Truth of Our Origins. Part III

I consider the idea that we have been modified by more advanced beings to be very plausible. However, the idea that these other beings "evolved" from inert matter into super-intelligent space-faring beings is fairly ludicrous, and IMO the only reason this idea is even taken seriously is because it is VERY firmly fixed in the contemporary western mythos.

You filthy heretic how dare you question darwin, that man a great scientist, and you what credentials have you

Next couple days I will be throwing together
the Miocene Era to Humans. Which undoubtedly
will lead the world to usher in a new world
proclamation... A new.. "Origins of Species"

Basically folks. The Pre-humans arent our
ancestors.

The pre-humans are the pre-hominids. (bigfoot)

Its their ancestors, not ours.

We were put here folks. We were planted.

and The Sumerian creation epic also describes all of this.

Until next time.

The war CAN be won on their terms, but it requires a lot more people to wake up and accept logic rather than long-held beliefs. For most people, that's a blow their ego just cannot take.

DNA science disagrees with Darwin's idea of human origins. As far as DNA scientists are concerned, we only go back about 250,000 years. So here we have an accepted science completely disagreeing with another accepted science. No-one dares say a word, of course. Wouldn't want to upset anyone's funding and/or have your career deleted.

It's obvious you are all about intelligent design. You see something in nature and immediately you attach "oh it had to be a creator" to the perfectly natural thing. Stop perpetuating this garbage. There was no "Alien seeding" no "god breathing life into adam" Plain and simple. Evolution explains everything. And the idea that we won't one day know the answers to abiogenesis is false. Just because pieces of the puzzle are currently missing does not call for a designed plan to be put into the hole.

:Alienbitch:

The government is corrupt.

Science is invalid,

and religion is irrational.


I am here to shut down "lamestreams" ridiculous
dogma that asserts we all came from monkeys.
While it looks very plausible... Were dealing
with something, much, MUCH more interesting.

PREVIOUSLY.. ON PART ONE.

Statements made by alternative researchers like
me are automatically contradicted by scientists
insisting we are not simply wrong, but stupidly
wrong. They further insist we have no right to
challenge their cherished beliefs because our
only “credentials” are an unwarranted faith in
our ability to discern truth from nonsense.

[This doesn’t refer to all scientists. Some still
willingly risk reputation and security to explore
topics that defy dogma. However, they are few.]
Every point I discuss is supported by facts in
available research, but I am often criticized by
skeptics. Why? Because the issues I discuss are
long-lived sacred cows to mainstream sciences.

Creationists of all kinds, which includes the
smarter, more reasonable, and typically
wellcredentialed Intelligent Design proponents,
insist the only answer to questions about the
origins of life or humans is: “God did it!”

Darwinists of all stripes insist with equal zeal
that their pet theory of evolution best explains
how life originated. Their 150-year-old dogma
asserts: “It just happened—poof!—like magic!”
After the magic moment when life kick-started
itself into existence, it initiated a self-contained
and imperceptibly slow-but-steady growth into
ever more complex forms, until those reached
the apex of an arduous climb—humanity.

In contrast, Interventionists like me and my hero
Lloyd Pye, anchor our search for origins on
evidence rather than faith, on logic rather
than magic. We don’t think that God did it,
or that life spontaneously generated.

For us, evidence and logic point to the same
“outside intervention” Intelligent Designers
see. However, where they feel the only outside
source of intervention must be God (whom they
are careful to not mention by name), we suggest
another, bolder explanation: “They did it!”

For those of you new to my postings,
I strongly suggest reading part 1-2 here.
Thread: The Truth of Our Origins... PART TWO!!
Or you will most likely be like. WTF is this shit!

ALSO NOTE: Lloyd Pye's book "Everything you know
is wrong" can be a slog at points, so with permission
I have cliff noted his material and integrated some
of it with my work here for sounder proof.

Mainstreamers never hesitate to bolster their
case for evolution with misleading illustrations
like the ones for the horse. Those deceptions
are designed to make the uninformed think the
dogmas are based on solid facts. They are not.
Furthermore, any time a species is altered by
genetic manipulation, no matter how radically it
is “mutated” (say, legs growing where antenna
belong, or vice versa), if
or denied. That renders it immune to criticism,
much less negative proof. You can’t hit what
you can’t see, and no one can see this humbug.

