the important incisors to keep growing, as they are vital for hunting purposes. Thus, this trait will persist in the species for untold generations to come.
But consider Man, who has come so far up from the caves and into the Space Age Man, who is supposed to be only an Earth mammal, no different in kind, body, and brain, from any other animal who roams the Earth.
But this Man is different from all other animals; he is the only living creature without diastemata.6
Why is this so? Is it because, in part, his dentition comes from human-like species that have developed over long periods of time on some other planet?
Surely, this is a most attractive explanation. For it also explains certain minute tooth-structure characteristics that are exclusively peculiar to Man. Further, it explains how diastemata does appear in ancient human fossil skulls and then, as the brain-case becomes larger and larger in more recent specimens, the canines recede and diastemata concurrently disappears.
In our concept, the more Starman genes that were incorporated in the biological systems of the early men, the more such a characteristic as nondiastemata would show up and remain in the human stock thereafter.
It has been claimed by orthodox anthropology that Man’s increase in brain capacity, plus a change in diet to one that was largely vegetarian among the early Homos, produced this strange anomaly of the nonexistent diastemata. However, cows and horses, who are purely vegetarians, do have diastemata.
Actually, we do not know of any remains of manlike bones that are associated with fossil evidence of any but an omnivorous diet. Thus, Man should still have diastemata. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans all have diastemata and they all had equal time, with Man, to eliminate it – and didn’t.7
The Hybrid Theory alone seems to provide the one acceptable explanation for this odd freak of human dentition that also smoothly integrates with so many other anomalies peculiar to mankind alone.
To account for Starman not having teeth-spaces and transmitting that trait to us terrestrial humans, we can only make an educated surmise. Through the long development of his dental apparatus, and in order to prevent food particles from wedging between teeth and causing decay, Starman’s evolutionary process closed up the tooth gaps.
That is the whole basis of natural selection – operating through long ages to improve the species in countless ways, large and small.8
For such a change as diastemata existing with our early Hominids, then vanishing with Homo species, to occur within 2 million years is quite unbelievable. Nature works too slowly for such radical departures from the normal pace of Evolution. Only Starman’s genes and hybridization techniques could have bestowed gapless, and hence healthier, teeth on modern Man.
5. Only humans possess a layer of subcutaneous fat.
Subcutaneous means under the skin, of course. It does not refer, however, to layers of fat below the full derma, such as in hogs. This point of subcutaneous fat comes out of the “aquatic hominid” theory mentioned before, presumably bolstering it.
Other mammals who took to the sea, like the whale, dolphin, seal, and otter, for instance, have layers of fat or blubber under their outer skin, for purposes of keeping them warm in icy waters.
The fact that modern Man also has a layer of fat as part of the skin itself is supposedly evidence that he went through a phase of marine existence during his climb up the evolutionary ladder.
We don’t believe this holds water (to make a pun) but the entrancing mystery is still there because no other land mammal has a subcutaneous swathing of thin but protective fat tissue. Why should humans alone be so endowed?
We can simply surmise that Man got it from Starman. But just where and how did Starman develop his underskin fat-layer?
We can logically hypothesize that somewhere in Starman’s long, long Evolution and colonization program, there was an aquatic hominid with whom he interbred. Why not, out of the thousands of worlds he colonized? Why not a few dozen worlds covered mainly with oceans (as per previous chapter) so that the Starman colonists soon left their islands for the sea and eventually evolved into an aquatic form.
We must reiterate that Starman’s enormous stretch of evolutionary development is far different in both degree and kind from our tick-of-the-clock appearance here on Earth. Anything is possible during multi-millions of years of natural selection operating in classical style, as it must have for the original Starman race.
And thus, as the colonists from aquatic worlds returned at times to the home world, to add their-special traits to the gene pool of the entire race, Starman obtained a layer of fat – quite thin, mind you, not like the thick sheaths of whales – that henceforth became part of the inherited physiological characteristics he spread to other colonized planets – and to Earthman.
It bears repeating that all this is understandable in its true context only by realizing these processes began in Starman before even the simplest one-celled protozoan appeared on Earth some half a billion years ago. And the colonization of thousands upon thousands of diverse worlds then affected the gene pool of the home race, constantly modifying the original physical body of Homo universalis, if we may coin a term.
6. Man’s extraordinary facial mobility.
This exclusive quality of Mankind is best expressed in a previously quoted book:
As a primate species we have the best developed and most complex facial musculature of the entire group. Indeed, we have the most subtle and complex facial expression system of all living animals. By making tiny movements of the flesh around the mouth, nose, eyes, eyebrows, and on the forehead, and by re-combining the movements in a wide variety of ways, we can convey a whole range of complex mood-changes.9
… the lips of our species are a unique feature, not found elsewhere in the primates. Of course, all primates have lips, but not turned inside-out like ours.
… [We] have permanently everted, rolled-back lips.
What all this means is that we can, and often do, as anyone knows, use facial dexterity as a form of nonverbal communication. Scowls, smirks, smiles, disgust, anger, bewilderment – all these can be openly read on a human face but are forever beyond the reach of the wooden-faced ape.
And only Man displays a true smile,10 as no ape can, except in trained imitations that are meaningless and convey no type of “communication” to others of his tribe.
Finally, the book comes to its denouement over Man’s remarkable “communications” ability to “talk” with his face quite expressively without using words:
Puzzling over the significance of our unique mucous [moist] lips, anatomists have stated that their Evolution ‘is not as yet clearly understood.’11
A true understatement!
… and have suggested that perhaps it has something to do with the increased amount of sucking that is required of the infant at the breast [through the human infant’s long babyhood]. But the young chimpanzee also does a great deal of very efficient sucking and its more muscular and prehensile lips would seem, if anything, to be better equipped for the job.12
Once more, the scientists are nonplussed for an evolutionary explanation that will stick to account for Man’s mobile face and tremendously varied lip movements. Where, then, did this “puzzling” attribute come from but from our starmen sires?
One final small but not-to-be-slighted aspect of the human face might be introduced by Mark Twain’s pithy statement:
Man is the only animal that blushes – and the only one that needs to.
Aside from Twain’s typical wry humor, the statement is true. Man’s smooth, bare facial skin with its fine texture is a sensitive barometer to his inner feelings – embarrassment, anger, fear, being flustered, and many more subtle variations that we are all familiar with.
All this comes about through emotional triggers that react on Man’s internal glandular or circulatory system so as to control the flow of blood to the sensitive blood vessels in his face. Anger brings an increased flow of blood and a red face. Fear does the opposite, draining away blood and leaving the face pale.
But no primate or any animal ever blushes or indicates his internal emotional state to the eye. It is a special attribute again of Man’s mobile face and is a sort of involuntary type of “communication,” along with smiles, facial expressions, and the rest.
This blushing or flushing (or paling) trait of Man is not as unimportant as it might seem, for it clearly sets him apart from the lower animals, who never display embarrassment, for instance, in any shape, manner, or form. To even have any sense of embarrassment, one must have the mental equipment and all the finer attributes that go with it, particularly a huge repertory of emotions.
Animals may show fear, or anger, in other ways, but only in the context of a life-or-death situation, and then only instinctively. It is never part of the animal’s daily living in peaceful situations. What animal could ever flush for “hurting the feelings” of another animal?
And that, again, separates Man, with his great emotional and empathetic nervous system, from all other “cold-blooded” creatures, even if they are warm-blooded mammals.
As to how and why our starmen ancestors developed this varied ability of facial “communication,” we can simply suggest that through their megamillion years of Evolution, increasing intelligence and the need for more intimate relationships molded their facial muscles, blood vessels, and nervous systems into fine tools that could do the job.
Nature, or Evolution, comes through when something is needed.
We have three last physiological traits of mankind to inspect, to see if they can be a product of earthly Evolution, or whether they point clearly to an extraterrestrial source. Anatomically, these three human attributes are exceedingly remarkable, as we shall see as we take them up in turn.
Man’s ability to speak.
No one will deny that this is truly an ability of mankind that no other creature on Earth possesses. Dolphins may be trained in time to communicate with underwater whistles and hoots, but this communication will not even remotely resemble the intricate and highly complex system of speech used by humans.
And here we meet one of the most amazing of all revelations in anatomy. In an educational magazine, we find this report from research scientists:
… human speech did not develop ‘out of’ primate (ape) vocalization, but arose from new tissue.1
New tissue? Tissue not found in the throat of any other primate species!
Need we make the obvious statement that, quite like our facial mobility, the aforementioned new tissue came from the starmen, who probably had speech for geological ages before the first grunt came out of an ape-man on Earth.
Some gene injected into the Homo line on Earth, by interbreeding or biomanipulation, carried with it the “Instructions” for special tissue to form in the Hominid throat to enable him to shape it as a versatile instrument for uttering an incredible variety of sounds. Sounds far beyond the howls of wolves, yowls of cats, barking of dogs, or the grunts and whines of apes.
The ape may have a primitive “language” with a vocabulary of perhaps a dozen or two “words” (different sounds). Man has twenty-six alphabet sounds making up 250,000 different words in the English language alone. And he has devised some 5,000 living and dead languages, each requiring special lip-and-throat sounds of its own.