Just like cosmology’s “fudge factors” of dark
matter and dark energy, Darwinists hide their
“missing” evidence for macroevolution behind
an equally dark veil of obfuscation—or bluster
when anyone dares to challenge their position.

What Theories Does Science Offer?

Despite the reality that microevolution does
occur, Darwinists still confront the intractable
problem that since Day One each new form of
life has appeared on Earth so rapidly that in
relative terms it can be considered overnight.
To plug this hole in evolutionary logic, clever
Darwinists concocted a theory of explanation
that could be construed to make sense in natural
terms. It is known as Punctuated Equilibrium,
or as its many critics refer to it, “punk eek.”

Gradualism says evolution proceeds
by the steady accumulation of small
genetic changes over extensive periods. Punk
eek sees morphological change concentrated in
“brief bursts” that produce many new species.

Imagine if you will, Gradualism being illustrated
organically curving and branching out like a tree.
While punk eek being illustrated like an etch and
sketch without twisting both knobs. Very blocky.

Purist evolutionary theory strongly supports
gradualism, while reality supports punk eek.
Mainstreamers regularly debate which is true
and which is based on misguided ideology.
Misguided or not, punk eek’s ideology is that
when evolution can proceed via gradualism, it
does precisely that. However, when any crisis
puts evolution under intense external pressure,
somehow it can press an accelerator and rapidly
modify any life form into something markedly
different to fill one of many vacuums Nature is
alleged to abhor—an empty ecological niche.

Punk eek’s real purpose is to deflect awareness
that life comes to Earth suddenly, too fast to be
accounted for by gradual genetic modifications.
It is the acknowledgement of a glaring fact that
its critics want to keep pretending doesn’t exist.
To that end, another clever group of “experts”
have concocted a different but equally clever
way to explain the sudden appearances of life
on Earth, and the equal suddenness of life’s
many profound physiological transformations.

In 1818 a French zoologist noted that vertebrate
animals seemed to be flipped-over invertebrates
showing no transitioning from one to the other.
His theory was ignored until recent molecular
analysis provided great weight to his argument.
From molecular analysis has come Modularity
Theory, which states that all speciation results
from wholesale mutations in genetic modules,
the general parts of nearly every animal body:
head, trunk, fore limbs, hind limbs, digits, etc.
Modularity theorists acknowledge the absurdity
of arguing that invertebrates could have become
vertebrates by accumulating random mutations.

They suggest life’s sudden transformations can
best be explained by mutations in entire genetic
modules, which is rapid macroevolution rather
than extensively sustained microevolution.
Like the primordial soup theory, punk eek and
modularity theory are audacious claptrap that is
offered because it is better than facing the truth.

Against whom or what are scientists compelled
to defend their brazen scenarios? Who provides
the pressures that cause them to botch so many
attempts in their alleged quest for truth? Those
crafty Creationists and Intelligent Designers!

For decades Creationists and IDers have battled
for the hearts and minds of those convinced that
“science has all the answers,” and that science
has especially valid answers when the questions
deal with the origins of life and of humans.

Naturally, and obviously, Intervention Theory
does not yet figure into the battle because our
status as contenders is uniformly disregarded.
However, while at present we are few, we take
a long view, knowing that facts and reason are
solidly on our side, and ultimately we will win.

In the fullness of time, as vehicles of change
like Pye's book fall into more and more hands
and hearts and minds, the other contenders will
be forced to release their strangle holds on each
other to focus their undivided attention on us.
We welcome this and anticipate it, knowing the
end game can only benefit every human on the
planet. Why? Because a basic Interventionist
tenet is that we cannot responsibly chart our
course into the future until we are certain of the
true provenance from which we emerged.

Only then can we make choices about our lives
and about our futures that are best for all of us,
rather than being driven toward emotional dead
ends and intellectual cul-de-sacs by polarizing
pressure groups like science and religion.

Last topic of the week. This one is kinda long.
But it goes to show all walks of life show some
form of intervention.

What About Plants and Insects?