Speech by itself makes Man stand out so starkly from all the other nontalking animals on this planet that it amounts to almost clear proof of our Starman origin.
And ponder this: True speech in the modern sense did not start with either Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon Man, though they had brain weights greater than ours. They may have had a primitive language, but systematic grammarian language was “invented” suddenly, completely, and wholly unexpectedly only some 10,000 years ago at the most.
Invented? It sounds very much like language was handed to us on a silver platter! The whole riddle of “instant civilization” that has baffled all archeologists would require a whole new book.
At any rate, speech is one of the most important signposts pointing to another human ability that was imported to Earth.
Man swallows slowly.
In connection with the above, and in the pursuit of facts that may be used as supportive data for the Hybrid theory, we come to another significantly odd one.
Man swallows very, very slowly in comparison to the other animals.
Man takes about six seconds to transport food from the mouth (after the act of swallowing) to the stomach.2 All other animals have practically zero transit-time from mouth to stomach. Food in the dog’s esophagus is actually shot into the stomach.3
Can this strange fact be interpreted as being strong support for the theory that Man is a Hybrid with outer-space ancestors? Yes, it is quite easy to do so.
Man has had the dog as his companion much of the time he has had the tranquility that supposedly would cause him to swallow slowly. But man takes six seconds and the dog takes perhaps a half or a quarter of a second. It seems that something other than tranquility of existence on Earth must be involved in causing Man to have such a phenomenally long transit time from mouth to stomach.
Of course, if we accept the theory that Man is a Hybrid, we see at once that many millions of years of peaceful existence on the planets of some other star or stars could produce this slow esophagal transit-time. And so, one more unusual fact is smoothly integrated into our basic theory.
By the way, to backtrack a bit, we should note that natural selection operates in such a way as to ensure that muscles will operate in the most efficient manner possible. Thus, if the muscles that erect each individual hair in cold weather were powerful enough to produce this stiffness in one-tenth of a second, they would have to be much larger than they are. But such speed is decidedly not necessary, so these muscles are tiny mechanisms that take up virtually no space at all in mammals’ skin.
So it was with the esophagal contractual muscles of Starman, we may assume. He did not live in continuous “flight or fight” as the animals do. He could afford to swallow slowly with no fear of being interrupted or facing a fight to the death. Prior to this, undoubtedly, be had also begun to chew his food slowly, thus extracting every bit of taste pleasure out of it.
No animal can really “taste” or derive any sort of gourmet appreciation from its food when it is forced to cram that food from mouth to stomach in seconds or split seconds. That is why most omnivorous animals, including the apes (who occasionally do turn to fleshy foods out of necessity) are able to eat what humans consider “revolting” food – carrion and rotted meats, flesh with hair on it, small live animals still kicking, noisome creatures like toads and snakes, bloody intestines, and all other varieties of uncooked, uncleaned, uncut protoplasm.
It is only man who enjoys his food, savoring every subtle flavor and aroma as he eats in his nonhurried way. And it all goes back to Starman, lacking any threat to his life and having time to swallow leisurely. His esophagal contractural muscles became small, slow-acting affairs – which were then contributed into our earthly gene-pool by the starmen. It must, however, have taken millions and millions of years for gene and chromosome changes to reflect the change in the eating habits of Starman. And we know that truly manlike creatures have roamed the Earth for far shorter periods than the time necessary to effect these chromosome changes by Evolution.
Ergo: Slow swallowing in mankind, in sharp contrast to other earthly animals, is another physiological gift from the stars.
Man’s extraordinary eyes and full-color vision.
We have saved this item, the most potent of all the physiological phenomena, for the last.
We can introduce this subject best by means of an authoritative quote, with our italics added:
Scientists estimate that some 90% of all the information stored in the brain arrived there through the agency of the eyes. Not surprisingly, Man’s eyes are attuned precisely to his needs. For general seeing they are unsurpassed by any in the world.4
A hawk may see more sharply but cannot move its eyes easily and generally moves its head to follow its prey. A dragonfly can follow faster movement than a man but cannot focus a sharp image. A horse can see almost completely behind its head but has difficulty seeing objects straight ahead at close range.
Most important, among higher animals only Man and his nearest primate relatives have the special combination of full stereoscopic and color vision.
Man’s eyes, placed at the front of his head rather than the sides, can focus together on an object so that it is perceived as a single three-dimensional image in the brain. Within this image his color vision enables him to pick out details by hue as well as by form and brightness.
Taken together, color and depth perception bring Man enormous advantages over most other animals, the majority of which are color-blind and have a relatively poor capacity to judge visual distances or focus in fine detail upon particular objects.5
And to top it all off, of course, Man’s superb brain interprets the images he sees with much more precision and acumen than even the apes can muster with their second-class brains.
Therefore, Man’s eyes with an assist from his brain are unparalleled instruments for viewing the outside world, head and shoulders above the chimp and other primates as well as above all other creatures alive.
The same book goes on to specify that the human visual system can distinguish among some 10 million gradations of color.6 It can also adjust to the 10-billion-fold range between the dimmest thing it can discern (at night) and the brightest object (by day).
Now, along with Man’s astounding brain, his eyes are the next most “impossible” bodily feature that natural selection could have produced. This has been plainly stated by some of the foremost experts on Evolution.
A critical book about Darwinism declares that “the Evolution of the eye in Man … is a major mystery;” and that, small as it is,
the eye is an enormously complex structure of retina, cornea, rods and cones, visual purple, muscles, nerves, and fluids. Supporters of natural selection tend to play down this complexity, while opponents emphasize it. (Italics added.)7
Why do they tend to play it down? Because it makes hash out of the laws of natural selection. There is no way to trace the development of the eye from the most primitive forms of life all the way to the fantastically sharp seeing organ of Man.
But don’t take our word for it. Here is what the authorities say.
Dr. William Paley, Archdeacon of Carlisle, demands to know how chance alone – by the workings of “blind” natural selection – can possibly produce such elaborate designs of organs as displayed by both the human eye and brain.8
Richard B. Goldschmidt, first-class geneticist of the University of California, calls it the “famous old problem of the eye.”9 He says the development of the human eye depends on one basic premise – photosensitivity. But when you try to explain how one certain portion of human protoplasm should become selectively adapted to seeing by photosensitivity, he says, you bog down when confronted with the great number of biological details of the eye. He concludes by stating his opinion that it is “impossible” to explain the human eye and its workings via the Theory of Evolution, no matter how cleverly you mix up natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.
But the clincher comes from Professor Hardin, University of California, who stated:
“That damned eye [his italics] … the human eye … which Darwin freely conceded to constitute a severe strain on his Theory of Evolution. Is so simple a principle as natural selection equal to explaining so complex a structure as the image-producing eye? Can the step-by-step process of Darwinian Evolution carry adaptation so far?”10
Our italics follow in his final words: “Competent opinion [among evolutionists and biologists] has wavered on this point.”
And as the book’s author points out, competent opinion has never to this day come up with an acceptable explanation for the human eye.
To cap it all off, let us hear from the master himself, who quite honestly wrote in his original book on Evolution: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances … could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”11 And he never did come up with any attempt to cover that major black mark against his theory.
We think we can safely say that next to the human brain (see chapters ahead) the human pair of eyes is another strike-three count against classical Evolution. Its followers cannot explain the phenomenal eyesight of the human race, because it didn’t arise on Earth at all.
Yet, if it came from our starmen sires, just how did they obtain this tremendous visual gift?
Actually, since it seems entirely out of range of natural selection on this or any world, we cannot resort to saying that superlong stretches of Evolution produced Starman’s eye on his home-world.
The answer in that case must be genetic control and deliberate improvement of the eye on their part.
And why not? If they long ago realized, after their evolutionary climb to humanhood, that the eye furnished 90 percent of all outside stimuli to feed data to the brain, then why would they not set about to use advanced biotechniques to develop their eyesight themselves? Geneticists on Earth, who are probably one-thousandth as skilled as the starmen, are already talking excitedly of “improving” the human race by genetic means. Assuming they can isolate the genes that control the formation of the eyes and learn to manipulate them in new ways, even earthly scientists could then proudly display a man with 100-100 (percent) vision.
But by the time the starmen came to Earth to speed up Evolution for mankind, it was past history how they had endowed themselves with super-eyes. And those super-eyes, or some factor of them, were then inherited by the human race during hybridization procedures.
Super-eyes, which plagued Darwin from the start and are still plaguing evolutionists today, a century later.
Our theory of Hybrid Man being a created product of the starmen almost presupposes that their biogenetic doings are, to our limited minds, superscientific “Magic,” nothing less. Hence, our theory does not have to strain to make the assumption that Starman, on his own world, speeded up his own Evolution artificially.
Along with Hybrid Man on Earth, Starman “created” himself in his new image, vastly superior to anything the blind-chance syndrome of natural selection could ever accomplish for him. If you take the “blind chance” out of Evolution, you can save millions of years and reach your goal without false starts and aborted biological changes consuming ages of time.
So why not take over the reins from natural Evolution and improve their own breed? The marvelous human eye, the superb brain, and all the other special attributes of man may actually have been achieved by “auto-evolution.” Self-evolution as master geneticists took over the task of changing the human body and its organs into a new and superior kind of “animal species” that nature itself could never produce.
In that case, Darwinian Evolution and natural selection had no part at all in the ultimate product of the starmen, and never could have. This would account particularly for the human brain, that incredible organ that was an “overendowment” created by Starman himself, step by step, as he learned how the wondrous DNA chain of genes was the key to constant improvement of the breed.
A startling thought. A shocking thought. We will not pursue it here except to offer it as an alternative explanation to Evolution, which even in its snail-slow march might never have created the powerful brain of thinking humans.
Incidentally, classical Evolution depends heavily on natural “mutations,” members of species in whom genes randomly produce a “better” animal. By interbreeding, these mutations supposedly multiply and eventually replace the older species that is “inferior.”
Modern genetics give a resounding “no way!” to that. First of all, science has yet to discover where any species of any creature, from small to large, is presently in the stage of mutating into another type of species. And this happens to be essential to the theory of Evolution, that new species should be constantly arising as they did in the past.
Furthermore, when mutations are found in nature, they are predominantly abnormalities that are inferior to the main species, not superior. In fact, the evidence of modern experiments in producing even artificial mutants indicates that, by far, they are deleterious to the species. No useful mutations have appeared in the lab, and none are expected. The consensus is that over 99 percent of all mutated genes are harmful.
In research with humans, geneticists (who are indeed a thorn in the side of evolutionists) believe that a good gene that can reproduce and become effective is a rare event. It occurs only once in a million animals, or once in the lifetime of a million human beings. Mutations are so far apart that it happens only once in 100,000 generations.
The knock-out blow is that researchers estimate any single human gene may remain stable for 2.5 million years. Evolution’s dependence on the mutational straw it grasps is a lost cause.
On that basis, it would seem only the deliberate production of new and worthwhile genes by the starmen could reasonably have created themselves into a unique form of superbrained species that would never exist under the rules of the far-short strivings of evolution.
Reviewing all the remarkable physiological anomalies of humanity, we might point out that Man is actually a walking museum of anatomical curios from another planet, if scientists would but take note and bury their prejudices against new ideas.
It is rather ironic to think of researchers laboring in biolabs day and night, archeologists digging industriously around the world, and anthropologists painstakingly patching fossil bones together, in the attempt to solve the mystery of Man – when all it would take is to examine Man himself.
One man who recognized this is Professor John Tyler Bonner of Harvard, who deplored the lack of answers we had as to the mysteries of Evolution.12 He then said:
The answers may come with further study, but they must be discovered by physiological experiments, not by complacent speculation.
Physiological experiments! Sage words, and exactly what we are recommending in this chapter as an untapped gold mine of information about ourselves.
We might say that Man is the “hardware” (material proof) that pins down his extraterrestrial origin, and the germ of his species was really the first thing brought in from space (by the starmen), not the moon rocks of the Apollo expeditions!
If the biologists would only look, what fantastic “records” are locked up in our genes and chromosomes that ordered our transformation into a thinking, talking, inventing creature? That elevated us to a majesty and destiny beyond the power of blind evolutionary forces to mold?
The Bible constantly reiterates that “divine” intervention lifted stumbling mankind into the light. Can it be (is it heresy to seek the truth?) that starmen have been the “angels” and emissaries of God, in an indirect way, with the mission of creating sentient life on Earth? Are we the “Sons of God” by virtue of colonization by a people so highly advanced in morals, ethics, intelligence, and spiritual wisdom that it is part of a Greater Plan than we know?
If man is distinctly different from the apes and all animals in physiological ways, there is a still greater gulf between them in Man’s sexual habits and his reproductive cycle. Sexually, the human animal’s activities are vastly removed from any resemblance to animal sexuality.
This is put forth succinctly by an authority who says:
How does our sexual behavior compare with that of the other living primates? Straightaway we can see that there is much more intense sexual activity in our own species than in any other primates, including our closest relations. … The precopulatory patterns in apes are brief and usually consist of no more than a few facial expressions and simple vocalizations.
Copulation itself is also very brief. In baboons, for instance, the time taken from mounting to ejaculation is no more than seven or eight seconds, with a total of no more than 15 pelvic thrusts, often fewer. The female does not appear to experience any kind of orgasm.1
Pointing out that sex foreplay occupies a much longer time between human couples, that the actual joining takes minutes rather than seconds, and that both the female and male often enjoy mutual orgasm, the author concludes:
Clearly, the naked ape [Man] is the sexiest primate alive.
We hardly need proof, looking around at the 4 billion or more human beings living on Earth today, outnumbering all animals by species except perhaps a few prolific rodents. It is nothing less than superfecundity. (And that, incidentally, is also a hallmark of the breeding vigor of any hybrid – another clue to our basic theme’s soundness.)
Why is Man, far above and beyond any other animal, such a sexually active creature? The human female, first and foremost, has no counterpart in the animal kingdom, for she alone:
- Enjoys orgasm during sex intercourse.
- Is almost always “in heat.”
- Has a vaginal angle conducive to either front or back mating.
- Possesses voluptuous breasts and buttocks that are spurs to male desire.
- Possesses a hymen during virginity.
Taking these traits in turn, the author above states:
If there is anything that could be called an orgasm [in female apes] it is a trivial response when compared with that of the female of our own species.2
The orgasms experienced by human females are hardly a “trivial response,” as most males on Earth well know. It is part and parcel of the sex act among us, usually expected and often taken for granted. The passion and body response of the female during coitus make her an equal partner to the always-eager male, a situation that is obtained with no other animal on Earth, apes included.
They do not “enjoy” sex in the sense that humans do. It is more a “reproductive duty” instilled instinctively in them to ensure the survival of the species.
Again it is pointed out that:
If the human male continues to copulate for a longer period of time (than the briefest time required), the female also eventually reaches a consummatory moment, an explosive orgasmic experience, as violent and tension-releasing as the male’s. … Some females may reach this point very quickly (and enjoy repetitions). … But on the average it is attained between ten and twenty minutes after the start of copulation.3
And that also is a vast departure from copulating male animals, all of whom reach their ejaculatory climax in seconds. Human males take minutes and can often extend the sex act longer than a half-hour in order to give the female maximum orgasmic delight and also to increase the degree of his own climactic rapture when he reaches his orgasmic paroxysm.
Only in Man, and Woman, is there “sex for sex’s sake,” or embraces outside of the want or need for offspring, purely for the sensory ecstasies involved. In fact, what with birth-control methods and social acceptance of sex “fun” as normal, there is far more indulgence in sex for pure pleasure than for conceiving children.
There is more than just a hedonistic pleasure-seeking syndrome in this. Man’s essential drive for sex contacts and gratification thereof is definitely linked with his intelligence, incredible as this may seem. Also much of culture, ethics, indeed the fabric of civilization itself, is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Man’s great preoccupation with sex gratification, for it all involves the very hormones and brain stimulants that suffuse the human body, and also sublimation of the sex-drive into creative channels.
But let us return to the basic factors, which are established scientific fact, that make men and women the sexiest animals alive.
Point number two – human females are always in heat. The previous oft-quoted authority says:
The period of sexual receptivity of the female monkey or ape is more restricted [than in humans]. It usually lasts for about a week, or a little more, of their monthly cycle. Even this is an advance on the lower mammals, where it is limited more severely to the actual time of ovulation, but in our own species the primate trend toward longer receptivity has been pushed to the very limit, so that the [human] female is receptive at virtually all times.4
That means day and night, and winter, spring, fall, and summer. There is no “closed” season.
He points out another thing completely unknown among the primates or lower animals:
Once a female monkey or ape becomes pregnant, or is nursing a baby, she ceases to be sexually active. Again, our [human] species has spread its sexual activities into those periods, so that there is only a brief time just before and just after parturition [birth] when mating is seriously limited.
One might paraphrase an old saying: Time, death, taxes, and sex go on forever.
It is also well known and accepted in modern society, as extolled in numerous “sex manuals,” that a person’s sex life need not stop (and never really has stopped) when his or her procreative years are over. People are urged, one might say, to continue enjoying sexual delights far beyond the time of menopause in women or the onset of senior years in men. We constantly read in our news media of couples remarrying in their sixties and, in many cases, not just for platonic “companionship.”
Man, the sexy animal, spreads mating delights throughout his life, almost to the hour of natural death.
And we might note this strange difference between other animals and Man, even though it does not deal with what nature bestows. In other animals, the male is endowed by nature far more attractively than the female, whereas with humans the female adorns herself with cosmetics, jewelry, perfume, and employs many other skilled ways to attract the male.
A woman hardly “dresses well” for other women, nor for herself. Let’s face it, it is to create interest and incipient sex desire in males. Much of our modern advertising, too, features the physical charms of voluptuous women, which is both an appeal and stimulant to the male’s sexual drives.
All this lifts human sex relations entirely out of the realm of animal sex under evolutionary rules. Where did all these “oversexed” aspects of mankind come from?
If we accept the assumption that mankind’s true ancestors came from space, we can also assume that the starmen, the original humans, lived for virtual eons of time on their home-planet. And there the basic laws of survival operated for those eons of time, far longer than on Earth.