Roughly 500,000 plant species exist today, with
300,000 green plants, and 80% to 90% of those
flowering. Botanists say they all evolved from
one-celled algae. In fact, they claim that of the
four types of algae that moved from the seas to
inhabit the land, only one of those managed to
spawn all 500,000 species of land plants!
How could that one species of algae endure as
thick mats on the land from around 1.2 bya to
around 450 mya, then seemingly on cue initiate
a transformation into the bryophytes, lycopods,
ferns, and then the very complex gymnosperms
and angiosperms we are most familiar with?

This is what we’re asked to believe—that four
forms of algal mats blanketed the land from 1.2
bya to 450 mya (750 million years!), then one
suddenly gained super powers and abilities far
beyond those of mortal algae, spawning myriad
new forms while its three amigos stayed mats.
This was another of those magical moments in
history where something . . . just happened!It
was another of the “God-worthy” miracles that
always seem to occur on Earth at exactly the
right moment in exactly the necessary way.

The arrival of the flowering plants remains an
intractable difficulty for mainstreamers to try to
explain. Even Darwin was flummoxed, calling
the flowering plants “an abominable mystery.”
Although the fossil record since Darwin’s time
is greatly enhanced and filled in, there is still no
clear path from gymnosperms to angiosperms.
Then, along with those flowering angiosperms,
came the insects, which are equally puzzling.
Flowering plants appeared on Earth around 130
mya. With them came insects, which today are
trillions strong and provide incredible tonnage
of biomass. Together they comprise 5/6 of all
the animal species alive. How did that happen?
How did insects come to dominate the planet?

From 400 mya to 130 mya (270 million years),
only a few insects existed, and they spent their
lives foraging in detritus on forest floors. That
was 270 million years living as foragers, then
flowering plants appeared from out of the blue.

When that happened, a genetic “bomb” dropped
onto the foragers, making them proliferate like
weeds to coexist with many types of flowering
plants. It was yet another of the “miracles” that
are so implausible, yet so frequent, in Nature.
This could be considered a classic example of
punctuated equilibrium, except it lacks enough
external pressures to justify its occurrence. No
major catastrophes happened around 130 mya.

As with the Cambrian explosion, flowers came
when they did because the time for them seems
to have been judged right. And who could make
that judgment? Only Intragalactic Terraformers.
As the flowering plants multiplied and spread
across the planet, insect species increased and
spread along with them, forming the symbiotic
relationships that define their existences today.

With so much species proliferation occurring
relatively recently, it would seem that hundreds
and thousands of intermediate forms would be
easily detectable in the fossil record or—more
convincingly—among/between living species.
Despite that undeniable reality, and to the great
chagrin of mainstream scientists, no discernable
evidence of “natural” evolution can be found
among/between flowering plants and/or insects.
[The famous Peppered Moth case of observable
“evolution” is one of the 10 mainstream cases
proven fraudulent in Icons of Evolution.]

With what would seem to be literally millions
of opportunities to isolate some transitional
forms—say, a housefly becoming a firefly—
scientists remain shamefully empty handed.
This is yet another convincing indication of
Intragalactic Terraformers passing through the
early Earth’s neighborhood again and again,
coordinating the development of life here—
from beginning to end, every species alive.
I understand how radical that sounds, and how
unlikely it seems, but it does fit the facts better
than any theory put forth by the mainstream.

Next week. Its Life since the Dinosaurs.

If your reading this, it means you are a truth seeker.

We will win this war on their terms.

Frontal assaults wont work.

Its their word against theirs.

Fuck. Consensus. reality.

so if we were put here, who put us here....and a more important question where did they come from........hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Your on to it Heretic. I would just point out a couple of points that I don't think you included (I may be wrong I speed read)

To me the single most powerful evidence is the admission by the establishment that all humans descended from a single female as evidenced by mitochondrial DNA.

Also the fact that humans have 46 chromosome pairs whilst all apes have 48. I have attempted to search for other examples of chromosome fusion and only turned up the example of the domestic horse which for our purposes furthers our case.

Like i said before. This leads to an endless
hall of mirrors echoing the same impossible-to answer
question: Who are their creators???