If so, wouldn’t the woman who enjoyed sex the most, adorned herself to be the most ravishing beauty, and thus attracted the most desirable men into her embrace, win out in that particular “battle of the fittest,” while her weaker and less appealing sisters would fall by the wayside? If, then, random mutations eventually produced a woman (among the starmen race) who could enjoy orgasm as fully as the male, she would obviously become the choicest sex partner.
In short, she would be the sexiest and count the most males among her conquests.
And there is reason to believe, because it is the rule in the animal kingdom, that it is the human female who “invites” the male rather than the male “pursuing” the female. Social custom may twist this around but it does not conceal the basic facts.
Furthermore, this alters the popular concept that it is only the male who is promiscuous and wants to impregnate every possible female who is willing, as part of nature’s “tricks” to make the race increase. Many students of human nature in relation to the sex-drive believe that it is women who have the urge to quite naturally, if secretly, seek a wide variety of sex partners for the instinctive drive to have offspring.
And it is the human male who, through his wishes for possession of any given female, has set up moral codes and monogamous marriages, not to restrict his own promiscuousness but to confine that of the female. A sorry example is the medieval chastity belt.
This is not an attempt to call all women “wantons” by nature, but simply a review of the inescapable fundamentals of our sexual natures, in order to get the picture straight.
It is far too long and intricate a subject to go into, but quite possibly Earthman himself did not institute strict morality and marriage to limit too much sexual freedom – but that these sexual “laws,” too, came from the starmen.
Back to the human female on Earth. The breasts and buttocks of women are a universal stimulant to men’s sex urges. Yet why do our anthropoid female cousins display no such natural enticements or “feminine charms”?
Female apes have hardly noticeable breasts, mostly hidden by hair, and their buttocks protrude very slightly. The erotic effect of prominent and well-shaped breasts, and their tactile enjoyment by men (and by the women themselves) is definitely a spur to sexual union. Also the well-rounded buttocks lending a woman her seductive “curves” are a sex magnet to male eyes and gonads.
Since we cannot see how Evolution excluded all other primates to give only human females such extra sex-gifts, we again must conclude that they come from the genes of the starmen – who must have been even sexier than Earthpeople!
And we can immediately make another suggestion as to why the starpeople should have naturally (or deliberately) promoted sexual intercourse by these body developments – in order to populate the universe. To carry on a vast colonization program involving thousands of other worlds, they had to produce offspring by the millions, billions, indeed trillions.
Only great sex activity could accomplish that goal. And that sex drive came down to us. At least this is a logical attempt to explain humanity’s super sex-drives, whereas Evolution is dumb for an answer.
The vaginal angle of the human female is another great departure from the primates. As the above author puts it:
Finally, there is the basic anatomy of the female vaginal passage, the angle of which has swung forward to a marked degree, when compared with other species of the primates. It has moved forward more than would be expected simply as a passive result of the process of becoming a vertical species [walking upright].5
Now comes a direct criticism of Evolution:
Undoubtedly, if it had been important for the female of our species to present her genitals to the male for rear mounting, natural selection would soon have favored that trend and the females would by now have a more posteriorly directed vaginal tract.
But natural selection did not follow the “favored trend” and instead:
it seems plausible to consider that face-to-face copulation is basic to our species, and in America, investigators have estimated that in their culture 70 percent of the population employs this position.
But why? If it cannot be the expected result of natural selection, how did this anti-evolutionary trend ever come about?
The zoologist author has no answer himself, but we have. Namely, another sex innovation fostered through starmen’s long evolutionary climb to make mating more desirable, because in the face-to-face position the partners can kiss as well as copulate. Surely that is no small addition to the act of physical love, as no doubt most men and women reading this will agree, excluding prudes and the “sex-is-sin” contingent (if any today).
What more intimate and endearing way to make love with the acme of sensual titillations can there be than for a man and woman to embrace frontally, with both lips and genitals joined? If this produces the greatest orgasms and most copious ejaculations in men, would that not be exactly what the starmen would promote in their prolific drive to put human-like progeny on multithousands of worlds in the galaxy?
It all comes down to the ingenious utilization of the basic function of sex – to bring male sperm in contact with the female ovum in the surest and most decisive way by means of both oft-repeated sex acts and high-powered performances.
All this may seem “lascivious” in tone, but many psychologists can state the reasons why the sexual aspects of our lives are highly important by having improved our intellectual capacities and promoted the advent of invention, science, and all civilization.
Another sex “stimulant” displayed by both males and females is that our lower earlobes hang loose and fleshy – again an anatomical feature denied to any other primate. Pulling at the partner’s earlobes, or even nibbling them, is a well-known practice in sex foreplay among Homo sapiens.
We can readily surmise that through ages of time, pulling at the earlobes gradually elongated them for the starpeople, to blossom out eventually as a physical aphrodisiac. The starmen certainly did not miss a bet in perfecting the fine art of sexual lovemaking. And nature (Evolution) wholeheartedly cooperated, since she did have an axe to grind – namely, preservation of the race.
Starman extended it to the preservation of pleasure as well as race.
He aimed for maximum proliferation in order to spread his kind throughout space in all directions and to every habitable world. It was a “mission,” we can safely surmise, that was fulfilled with enthusiasm.
Last, among the sexual and reproductive aspects of the human female, we come to one more special factor shared by no other primate or animal. The female hymen.
“Another related feature,” says the zoologist we’ve quoted extensively, “and one that appears to be unique to our species, is the retention of the hymen or maidenhead in the female. … Its persistence means that the first copulation will meet with some difficulty.”6
Why the hymen should exist cannot be explained by that author, and even our explanation in this case must be rather tentative.
We can only assume that it is a protective device for the young female, to prevent dust or grime or harmful substances from inadvertently entering the vagina. (It certainly doesn’t and isn’t meant to deter a determined penis, however.)
Taking the racial point of view, the human female’s vagina is very precious. It is the life-giving receptacle that must be available to the male semen. Thus, it must be given extra protection, which no other animal receives in the same manner. Life is cheap under nature’s tooth-and-claw setup, but was far from cheap to the colonizing starmen, who could not afford to lose lives unnecessarily.
Once the young girl is ready and her first copulation breaks the hymen, it can be assumed that from then on there is no further need for vaginal protection during maturity.
This nature-grown sheath for the immature human female’s vagina can again be attributed to natural selection in the starpeople’s Evolution. Young females without the hymen would tend to develop diseases or injuries that killed them off or rendered them infertile. Natural selection would favor those who gradually developed that vaginal guard to the sex aperture, until, in time, the entire feminine portion of the race was so equipped.
Now we come to the human male and whatever special qualities he displays that relate to his sexual equipment. In his case there is only one focal point – his penis.
The peculiarity that follows is quite astounding in any and all terms – biological, anatomical, physiological, and sexual.
It seems that Man is the only primate without a penis bone.7
Not only that, in a broader degree he may be the only landroving mammal without a penis bone. How can this be? How can our supposedly infallible laws of natural selection endow and maintain penis bones in the large primates and in the largest mammal families and then, in one fell swoop, give Man and only Man the largest primate brain as well as no penis bone?
Both factors are completely out of phase with Evolution. Do we have here, in this incredible inconsistency, another beautiful example of how Man must be a Hybrid? And how his extraordinary characteristics, if correctly interpreted, lead invariably to the conclusion that Man’s ancestry, in large part, came from outer space?
To see how this fits into our Hybrid Theory, let us consider other animals. Deer, cows, dogs, cats, horses, and other animals are known to have penis bones,8 and, amazingly so do whales.9 The incomplete but already significant evidence indicates that Man is the sole land-roving mammal without such a bone.
The penis bone is recessed ordinarily but when the animal is sexually excited, the bone thrusts upward into the flesh of the penis to give it rigidity as it extends out from beneath the belly.
This situation of leaving out human males is virtually without parallel, for where nature endows one animal preferentially, she usually shows at least partial endowment of this same characteristic to related species. Astoundingly, this has not happened to Man. The other large primates all have penis bones. And why, may we ask?
There are several good reasons why animals require the penis bone, which makes their sex organ very rigid. Wild animals often have to mate rapidly out in the open and are helpless at the time and open prey for predators. So the less time taken for the sex act, the better. Also the male, in many cases, must force his attentions on the female (or at least consummate their union rapidly so she does not dash off at some sudden fright or out of impatience).
Perhaps most pertinent is the fact that the male, in almost all species, has to battle rival males to win the female in heat at the moment. By the time the fierce struggle is over, the male may be so weary and exhausted, even wounded, that if he did not have a penis bone to achieve a firm erection, the sex act might never be consummated and the species would die out.
But Man needs no penis bone. Why?
With little effort, we can trace this anomaly back to the starmen. In their case, the lack of the above mating hazards for long eons plus the human female’s ready willingness and cooperation during the sex act, would inevitably through evolutionary laws eliminate the need for a stiffening penis bone. Instead, more blood is allowed to flow into the penis at pressures sufficient to erect it to almost bone-like rigidity. This, in turn, increases the pleasure response of the penis with no space taken up by a bone that has no sensitivity and does not contribute to orgasm.