This brings up what is known as First Cause,
the starting place for all of everything—of life
and existence itself. No human actually knows
anything about it, and we probably never will.
I don’t know, religion doesn’t, and scientists
certainly don’t.

The craziest it can get is just endless intervening,
or none at all in some cases, for all life,
all the way to the big bang.

This subject does not necessarily lead to an endless hall-of mirrors. It only leads to a hall of mirrors because people are reasoning based upon assumptions, stories that they have been told.

Take your above statement for example. The 'big bang' is in fact a story, an assumption. It may be true, and may not be. But if it is simply ASSUMED to be true, then lots of questions arise, such as the questions you mention above.

I think the analogy of a video game simulation is an excellent exercise in the error of making assumptions: If a person was immersed in a very realistic video game simulation for a long period of time, then it is conceivable that he might begin to believe it is real.

Say that perhaps in this game there is a building made of the heaviest material on the planet. The blocks composing the building are so heavy, in fact, that no known machine on that planet could have built it. The man could very likely ask himself, "Who could've built such a structure? This must mean that an advanced civilization existed in remote antiquity. Or perhaps super-intelligent aliens intervened."

These conclusions seem reasonable, and yet they are false. For us on the outside, we can see that all these erroneous conclusions are built on a faulty premise, the assumption that the story he has been told is in fact true. When in fact, the story is entirely false and the reality is something completely different.

Aliens planted us here...

Wut?

Baseless claim is baseless.

What is DNA science and what are DNA scientists? And where are these publications that insist it's impossible life was formed later then 250k years ago?

I know for a fact we are a hybrid species.

So my self proclaimed "Truth of Origins" start there.

Do you have personal empirical evidence of the existence of aliens, as well as empirical evidence that they intervened in the creation of human beings?

If not, then I don't think you know that we are a hybrid species for a fact. It is an assumption. It is a plausible assumption, but an assumption nevertheless.

I am not a fan of assumptions. I follow the data, wherever it may lead.

You think I proudly support us being a slave race built by a species who damaged their own atmosphere?

That we were minding our own business as hominids, till an alien empire needed help acquiring gold?

That they then, wished to clean up their mess, and wipe us out?

and that only through benevolent sympathizers, did we survive the deluge?

As much as I would love too, I am not about to list all the red flags.

If you read parts 1-3 of my work, please point out what doesn't count as evidence!

I never said there is no evidence. Of course there is evidence, which is why I said your assumption is a plausible one.

However, there are different types of evidence - I will mention 2 of them.

There is empirical evidence which is evidence based upon personal observation and experience (I saw the man shoot the lady, therefore he committed the crime). Knowledge based upon this type of evidence could be considered a fact, at least with regards to this material reality.

There is also circumstantial evidence, evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact (The suspect has no alibi, he stated that he wanted to kill the lady, etc). Circumstantial evidence is compelling, but as stated in its own definition, it does not equal a fact.

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence implying everything you mentioned above about the alien slave race and all that stuff.

But I'm willing to bet that you don't have empirical evidence of aliens creating the human race through genetic manipulation, much less empirical evidence of the existence of space-travelling aliens at all. And even if you've seen an "alien", there is still quite a leap in logic to be made in order to conclude as a fact that they come from some distant planet and genetically engineered humanity.

Like I said, the circumstantial evidence is compelling, I'm certainly open to that possibility. But it cannot be considered a fact, at least from my point of view.

I never said there is no evidence. Of course there is evidence, which is why I said your assumption is a plausible one.

However, there are different types of evidence - I will mention 2 of them.

There is empirical evidence which is evidence based upon personal observation and experience (I saw the man shoot the lady, therefore he committed the crime). Knowledge based upon this type of evidence could be considered a fact, at least with regards to this material reality.

There is also circumstantial evidence, evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact (The suspect has no alibi, he stated that he wanted to kill the lady, etc). Circumstantial evidence is compelling, but as stated in its own definition, it does not equal a fact.

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence implying everything you mentioned above about the alien slave race and all that stuff.

But I'm willing to bet that you don't have empirical evidence of aliens creating the human race through genetic manipulation, much less empirical evidence of the existence of space-travelling aliens at all. And even if you've seen an "alien", there is still quite a leap in logic to be made in order to conclude as a fact that they come from some distant planet and genetically engineered humanity.