Hence, when Starman, without a penis bone, mated with early Hominid or Homo females on Earth, he genetically transmitted this same attribute to the hybrid human race that was to follow.
But much more amazing is the second endowment featured by the human male – the largeness of his penis.
It is well known to all anatomists and sexologists that the human male’s penis in erection is larger, thicker, and longer than that of any other primate. And by far.
As our authoritative zoologist puts it, the human organ:
is not only long when fully erect but also very thick when compared with the penises of other species [of primates]. The chimpanzee’s is a mere spike by comparison.10
There is a clue here to the great heights of orgasm attained by a woman during coitus, for, he continues:
This broadening of the penis results in the female’s external genitals being subjected to much more pushing and pulling during the performance of pelvic thrusts [by the male]. With each inward thrust of the penis, the clitoral region is pulled downward, and then, with each withdrawal, it moves up again. Add to this the rhythmic pressure being exerted on the clitoral region by the pubic region of the frontally copulating male, and you have a repeated massaging of the clitoris that – were she a male – would virtually be masturbatory.
In short, the male’s large penis in action not only performs the basic function of ejaculating its semen, but in the interim also “masturbates” the female and excites her sensitive clitoris so powerfully that she experiences tremendous surges of orgasmic pleasure. No wonder she “comes back for more,” so that this feature, too, enhanced the needed proliferation of the starmen, who aimed to fill the universe with their kind.
The same author has another rather wry comment on what should be Man’s most admired possession:
He [Man] is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates but attempts to conceal the fact [publicly, at any rate] that he also has the biggest penis, preferring to accord that honor falsely to the mighty gorilla.11
That huge beast, however, has a penis only half as long as a human male’s during erection. Since the average for men is about six inches, that leaves the gorilla with a paltry three inches.
This is immediately astonishing, for the male gorilla can stretch to ten feet in length and weigh nearly 500 pounds. One would automatically think such a giant creature would have proportionately larger genital organs than puny men.
Since it is likely that all earthly Hominids and Homos (with no way for anthropologists to actually check via fossils) had small penises, this again is a telling point, indicating that the modern male’s sexual apparatus was not acquired from any earthly “missing link” but from our absentee link among the stars – the starmen.
As to why the starmen should have developed such a large sex organ, there is an interesting but complex explanation involving the relationship between the spacemen and their women in general. Only the starpeople, it seems, developed a pleasure-for-pleasure’s-sake attitude toward sex, aside from its reproductive function.
This could only come from a superior brain that could reason and think and feel beyond the here-and-now and follow new lines of total body/intellect integration into areas of sensuality forever beyond animals.
And by improving the relationship between Starman and wife – and later Man and wife – via heightened sexual enjoyment, the family-unit or stable-coupling concept greatly advanced civilization in ways too subtle to follow in this book.
Man being proud of his brain but not (except in private, perhaps) his penis – that phrase may be the real keynote of it all in another way.
If we assume that the starmen have brain-cases of 3,000 cubic centimeters or more (1,300 cubic centimeters for Earthmen), the heads of their babies would be inordinately large and require women, by Evolution, to develop larger vaginas.
This would in turn spur the male to develop a larger penis. Certainly a small penis in an enlarged vagina would reduce the frictional factor during coitus and thus deprive the male, not to mention the female, of full orgasmic ecstasy. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly logical to surmise that natural selection among starmen favored men with larger and larger penises as vaginas enlarged. Through this, he would gain the favors of more women and have more children, among whom the male offspring would by inheritance also have larger sex organs, and so on.
At any rate, this incongruous anatomical riddle of the 160-pound human male having a penis twice as big as the 500-pound gorilla, if it cannot be explained by the physiologists or evolutionists, could well be explained by Earthmen being Hybrids resulting from the union of starmen with oversized, and Hominids with undersized, sex organs.
One other key anomaly in human women relates to the aftermath of sex intercourse – the reproductive cycle. In the conceiving of the human embryo, a really startling fact has baffled the physiologists.
Among all animals on Earth, only the fertilized ovum of the human female burrows into the wall of the uterus, to remain securely anchored so that the budding embryo will not be dislodged and perhaps swept away as a discharge. This is a physiological procedure that no other primate follows.1
Another reference2 points this out by saying, “It would appear that the smaller human ovum enters earlier and, unlike the monkey [and ape] ovum, soon becomes completely buried in the endometrium [outer wall of the uterus].” Further on, “Indeed, the [human] ovum behaves like an invading parasite.” Another work described it as a “savage invasion” of the uterus wall.
All this is to emphasize that the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the human female’s uterus is a much more rapid and penetrative process than in other primates. Man is again unique on Earth by his female producing an ovum that tenaciously burrows into the wall of the womb and remains far more firmly fixed than with any other animal known.
No prevailing scientific explanation is available for this distinct reproductive peculiarity of mankind. But on the assumption that Man is a Hybrid, it would be comparatively easy to explain this strange aspect of the human reproductive system as coming from our star-sires.
We can even surmise why and how our outer-space ancestors acquired this characteristic, for an answer can be postulated that is quite compatible with what is known about Evolution and the reproductive system of man. Exploring a little of the latter will contribute to an understanding of the Hybrid Theory.
Competent authorities have noted that Man’s reproductive system is superior in a very real sense to that of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and other apes. This superiority results from the fewer spontaneous abortions or accidental miscarriages that human females have, on the average, over other members of the primate family. This is due to the fact previously noted: The “savage” burrowing of the human ovum into the wall of the uterus, where it cannot be easily jarred loose by violent physical exertion or by a sudden jolt, such as a fall or minor automobile collision.
This is not true of the other primates. A fall to the ground, a fight, a life-or-death flight through the trees will often bring on miscarriage. Poof – another heir or heiress is lost forever to the family.
Man stands out distinctly on this score from other primates. It permits a very reasonable explanation. We will assume that it was on some distant planet or planets where the valuable characteristic that all human females – earthly and otherwise – now possess was first evolved. The fertilized ovum came to use great speed and force to burrow into and to become a literal part of the wall of the womb, where it remained safe and sound.
Now for our prime point.
The self-attaching, tenacious ovum probably came about after starmen achieved space travel. It was either a natural adaptation that occurred through many thousands of years and many space trips for the race, or it was a deliberate gene-induced trait because of its importance.
Why important? The well-protected ovum was then undisturbed by space flight with high-g take-off and landing due to jolting acceleration and deceleration.
In order to planet-hop, according to our basic picture of the starmen, our pregnant women forebears had to develop the superefficient ovum-burrowing technique so that they would not lose their babies when journeying to some other planet. It is conceivable that, through the millions of years Starman’s forebears could “leisurely” develop and evolve, it was those families in which this ovum-burrowing ability was most advanced that were also the most prolific, because of fewer miscarriages. Such a physical development was necessary for their constant and somewhat rough space-travel technique.
Yes, this theory would follow “classic Evolution” in the case of the starmen. We do not deny that its principles might have applied for our space ancestors, even if not for Earthmen.
The key factor is that for them Evolution had time to operate for many millions of years.
What we are saying is that mankind on Earth could not have evolved in so short a time as the anthropologists suppose, and that this time distortion badly undermines Darwin’s theory.
We think it is self-evident than any remarkable trait like the burrowing-ovum, if not shared by the other primates, means that such a trait had no time to develop in the great apes – nor in Man on Earth.
Man only obtained this inherited blessing by the grace of his star-sires.
We take up another matter now, going back to the peculiar linkage between the large human penis and the large human brain, which leads quite naturally into the subject of human babies, with heads at birth that are huge compared to any other primate. They have to be huge to contain the bulky human brain, literally gigantic in comparison to all other species.
Medical men claim that the greatest single problem when the modern female is in childbirth is that of successfully passing the enormous head of the infant through the birth canal.3
At the time of birth, the human brain comprises about 15 percent of the infant’s weight, whereas in the adult the brain is only about 2.2 percent of the total body weight. The limiting factor in the increase in Man’s cranial capacity is the ability of the human female to give birth successfully to larger and larger-headed infants.
The limit in size that can occur through birth restrictions had, quite possibly, been reached among Earth people, and ample evidence is available to support this contention. The principal proof is Aurignacian (Cro-Magnon) Man’s brain-case being larger than modern man’s by about 100 cubic centimeters or more.4 Many primitive women must have died in childbirth while attempting to give birth to extraordinarily large-headed children.
Today, when there is any question about the mother’s ability to deliver a child successfully, the doctor simply orders a Caesarian section. This surgical practice opens the way for the evolutionary development of people on Earth who have larger and larger heads, with comparable intellects.
In connection with the above, why should human women only, never animals, have birth pains? Is it because something is out of line and the baby brain is just too large for the birth canal? But Evolution would certainly not handicap any species this way, requiring the use of Caesarian section never known to nature.
Isn’t the answer boomingly clear here?
That our big-brained star-sires, by injecting their cranial genes into the Hominids on Earth, thereby caused big-headed babies to be born, even though the Earth female’s reproductive apparatus had not “caught up”? If not, what other answer is there for this anatomical discrepancy, which evolutionary laws would decisively say cannot exist?