Like I said, the circumstantial evidence is compelling, I'm certainly open to that possibility. But it cannot be considered a fact, at least from my point of view.

I will rephrase.

If you read parts 1-3 of my work, please point out what doesn't count as EMPIRICAL evidence!

The first. and by far the closest. Is in your genome.



Dear Mr. Pye:
I agree with your conclusions [that humans are genetically engineered] and will give you a few hints, if you wish [speaking] as a “DNA Deep Throat.” First, look up the huge discontinuities between humans and the various apes for: (1) Whole mitochondrial DNA; (2) genes for the Rh Factor; (3) and human Y chromosomes, among others.

Regarding #3, I refer you to K.D. Smith’s 1987 study titled “Repeated DNA sequences of the human Y chromosome.” It says “Most human Y chromosome sequences thus far examined do not have homologues [same relative position or structure] on the Y chromosomes of other primates.” Human female X chromosomes do look somewhat apelike, but not the male’s Y.

This means that if humans are a crossbred species, the cross had to be between a female ape-like creature [i.e, “creature of Earth”] and a male being from elsewhere.

- DNA DEEP THROAT

Have you read Chris Dunn's books? - [link to www.gizapower.com]

What about Dr. Robert Schoch's findings over Sphnix's age? - [link to www.robertschoch.com]

I know that there isn't very much hard evidences about where we came from, etc but you have to admit that we were at least very advanced 10,000 years ago before "Noah's flooding" happened when the sea level rose 300-400 ft.

I don't trust mainstream academia. They seem to hide some things over a lot of things. Maybe Heretic is right but it's hard when they try to censor some things to protect their precious dogma esp Darwin's evolution theory.

Unfortunately genetics is an abstract science, with several levels of removal from direct sensory experience. This does not discount such evidence, but it does mean that the discipline requires a lot of of training and expertise before one can be sure that what they are being told is the truth. I am not an expert, and therefore cannot make conclusions of fact based upon second-hand testimony of genetic evidence.

And consider this: even if I WAS an expert, what could be concluded from genetic evidence is that we have been genetically modified and apparently spliced with another being. But we cannot conclude from genetic information who did the splicing and we cannot conclude that the other being is from "elsewhere" as you say. It could be an unidentified terrestrial being, for example.

And we certainly cannot conclude as a fact from genetic information that we were genetically spliced with space-travelling Annunaki aliens who bred us to be a slave race. Though the circumstantial evidence (such as ancient texts) may point toward this conclusion.

Genetics are like everything else, they can indicate certain things, but people take this information and run with it and draw all these conclusions and put them forward as facts.

We must always keep in mind that the more abstract a scientific discipline is (genetics, astrophysics, etc), the more removed it is from direct personal sensory experience, the more room there is for individuals to utilize deception and manipulation. So one should not simply accept what he is being told in these areas without question. This applies to mainstream as well as "fringe" ideas, though of course the fringe ideas hold more appeal to me.

I've had some pretty incredible experiences in my life, and I've learned that one should not accept what one has not experienced for himself. Even if you personally met an alien and he sat you down and told you the story of how they created you a million years ago by splicing their own DNA with yours, you still could not call this information a fact based upon empirical evidence, because if a being can talk - then it can lie.

You may have empirical evidence of certain small elements of your story, but you are using these small elements to imply the infallibility of the larger story. IMO.

So are you ultimately asking for a 60 minutes session with an alien?

The watch maker shows a carpenter a gear built specifically for watches, the carpenter denies its only built for watches. says gears are used everywhere.

the watchmaker wants to show the carpenter a video of a CNC machine machining that very gear, with commentators saying its for watches...

The carpenter doesn't know how to use a CNC, so he insists watching the video wont change his opinion. that gears are used everywhere.

same watchmaker, humbled, shows another person that gear, the person says, hmm! a watch gear?

The watchmaker says Oh so your a watchmaker yourself!!

One of my more lame analogies, point is I can show evidence.

but its not my job to teach someone how to build watches just so they can identify a part of one.

Circumstantial can be Empirical.

try this one.