The experts have this to say:
It was these twin needs [intellectual capacity and childhood learning] that together were responsible for perhaps the most extraordinary of all the changes which have marked man’s evolutionary history. A little reflection will show that, as the human brain grew larger, human females were faced with a peculiarly difficult situation. An infant’s skull had to be big enough to house the enlarged human brain. At the same time, it also had to be small enough to emerge through the mother’s birth canal. The obvious solution, one might suppose, would have been for females to acquire a larger birth canal. But they couldn’t.5
Why not? Why couldn’t Evolution match those two conditions?
The experts give a significant answer:
The characteristics needed for bipedal walking made the enlargement of the birth canal a physical impossibility beyond a certain limit.
Why is that an impossibility? They really should have explained further. The authors have never yet heard a good explanation for this claim (and would deeply appreciate, as a matter of fact, hearing from any authority who can decisively clear up the point).
As an engineer, one of the authors, Max H. Flindt, can conjecture as to why the female pelvis cannot accommodate a larger birth canal for our too-large-headed babies. Going purely by mechanistic principles, he surmises that as the pelvis would widen, the underneath leg support would be inadequate. But the human female’s legs could not become sturdy enough without a radical change in bone structure. The only alternative for nature would be to add pelvic support in the form of internal “padding” or “webbing.” But this would simply defeat its purpose by again restricting the enlargement of the birth canal.
Hence, in pure engineering terms, it seems that natural selection simply could not produce a female with a larger birth canal without practically changing her into a horse in build. But that would change the species too much in the “wrong” direction and natural selection would call a halt.
This probably means, then, that even the starmen’s females have always had birth canals too small for big-headed babies, which strongly suggests the possibility that they deliberately used gene techniques to increase brain size, at the same time accepting the penalty of the inadequate birth canal that nothing could correct.
All such rarefied speculation aside, the too-small birth canal of human women remains as a complete puzzle to biologists, gynecologists, anatomists, and all others concerned – especially the evolutionists.
Any tentative explanations we have seen are purely argumentative, obfuscating the issue. We feel it is much less in the nature of obfuscation for us to intimate that this out-of-phase aspect of the big-headed child and too-small birth canal is the result of tampering with normal Evolution.
Tampering with a purpose, done by the starmen.
And in their vast, complex, and difficult program to introduce super-Evolution and produce big-brained humans in record time, they were unable to take care of all contingent factors, particularly enlargement of the female birth canal.
No other animal has this big-headed birth problem. Only Man. Evolution, which is supposed to be “fair” and “impartial” with all species, must obviously be zeroed out as an explanation in relation to this badly askew birth anomaly among humans.
After birth comes the growing child. And again we come up against something that sets Man’s offspring entirely apart from those of apes or any lower animal. For the human child goes through an extraordinarily long childhood unmatched by any anthropoid youngling.
First of all, the human baby is utterly helpless at birth and must depend solely on its mother or its parent to survive. A newborn monkey or ape, on the other hand, can cling to its mother’s fur from birth onward, already gaining a degree of independent action.6
The human child continues to remain comparatively helpless much longer than any primate offspring. Human babies don’t learn to walk until they are about fifteen months of age (average), while primate young are able to scamper around within a month.
Primates are all “adults” at the age of one to three years and become independent of their mothers.7 Humans are still adolescent into the teen years before they become relatively self-sufficient.
In fact, for one-fourth or one-fifth of our lives we are “growing up,” physically and mentally.
In the mental arena, this does not mean a slower rate of learning than primates but an immensely greater amount of learning to be absorbed. Where the anthropoid’s learning processes stop with the simple fundamentals of life and survival, human learning goes on into motor skills, speech, writing, schooling, and thought-development, all of these forever beyond the reach of apes.
One completely unbridgeable chasm separates ape children from human children the ability to learn to speak. All progress in the ape stops short of this tremendous new step. For the human child, it is the mere beginning of his fully rounded mental capabilities.
But now comes the enigma – just when and why did the human ape turn from brief child-rearing to the lengthy upbringing allowing great mental growth?
Again there is a jump here, a gap, that the Theory of Evolution cannot bridge except by very shaky premises. Human behavior in the child-rearing area is far too different from all other earthly species, primate or otherwise, to be simply a process of “natural selection.”
Natural selection of what?
Because it cannot be named or defined, it blocks every attempt at evolutionary explanation. Man’s long childhood simply could not have “followed” in orderly progression from the rapid ape-childhood that ends so soon, not when the two are in the fantastic ratio of five to one.
We must postulate again that only the nonearthly portion of our ancestry seems to fill out the true picture.
In their own life on their home-world (or worlds) the star-people had long evolutionary periods in which to slowly develop longer and longer periods of childhood, instead of it all being incredibly telescoped into a short million or two years, as on Earth.
There is another possible angle to this – that our outerspace ancestors had lives spanning hundreds of years (perhaps achieved through very advanced medical research). Then their children would quite naturally require a long childhood-development, and we inherited that trait, though our life spans on Earth are only three score and ten.
Our children at eighteen would seem like “infants” to a race living lives 300 or 500 years long.
This ties in with the rather strange records of the Bible, in which people of B.C. times apparently lived long Methuselah-lives measured in centuries. Did mankind then somehow lose his longevity? And is Starman patiently preparing to renew that factor in human lives when the time is ripe?
For we must not lose sight of the possibility that the starmen, working behind the scenes, are still today improving the human race, biologically. This double subject, of longevity and current bio-experiments going on now, will be explored more fully in the final chapter.
At any rate, we can return to our original point and infer that the starmen, in their crossbreeding or genetic program on Earth, imparted to us the physiological and/or cultural heritage of a long and rich childhood in keeping with a great new brain that needed such a lengthy period to achieve its full powers.
For this quantum leap from the fast-growing ape-child to the “slow-motion” growth and development of the human child to occur by hit-or-miss Evolution in a short million years or so, is sheer belief in magic or miracles. Scientifically, it must be rejected as not being a valid explanation.
The slow sweep of natural Evolution, which will take 50 or 100 million years to develop a new species or genus, could not have produced mankind with all his nonape peculiarities in a single million-year tick of the evolutionary clock. That would jar loose all the time consuming laws of natural selection.
The book that “retries Darwin” quotes T. H. Huxley, the famed biologist, as saying that:
Large changes [in species] occur over tens of millions of years, while really major ones [macro-changes] take a hundred million or so.8
Sewall Wright, another big name in biology and evolutionary theory, is also quoted – “nature did not make leaps (Natura non facit saltum) ” – meaning that natural selection did not and could not make a gigantic leap ahead with any species on an “overnight” basis. The inexorable time element required that all changes or series of “adaptations” could only occur through multimillions of years, never in “short” spurts.
If we look at ourselves in this light we are, in a sense, the humanity of the future in earthly terms, a stage of development we might not have reached – without the starmen’s biological intervention – for another 10 or 20 million years.
And it was a humanoid race on another world, which did evolve naturally, that came to Earth and “colonized” it, first speeding up Evolution through interbreeding and/or highly advanced bio-techniques, in order to create a rational creature long before its time.
To them, Earth was a huge biological “laboratory,” with a thousand and one experiments to conduct to achieve their great and really noble aim.
Once again, we feel that the Hybrid Man theory has scored decisively.
Even more than physiological clues, even more than sexuality clues, even more than fossil clues or any clues previously given, we now come to the greatest single clue to Man’s nonearthly origin. Only in keeping with the concept that Man is a hybrid can his possession of a fantastically advanced mental apparatus be explained.
In short, we mean Man’s masterful, awesome, overwhelming brain. This problem harries the evolutionists most of all, as witness the following statements.
The road from A to M [ape to Man] is rough and rocky [for anthropologists]. It includes the development of language, the achievement of an upright posture, and all the other differences of kind or degree between ape and Man.1
This speaker goes on to say that two Jesuit priests queried professional biologists about how this great “transition” occurred. The conclusion:
They had enough material to dispel any feeling that the transition had been explained.
In short, biologists could not see where Evolution and natural selection had any explanation for why Man the primate rose far above the primate apes, especially in mental powers.
In an imaginary conversation between scientists, the same writer has a skeptic ask Darwin:
But Mr. Darwin, how can a blind and automatic sifting process like [natural] selection, operating on a blind and undirected process like mutation, produce organs like the eye or the brain, with their almost incredible complexity and delicacy of adjustment?2
Darwin’s halting (if fictitious) answer:
Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability.
Yes, this was the studied conclusion (not fictional) of an authoritative professor after he had minutely examined the supposed progression of fossils from a primitive to an advanced form. On the basis of the scientific principle of causality, he could only declare that the results were not impossible – but highly unlikely.
The most devastating blow came from none other than Alfred Russell Wallace, codiscoverer of Evolution with Darwin but later one of its most outspoken critics. Perceiving that the gap between the brain of the ape and that of the lowest savage was too big, Wallace unloaded this gasping heresy:
An instrument [the human brain] has been developed in advance of the needs of its possessor.3
This, of course, violated the law against overendowment in any species.
Wallace acted like a bull in a china shop by expressing himself even more forthrightly.
He challenged the whole Darwinian position, by insisting that artistic, mathematical, and musical abilities could not be explained on the basis of natural selection and the struggle for existence [among species]. Something else, he contended … must have been at work in the elaboration of the human brain.4
Wallace named that factor as “some unknown spiritual element.” (Italics added.)
Or was it the starmen?
Punching home his point, Wallace went on to state that:
Natural selection could only have endowed the savages with a brain a little superior to that of the ape [our italics], whereas he actually possesses one very little inferior to that of the average member of our learned societies.
Darwin was so distressed at Wallace’s speech that he wrote him in anguish:
I hope you have not murdered too completely your own and my child.
Darwin himself fully realized that the tremendously advanced brain of mankind had no place at all in the scale of Evolution. It was an insurmountable obstacle that to this day makes all biologists and anthropologists hastily change the subject if you bring it up.
Darwin must have been ready to toss out his theory of natural selection at times. In his Origin Of Species in 1859, he let his hair down:
Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered.
A British scientist of the time analyzed Darwin’s book with an eagle eye and said:
It has been estimated [by me] that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood – such as ‘Let us assume,’ or ‘We may well suppose,’ etc. – are to be found between the covers.5
Eight hundred assumptions by Darwin, none of them a fact but mere conjecture on his part! We doubt if our book has that many pure assumptions. At least it shows that the Theory of Evolution is not an unassailable monolith of hard fact, but is more like a leaning tower with falsities constantly undermining its already shaky foundations.
It would seem as if the authors of this book have a more ironclad answer to most of Darwin’s assumptions, in the theory of Hybrid Man and the starmen.
Getting back to the brain, it is apparent that if Man’s celestial ancestors evolved on distant planets through a long period of millions of years (or if they used “autoevolution”), their brains would indubitably have developed beyond anything known on Earth (a relatively young planet).
Very probably, these same planet-hopping ancestors we have postulated (who came to Earth, where they successfully bred with the highest forms of Earth life – the apemen or Hominids – by virtue of their highly advanced medical knowledge) brought the “radar-TV-screen mind.” It was this supermind that transformed this Earth, in a few short millennia, from the abode of slaves of nature to the masters of nature.
One superlatively strong argument in favor of our concept is the time factor for the human brain’s development. Roughly, the length of the age of the dinosaurs is known – 150 million years – during which time they developed and flowered before final decline.
Each major revolutionary step in Evolution has taken many millions of years to complete.
But this is paradoxically not so in the case of Man’s brain, which is an organ far more complex in itself than all the total brains of the dinosaurs. We are confident that we can show why the human brain is impossible under evolutionary laws and processes in the earthly time-span.
Assume that the great apes of Earth represented the best that nature could do to develop a high-grade brain. Now, the following claim is based upon the fact that a particularly successful line of evolutionary development always shows up in many different species.
For instance, there is the condition of four legs, which came into being when ancient amphibian species first climbed onto land from the sea and launched all the diverse creatures using four legs. But what about an efficient brain? Only two land mammals developed such a brain – apes and men (and possibly, in the sea domain, the dolphin). This is evidence that nature found a superefficient brain to be a most difficult construction project, so to speak. Except for Man, the best that nature could do was to develop the brains of the three great-ape families.
This means that it took nature 500 million years (from the earliest Cambrian life forms) to develop the 1 billion neurons that make up an anthropoid’s brain. At this rate, one neuron (brain cell) was developed every six months – two neurons a year. That was the fastest rate nature could achieve – with all the land animals to play with.
Man is the bombshell exception.
For Man, with his 10 billion neurons, should have taken ten times as long as the great apes in order to develop his incomparable brain. By simple arithmetic, ten times 500 million years is 5 billion years.
But Earth has not been habitable for 5 billion years. It was barely formed then out of primordial matter. Since a little time has to be allowed for the Earth to cool down, it’s easy to see that something is very, very wrong somewhere. Thus, about 4 billion years ago, when Man should have had 2 billion neurons, this old Earth did not even have one single drop of liquid water on it, nor one speck of life. It was all steam.
Would you have liked to live on Earth then? Probably not – everyone likes to be warm, but not at molten lava temperatures. Man’s outer-space ancestors very likely felt that way, too. They stayed away for many ages and waited until this steaming orb cooled down to a point where some semblance of life could exist in the seas, and the first vestiges of land began to show dimly through the mists of the oceans. That was about 500-600 million B.C.
That the mind of Man could not have developed on this Earth will seem even more incontrovertible in a moment. That brainpower must have developed elsewhere, upon a series of planets, and it took literally billions of years to reach its peak from the earliest life-forms. Let us envision how this incredible development may have taken place in the dim and distant past on other worlds.
Somewhere and sometime – no one knows how far back in time this may have happened – extraterrestrial Man evolved on some distant planet, as we must reiterate to keep the record clear. But, and this is the main point, before his planet became old, cold, and worn out, Man had time to develop sufficient intelligence to enable him to conquer space and begin planet-hopping. (He may, of course, have used “auto-evolution” to speed it all up: That alternative is always there.)
When Starman had successfully planet-hopped many times and had become established on other planets that were new, fresh, young, and ready to support him for further eons, he continued to develop mentally.
This process had proceeded at a tumultuous pace on his former home-planet – it was the process of developing his science, his social orders, his ethics, and all that goes with the mental level of life. It probably required more time than could be lived on one planet to develop that magnificent brain possessed by Man’s outerspace ancestors. Who can say for certain? So many factors enter into this speculation that there can be no hard and fast conclusions.
Perhaps the moves to dozens of planets – different homes – were needed to bring the marvelous brain of our forebears to fruition. Perhaps many more were required, maybe in the hundreds.
At any rate, it is certain that tremendous progress did occur and that incredible lengths of time were required. Only the concept of a planet-hopping, ever-evolving race that traveled through space for millions of years fits the surmise of an ancestral race as well developed as we – the resulting Hybrids give testimony to.
But to return to the main point: that Man must be a Hybrid, because there has not been enough time on Earth to permit his marvelous mind to develop.
To illustrate this point, imagine taking a baby ape or chimpanzee into our homes (as many researchers have attempted to do) to “humanize” the primate by bringing it up in a home atmosphere. If Evolution is correct and we are not hybrids but have evolved from common stock along with the ape, it naturally follows that baby apes would show, when raised in a human family, a real and measurable increase in IQ, or at least learning ability.
But this does not happen! The ape’s IQ remains the same.
Something is obviously wrong. Somehow, the notion that Man evolved from common stock with the apes (the famed “missing link”) has error in it. Otherwise, apes would respond and would show real improvements in their ability to cope with their environment. They would climb a rung or two up the evolutionary ladder when they are raised in one of our homes, for they would then possess learning brains like ours.
Thus the IQ gap between apes and men is far too great to be covered by any miracle of “quickie” evolution that produced the human mind.
This fallacy has been condemned over and over by others. In another book reviewing evolution, the author puts it that Man would have to be a “special case of a highly improbable acceleration of evolution.”6 The human brain, he goes on, could have reached its present peak only if “given enough time.” Further on: “The accepted idea of an evolution that dragged along for half a million years [with Hominids] and then suddenly spurted forward [for mankind] rests on countless ‘justifications’ that are totally outdated.” It is all likened to the many cunning Ptolemic “proofs” that the sun revolved about the Earth, prior to Copernicus.
There is yet another point perhaps of even greater importance than the above item. What we have learned of the human brain leads us to believe that it is so much more highly developed, so much more complex, involved and complicated than an ape’s brain, that not only great stretches of time but also quality separate the two types of brain – anthropoid and humanoid.
By rough analogy, we can assume that the average ape’s brain is comparable to a radio set in complexity while the average human brain is like a television set. Actually, the example is not too strained, for: “The chimpanzee cannot retain an image long enough to reflect upon it.” Thus, comparing an ape’s brain to a radio is more appropriate.
Now consider Man’s brain. He is able to project a picture – any picture he wishes – on his mental screen. At last we begin to see why the human brain is so comparatively great, so awesome in its complexity and sheer power to create, to reason, and to visualize, as contrasted to any ape brain.
In electronic terms, the marvelous television set that is our brain must also have the functions of a radar screen and a taperecorder, and a switching facility so complex that it truly staggers the imagination.
To illustrate: Recall or remember, with a picture in your mind, the last walk you took just before sitting down to read this page. Even the process of remembering or imagining any short walk is very complicated. If an attempt were made to construct an electrical device or computer that could reproduce the functions of the human brain, it would take all the workingmen in industry all over the world one year to wire up the circuits. Neurologists estimate that some single brain-cells are connected to 11,000 other cells, creating a network of electroneural contacts that the electronics industry could never duplicate.
This gives us some idea of the fantastic intricacy of the human brain. It is by far supreme on Earth in thinking capacity, even if not in size or bulk, among the tenth-rate brains of all other earthly creatures.
Other mammals with larger brains than Man do not show anywhere near the intelligence that Man possesses with his three-pound brain. There are three such animals – dolphin, elephant, and whale. The elephant, which has a brain weight of about 5,000 grams (11 pounds), and the whale, with a weight of about 10,000 grams (22 pounds), were subjected to intensive investigation by many competent investigators.
So far, no one has claimed that the intelligence of either animal is equal to Man’s. The thinking power of these animals was tested in every way, with the aim of possibly discovering some specific area in which their intelligence was greater than that of Man.
These experiments have not been successful. In no way did the big-brained but small-IQ animals come close to humans.
The dolphin is a slightly different case. This animal’s gross brain-weight is somewhat greater than the human’s, averaging almost four pounds in the various species. And its brain comprises a good 1.2 percent of its body weight, comparing favorably with Man’s 2 percent. Scientific tests have proved it is perhaps the most intelligent of all animals on Earth, next to Man. This playful and amiable aquatic creature is well known for its antics before crowds.
But further than that, scientists have conducted extensive tests in which the dolphin was taught many acts to perform and also to understand “messages.” These messages were delivered in the dolphin’s own underwater “language” of whistles, hoots, and various grunts, painstakingly pieced together by researchers so they could reproduce the “talking” with mechanical instruments.
One major project, not yet concluded, is the reverse – to teach the dolphins simplified human speech. First to understand it, then to even “speak” it with vocal sounds as close to human speech as possible. If this fully succeeds (there has been some progress), it will give the dolphin a “genius” rating far above the chimp or any other earthly animal.
But still – and let us get this clear – even the least intelligent of human beings (including idiots and morons) will be as far above the dolphin intellectually as the dolphin is above the chimp. The dolphin is not by any stretch of imagination equal in brainpower to humans, and represents the best that Evolution could do in evolving anything approaching a humanlike brain.
In fact, the dolphin, representing the true scope of natural selection on Earth, is a clear sign of the limitations of Evolution in trying to achieve a first-class thinking organ like Man’s.
Evolution could never produce the latter, only a very poor (in comparison) second-class dolphin brain.
Since none of the three creatures with brains physically larger and heavier than Man’s (dolphin, elephant, whale) shows any degree of real intelligence of the human type, we are forced to develop a rather obvious conclusion to account for what we know about the relative brain-sizes in relationship to intelligence ratings of the various mammals, including Man.
Man’s intelligence is obviously independent of his brain size, which indicates that something besides sheer weight or volume is involved. Supporting this latter contention is the knowledge that, in the historical past, some intellectual giants, such as Voltaire, had relatively small cranial capacities.
Indeed, it can now be proven without a doubt that, while Man’s brain is only three times as large as the brain of our most intelligent ape, it is about ten times as efficient.
As mentioned before, a chimpanzee’s brain contains about a billion nerve cells, while the brain of Man contains some 10 billion neurons. This tends to force the conclusion upon us that the human brain must be a more efficient brain than that possessed by any other animal. It is certainly more efficient than the elephant’s or the whale’s brain despite the theoretically equal length of time all mammals had on Earth to develop their intellectual capacities.
To repeat our point, something besides mere brain weight makes the difference – namely, the number of neurons and their efficiency.
The large-brained two – elephant and whale – have neurons, too, but fewer in number than the human brain, despite their greater size. Their brain cells (neurons) are comparatively big, so that the total number of neurons is below the human total, despite the animal’s huge brain.
The dolphin is again an exception, with an equal number of brain cells to humans, but much of their brain is especially adapted to sonar analysis rather than “thinking” like men.
And therein lies the whole story. With his unmatched quality and quantity of 10 billion tinier neurons, Man’s brain is far more powerful. Also it is more efficient because of the rapidity with which nerve impulses are handled by the central “control switchboard” of the brain.
Another factor is how many convolutions (folds) exist around the surface of the brain’s cerebrum (80 percent of the total brain weight). In some obscure way, the number of convolutions in the cortex (outer envelope) of the human brain increases its thinking powers to formidable proportions, far above other animals with less-convoluted brains.
To indicate what a supremely superb thinking device our lump of “gray matter” is, neurologists point out that each single brain is more complex in “wiring” (nerve circuits) than all the worldwide networks of radio, television, telephone, telegraph, and orbiting relay-satellites combined. The association of ideas, thoughts generated, memories retained, and the vast storehouse of knowledge piled high in the average human brain is simply unbeatable by any mechanical or electronic system yet known.
In assuming that Man is a Hybrid, the very source of Man’s more efficient brain – namely, the starmen – reveals why their more efficient brain was developed in the first place.
It seems evident that Starman, slowly and in good time, evolved the marvelous mental instrument of which our brain, which we all carry around with us, is a hereditary offshoot. Furthermore, that cerebral device of Starman was developed in times gone past to receive and retain much more knowledge than earthman has to deal with today, and thus we inherited excess brainpower. The lives and accomplishments of men like Einstein, Edison, Newton, and Darwin tend to prove this. They simply developed and used the mental abilities that we all latently possess to their maximum powers, or close to it.
No one has ever heard of an elephant doing calculus or of a whale devising a new theory of relativity, and they both have larger brains than Man – but not the immense mental power packed into Man’s small skull, thanks to the starmen.
When mathematics is applied to this brain phenomenon, staggering results are obtained. The use of mathematical deduction on the data that was just presented brings the finding that Man is hundreds of times more unique than has heretofore been supposed. He is so incredibly “unearthlike,” that only through hybridization by extraterrestrials could his uniqueness have been realized.
Consider the large animals that roam the world – animals that size for size could have developed a brain of similar weight and the intelligence of Man. Among these animals are the horse, cow, lion, camel, moose, rhinoceros, bear, and hippopotamus. If one assumes that these animals had equal opportunity to develop Man’s brain and intelligence, then it is necessary to conclude that Man is nine times more unique than they are.
Taking special human characteristics, each one of these nine animals had equal opportunity to also develop, for example, the valuable characteristic of the burrowing ovum. Thus, on that scale, humans are eighty-one times more unique than any one of our sample animals.
None of these animals can talk either, as Man does, but they had equal time to develop this useful characteristic. So, nine times eighty-one equals seven hundred and twenty-nine.
This by no means exhausts Man’s roster of unique qualities, but he is probably many thousand times more unique than these nine man-sized families. The concept of Man as no more than a half-earthly hybrid gives an explanation for the strange and mysterious differences that separate Man and all species of animals in the world, past or present.
Even more specific in the case of the “species race” to achieve intelligence is the popular notion among anthropologists that when Man left the trees and walked upright on the ground, this left his two upper limbs free, as arms and hands, to manipulate objects. This, presumably, then led to fingering many things out of curiosity and to making tools, thereby spurring his brain to grow with great rapidity.
Now let us see if there is a rebuttal to that specious idea.
Our argument is that long ago, in the age of dinosaurs, there appeared in North America a dinosaur of awesome proportions. Some specimens grew to be as long as forty-eight feet, stood twenty feet high, and had a head six feet long. This was the ferocious, carnivorous monster known as Tyrannosaurus rex.
Now we know from studies made of this incredible beast’s skeleton that he walked upon his rear legs exclusively and used his front legs for everything but body support.7
Tyrannosaurus rex lived for 20 million years or more as a species. He was not the only one of his general type to roam the Earth, for in North America there existed along with him another similar species, while there were also several related species in Europe.
These reptiles all had one thing in common: They did not use their front legs, or paws, for body support. Consequently, this left their front limbs absolutely free to examine and handle things, just like Man, when he became a creature walking on two legs.
Well, this fearsome beast evolved quite in the opposite direction from Man. Yet, according to highly respected anthropologists, since bipedalism presumably accounts for Man’s intelligence, Tyrannosaurus rex also had the necessary prerequisites for developing into a species of largebrained intellectuals – but they did not so develop. In fact, they have been described as:
the largest creatures with the smallest brains ever to inhabit the Earth.8
Rex’s singular failure to develop a huge brain, with a head almost six feet long, affording plenty of room, is shared by the age-old kangaroo genus and its species.
The kangaroo too does not need his forepaws at all for locomotion, since he moves by use of his powerful hind legs in a series of great hops. Thus, his “hands” were also free, for many millions of years – far longer than the Hominids – without becoming developed into tool-using dexterous appendages.
Why not? The forepaws of a kangaroo may look “ineffective” but are far from it, at least when it comes to delivering blows with them.
The big red kangaroo of a British circus-owner had a remarkable career. Sidney (the kangaroo) was trained to box and thereafter won bouts over dozens of human opponents. It was no fakery or publicity stunt, as Sidney bested both British and German heavyweight champions. In other words, the dexterity of his forepaws was even superior to that of humans, if he could deliver blows and feints and left hooks with boxing gloves to dazzle skilled ring champs.9
Then, if the various kangaroo species possessed these agile and well-coordinated forepaws an age ago, why did natural selection “choose” to not promote them into firstclass tool-making hands? Was it natural for natural selection to skip past the kangaroo and settle on Hominid ape-men as the ones to thereby develop a big brain?
If free hands leading to intelligence is a “rule” of Evolution, why are there more exceptions to the rule than otherwise? Certainly, such a far-from-airtight explanation for Man’s mighty brain cannot be defended on that score. It clearly demonstrates that an upright posture does not and cannot on this earth, by itself guarantee surpassing intelligence.
Darwin himself fell into this trap and innocently stated that:
Man could not have attained his present dominant position in the world without the use of his hands. But the hands and arms could hardly have become perfect enough to have manufactured weapons – as long as they were used for locomotion.
Also ignoring the T. rex and kangaroo cases, Dobzhansky says: