Denisovans - 400,000 year-old clue to human origins

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, it seems abundantly clear that there was a lot more going on back then than modern science accepts; and they have to ignore and suppress data to do so.

But what puzzles me is the Cs reference to Neanderthals and the Neanderthals themselves. Was it the meeting and mixing of Kantekkian peeps with Neanderthals that produced the Semites? What are the implications of the Cs saying that the first "implanting" done by Orions, of souls, was into Neanderthal bodies? Was that the first STS manipulation? Was everything prior to that STO? Was everything prior to that the "pre-Adamic" situation (as Mouravieff describes it) and the Adamic "creation" was the Neanderthal manipulation?
 

stellar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I get the impression that the Neanderthals depicted as we see them represented are already 'souled' and look that way because their DNA changes have already taken place. Perhaps the initial Neanderthals were more ape like.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stellar said:
I get the impression that the Neanderthals depicted as we see them represented are already 'souled' and look that way because their DNA changes have already taken place. Perhaps the initial Neanderthals were more ape like.

Well, yeah.

The problem I am having is from a lot of stuff that is coming up in the "Forbidden Archaeology" book. And not just that, there are bits in the mainstream books I've read recently about modern humans being found in very ancient contexts.

If anybody cares to take a look at these books, here's the list, it's short and this is the order in which I read them:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Haidt, Jonathan

The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature
Pinker, Steven

The Social Conquest of Earth
Wilson, Edward O.

The Neanderthals rediscovered : How modern science is rewriting their story
Papagianni, Dimitra

Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes
Pääbo, Svante

Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Micheal Cremo
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I guess the problem I am having is reconciling some things the Cs have said which can go along with the fossil and dna record to a great extent, vs. the ancient high civilization business.

There's an appendix in the unabridged version of "Forbidden Archaeology" that lists artifacts extracted from impossibly old contexts, like millions of years. This is strata and coal mines and from digging wells 50/60 feet in the ground. How can this be the case when Cs said that Orion STS took over 300K years ago? And Neanderthal has been here about that long?

But then, I remembered a few other things Cs said:

10Dec94 said:
A: (L) Were Atlantis and Lemuria the most ancient of Earth's
civilizations?
A: No.
Q: (L) What advanced civilizations were before Atlantis and
Lemuria?
A: Many.
Q: (L) Was there an ancient advanced civilization located in
the area we now call Antarctica?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What was the name of this civilization?
A: Gor.
Q: (L) What kind of individuals lived in Gor?
A: 18 feet tall.
Q: (L) Were they humanoid and did they look like us?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Were they male and female like us?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And did they have space travel capabilities?
A: No interest.
Q: (L) Are there any remains of their civilization left?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Did they only inhabit Antarctica?
A: No.
Q: (L) Did they inhabit the whole world?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Are there any remains in Florida?
A: No.
Q: (L) Where might the remains be found
A: South America.
Q: (L) Where in South America?
A: Amazon. Ancient legend of Amazons.
Q: (L) Do our scientists know any of this?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are there remains of Atlantis and Lemuria?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Do our scientists know of any of those?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are they withholding information on purpose?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Have they any intention of telling about it?
A: No.
Q: (L) Do they have relics of these stored?
A: Yes.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The 309k yrs reference is interesting in view of the latest (mainstream) datings of Anatomically Modern Humans. Although the old Out-of-Africa model often pointed to ~60ky, many recent fossil re-dating push back those dates.
For instance, in _http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6374/456
This finding changes our view on modern human dispersal and is consistent with recent genetic studies, which have posited the possibility of an earlier dispersal of Homo sapiens around 220,000 years ago.
given that the earliest dated sapiens so far (mainstream) are "Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) and Florisbad (South Africa), dated at ∼315,000 and ∼259,000 years ago, respectively".

There is also this article: _https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms16046
The African [they mean "modern human"] introgression hypothesis suggests that Late Pleistocene Neanderthal mtDNAs originated through gene flow from an African source, which we constrain taking place more than ∼270 ka

It is strange but even mainstream sources tend to converge to that period of 300 ky ago, where strange things may have happened.
 

Hindsight Man

Jedi Master
Eboard10 said:
On a related note, scientists have reconstructed the features of a 10,000 years old British Western Hunter-Gatherer from Somerset and determined that he was dark skinned and had blue eyes. One of the initial suppositions was that the white-skin pigmentation could have arisen from the interaction of Homo sapiens with Neanderthal, but the latest results show that the light-skin variants only came to Britain around 6,000 years ago with a first wave of Anatolian farmers from the Near East, and later with the arrival of the Yamnaya people from Central Asia.

‘Cheddar Man,’ Britain’s Oldest Skeleton, Had Dark Skin, DNA Shows
_https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/world/europe/uk-cheddar-man-skeleton-skin.html


He had dark skin, brown curly hair and blue eyes, DNA tests suggest, upending a common assumption that Britain’s indigenous populations were all pale skinned with fair features.
Here's a follow up on the cheddar man --- https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/
This article didn't get circulated as widely as the first,but there's some youtube videos talking about it as well

[Edit] I just realized the article I posted is behind a paywall,here it is : A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.

The skeleton of Cheddar Man was discovered in 1903 in a cave in south-east England where it had lain for 10,000 years.

Until a few weeks ago, he had always been depicted with pale skin. This makes some sense, given that people living at northern latitudes often have paler skins. The explanation may be that it allows more of the weak northerly sunlight into their skin, so they can make enough vitamin D. And it seems our species reached Europe 30,000 years before Cheddar Man lived, so his ancestors would have had plenty of time to evolve paler skins.

But the new DNA analysis suggests that Cheddar Man may have had dark skin. Most news stories said his skin was “dark to black”.

Giveaway genes

To show this, researchers including Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis read Cheddar Man’s DNA. Walsh had helped develop a model that attempts to predict someone’s eye, hair and skin pigmentation solely from their DNA, and the team applied this model to Cheddar Man.

The most recent version of the model was published in May 2017. It focuses on 36 spots in 16 genes, all linked to skin colour.

To test it, Walsh and her colleagues took genetic data from over 1400 people, mainly from Europe and the US but also some from Africa and Papua New Guinea. The team used part of the data to “train” their model on how skin colour and the 36 DNA markers are linked. They then used the rest of the data to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone. The model correctly identified who had “light” skin or “dark-black” skin, with a small margin of error.

When Walsh and her colleagues applied the model to Cheddar Man, they concluded his skin colour fell between “dark” and “dark to black”.

Not so sure

The research was first announced by press release, to coincide with the release of a TV documentary. It has now been posted to a preprint server.

Walsh stresses that the study doesn’t conclusively demonstrate Cheddar Man had dark to black skin. We cannot place such confidence in the DNA analysis, she says. For one thing, Cheddar Man’s DNA has degraded over the last 10,000 years.

“It’s not a simple statement of ‘this person was dark-skinned’,” says Walsh. “It is his most probable profile, based on current research.”

In fact, we are not ready to predict the skin colour of prehistoric people just from their genes, says Brenna Henn at Stony Brook University, New York. That’s because the genetics of skin pigmentation turn out to be more complex than thought.

Too many genes

In November 2017, Henn and her colleagues published a paper exploring the genetics of skin pigmentation in populations indigenous to southern Africa – where skin colour varies more than many people appreciate. Just weeks before, a group led by Sarah Tishkoff at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia had published a paper on the genetics of skin pigmentation in people from eastern and southern Africa.

“The conclusions were really the same,” says Henn. “Known skin pigmentation genes, discovered primarily in East Asian and European populations, don’t explain the variation in skin pigmentation in African populations. The idea that there are really only about 15 genes underlying skin pigmentation isn’t correct.”

It now seems likely that many other genes affect skin colour. We don’t know how.

If we are still learning about the link between genes and skin pigmentation in living populations, we can’t yet predict the skin colour of prehistoric people, says Henn.

This debate may seem of little practical importance – although the idea that Cheddar Man was dark-skinned generated enormous public interest. However, we need to know the limitations of this sort of genetic technology.

Police could one day plug DNA from a crime scene into one of these models to determine what a suspect looks like. Walsh’s model might succeed at this in the US, says Henn, because it was trained on DNA from people with similar ancestry to North Americans. But it may well fail elsewhere.

Henn’s team has tested an older model that aimed to predict skin colour from DNA. When they put it to work among southern African populations, “it literally predicted that people with the darkest skins would have the lightest skin”

TL;DR : The tech used to analyse cheddar man's dna is a coin toss at best and people were pushing an agenda.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Between bouts of wading through "Forbidden Archaeology" I've been poking around. Here's some stuff I found that gives a clue here and there:

This first one is before Paabo's genome work on Neanderthal;
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204741.htm

This is about the same study from sciencedaily. Notice that they make the point that they sequestered the DNA from everyone who handled the specimens. If you read Paabo's book, you'll see what a serious problem this is. Also, I think they messed up some in this New Agey piece:
https://atlanteangardens.blogspot.fr/2014/03/cro-magnon-dna-unchanged-for-28000.html

I think this is the study:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002700

This site may be questionable, but he's got some interesting images and graphs and posts links; definitely worth a look! (He may not be so crazy.)
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/cro_magnon_Homo_sapien.htm

This is published after Paabo but may be based on pre-Paabo claims:
Scientists Claim Cro Magnon DNA Fully Modern, Unchanged For 28.000 Years & Disprove “Out Of Africa” Claim
https://sapientiaexanimo.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/russian-geneticists-disprove-out-of-africa-claim/
The study they rely on is from 2011, though.

Again, from back in 2008.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2008/07/cavemans-dna-looks-modern

From 2011:
The downside of sex with Neanderthals
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2011/aug/25/neanderthal-denisovan-genes-human-immunity

Here's Paabo's paper:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/710.full

Here's Paabo on the Denisovans:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09710

Fossilised finger points to previously unknown group of human relatives
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/22/fossilised-finger-human-relatives-denisovans

Note that the bone wasn't even found until 2008 and Cs talked about this type of individual in 1997.

Neanderthals live on in DNA of humans
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/may/06/neanderthals-dna-humans-genome

A couple of interesting images here:
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/tag/cro-magnons/

From 2014; amazing skull! :
Ancient DNA sheds light on the origin of Europeans
https://theconversation.com/ancient-dna-sheds-light-on-the-origin-of-europeans-33907

From 2016:
Modern men lack Y chromosome genes from Neanderthals
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160407132318.htm

The Divergence of Neandertal and Modern Human Y Chromosomes
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30033-7

Evolution purged many Neanderthal genes from human genome
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161108145257.htm

Did a volcanic cataclysm 40,000 years ago trigger the final demise of the Neanderthals?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150320112332.htm

Neanderthals mated with modern humans much earlier than previously thought, study finds
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160217140302.htm

This one says:

Researchers report strong evidence of an interbreeding event between Neanderthals and modern humans occurring around 100,000 years ago, much earlier than any previously documented. The evidence suggests early modern humans left Africa and mixed with now-extinct members of the human family, before the migration 'out of Africa' around 65,000 years ago. It is also evidence of breeding in the 'opposite' direction from that already known, that is, modern human DNA in a Neanderthal genome.

I think the only way to deal with this problem is to just give up the later "out of Africa" nonsense based on the fossils, and just acknowledge that peeps came out of Africa pretty darn early - and they were pretty darn modern and to heck with the established fossil timeline. The only thing that continues to baffle me is the lack of Neandertal genes in sub-saharan Africans. Why did none of them ever migrate back South? Heck, they went everywhere else!!!

Neanderthals' lack of drawing ability may relate to hunting techniques
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180209100727.htm

From 2017:
DNA of early Neanderthal gives timeline for new modern human-related dispersal from Africa
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170705132917.htm

Revising the story of the dispersal of modern humans across Eurasia
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171207141724.htm
 

Neil

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
There's an appendix in the unabridged version of "Forbidden Archaeology" that lists artifacts extracted from impossibly old contexts, like millions of years. This is strata and coal mines and from digging wells 50/60 feet in the ground. How can this be the case when Cs said that Orion STS took over 300K years ago? And Neanderthal has been here about that long?
Yeah, that gets back to my question about how many times has the Earth been colonized and why I posted a map of the galaxy to go with it. Planets are kind of like cities. They are colonized, grow, go through economic changes, are subject to plagues, catastrophes, wars, and abandonment. Realm frequencies change, beings come and go. After a period of quiescence, new cities are often built on top of old ones. In the most recent 300K years, you have at least two colonization waves, an ethereal one of some soul group inhabiting ape bodies, and a physical one of Kantekkians being moved to Earth. There is also continuous tweaking going on in "Orion labs" according to the Cassiopaeans. 4D Nordics and bidensity humans living in underground bases could be considered a colonization wave as well, though there would probably be fewer traces after they leave.

An interesting question would be how long the "Orion Union" and "Galactic Federation" civilizations have been in existence. It's possible they don't exist yet from our perspective, they are in a D'ankiar situation where they come from the future to populate the past. However, it seems that based on the artifacts, they did pop into our 3D time cycle at a point that could theoretically be measured. Perhaps more ancient human models, such as Homo erectus, were aligned with the "Federation." According to this website, they certainly had the intellectual hardware for high civilization, if conditions were right.
Darwin had predicted human origins would be traced to Africa. However, for a time after the discoveries on Java and at Zhoukoudian it was believed that humans had had Asian origins. Fossils assigned to H. erectus are indeed ancient, dating from 400,000 to 2,000,000 years in age. But other even more ancient fossils, in particular the discovery of very early hominids (australopithecines) in Africa by Raymond Dart, Robert Broom, and the Leakeys led to a shift in opinion back to Africa.

Currently, there are two unresolved hypotheses concerning Homo erectus: (1) Specimens assigned to Homo ergaster should be assigned to erectus, which would then be the direct ancestor of later hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens; or, alternatively, (2) erectus may be an Asian form distinct from African ergaster.

Whichever of these views is correct, Homo erectus is the earliest hominid known outside of Africa, and was perhaps also the first to use fire. The remains of early humans of this type are generally found in association with Acheulean tools, which represented a step of sophistication above the Oldowan, or "pebble tool" technology characteristic of earlier hominids.

Homo erectus had an average cranial capacity of about 1000 cc (range: 850–1100 cc) — significantly larger than that of earlier hominids. In fact, in brain size certain Homo erectus individuals exceeded many modern humans of normal intelligence. For example, the brain of the Noble Prize winning novelist Anatole France (1844–1924) had a volume of only 1000 cc. This is not, of course, to say that the brains of modern humans are not larger on average — in fact, another writer, Jonathan Swift had a cranial capacity of 2000 cc.
_http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-erectus.html

The Pleiadians referred to Earth as a "living library" which got raided by some not so nice "creator gods."(paraphrasing) Honestly, that seems to be the most plausible hypothesis to bridge the inconsistencies. There might have been some kind of galactic war, or realm border shift that happens semi-cyclically, and these planets spiral in and out of different realities which gives rise to different types of civlizations and STS/STO possibilities. When you start getting into hundreds of millions of years of history (I seem to recall a couple of articles from the Human Devolution book going into the billions) interstellar/interdimensional migration is almost a certainty. Within that hypothesis, there seems to a lot of hard evidence to support different humanities arising independently in different places. It's kind of like when Shiller invokes something of a cosmic mind toward the end of The 5th Option as a unifying principle for his Rational Design Hypothesis. There's not really a "smoking gun" but a lot of circumstantial things that point in that direction.
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
[...]
Neanderthals' lack of drawing ability may relate to hunting techniques
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180209100727.htm
[...]

Stumbled on the following two papers today about the drawing abilities of Neanderthals and their paint, which supposedly suggests that they were much more like us in creative paint abilities then previously thought and "did it before we did".

The first one is from 22. Feb 2018:


Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals 115,000 years ago

Abstract:

Cueva de los Aviones (southeast Spain) is a site of the Neandertal-associated Middle Paleolithic of Europe. It has yielded ochred and perforated marine shells, red and yellow colorants, and shell containers that feature residues of complex pigmentatious mixtures. Similar finds from the Middle Stone Age of South Africa have been widely accepted as archaeological proxies for symbolic behavior. U-series dating of the flowstone capping the Cueva de los Aviones deposit shows that the symbolic finds made therein are 115,000 to 120,000 years old and predate the earliest known comparable evidence associated with modern humans by 20,000 to 40,000 years. Given our findings, it is possible that the roots of symbolic material culture may be found among the common ancestor of Neandertals and modern humans, more than half-a-million years ago.

The second one is from 23 Feb 2018:

U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art

Neandertal cave art:

It has been suggested that Neandertals, as well as modern humans, may have painted caves. Hoffmann et al. used uranium-thorium dating of carbonate crusts to show that cave paintings from three different sites in Spain must be older than 64,000 years. These paintings are the oldest dated cave paintings in the world. Importantly, they predate the arrival of modern humans in Europe by at least 20,000 years, which suggests that they must be of Neandertal origin. The cave art comprises mainly red and black paintings and includes representations of various animals, linear signs, geometric shapes, hand stencils, and handprints. Thus, Neandertals possessed a much richer symbolic behavior than previously assumed.

Abstract:

The extent and nature of symbolic behavior among Neandertals are obscure. Although evidence for Neandertal body ornamentation has been proposed, all cave painting has been attributed to modern humans. Here we present dating results for three sites in Spain that show that cave art emerged in Iberia substantially earlier than previously thought. Uranium-thorium (U-Th) dates on carbonate crusts overlying paintings provide minimum ages for a red linear motif in La Pasiega (Cantabria), a hand stencil in Maltravieso (Extremadura), and red-painted speleothems in Ardales (Andalucía). Collectively, these results show that cave art in Iberia is older than 64.8 thousand years (ka). This cave art is the earliest dated so far and predates, by at least 20 ka, the arrival of modern humans in Europe, which implies Neandertal authorship.

From the abstracts above it seems that the main evidence they have for it being Neanderthal paintings is that it predates the common timeline of when humans were supposed to be able to do those paintings and/or that they were "not there" in this place according to the common theory of human evolution (aka out of africa and so on). So that might not be proof of neanderthals doing it. It might as well have been human types who did it. But that remains speculation until the complete papers have been read. Maybe they also put forward other evidence that links those painting to Neanderthals then time scale alone.

Here are some articles that are based on those new findings:

_https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/22/neanderthals-not-humans-were-first-artists-on-earth-experts-claim
_https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02357-8
_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/22/neanderthal-art-far-better-previously-thought-scientists-find/
_http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/archaeology/neanderthal-cave-paintings-discovered-in-spain-put-neanderthals-in-new-light/news-story/e2e87bc7026cbaafaf87971f1838584f
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
I think the only way to deal with this problem is to just give up the later "out of Africa" nonsense based on the fossils, and just acknowledge that peeps came out of Africa pretty darn early - and they were pretty darn modern and to heck with the established fossil timeline. The only thing that continues to baffle me is the lack of Neandertal genes in sub-saharan Africans. Why did none of them ever migrate back South? Heck, they went everywhere else!!!
There has been some early "back-to-Africa" migration. Example: _http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393 even if genetic studies of African populations is still at its beginnings.

As for Neanderthal gene absence, there could be diffusion in a large population, faster removal from the gene pool via evolution/selection, or recent replacement by populations from within Africa that didn't receive the genetic influx.
 

Jeffrey of Troy

Padawan Learner
Someone who posts on twitter as "YeyoZa" said:

"Morphological differences between modern humans and neanderthals are reminiscent of those between domesticated animals and their wild ancestors"

and linked to this article:

The tamed ape: were humans the first animal to be domesticated?

Deep inside our genome are bits of DNA we share only with animals such as dogs and cattle. Our self-domestication may have been a pivotal moment in making us human

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23731660-600-the-tamed-ape-were-humans-the-first-animal-to-be-domesticated/
 

Jeffrey of Troy

Padawan Learner
Neil said:
The Pleiadians referred to Earth as a "living library" which got raided by some not so nice "creator gods."(paraphrasing) Honestly, that seems to be the most plausible hypothesis to bridge the inconsistencies. There might have been some kind of galactic war, or realm border shift that happens semi-cyclically, and these planets spiral in and out of different realities which gives rise to different types of civlizations and STS/STO possibilities. When you start getting into hundreds of millions of years of history (I seem to recall a couple of articles from the Human Devolution book going into the billions) interstellar/interdimensional migration is almost a certainty. Within that hypothesis, there seems to a lot of hard evidence to support different humanities arising independently in different places. It's kind of like when Shiller invokes something of a cosmic mind toward the end of The 5th Option as a unifying principle for his Rational Design Hypothesis. There's not really a "smoking gun" but a lot of circumstantial things that point in that direction.

This is what I've been thinking as I read this thread. Diverging and re-converging timelines creating a mish mash / hodge podge of evidences from different versions of history all in our world at the same time, somehow.

If true, so long as conventional science denies the possibility of such things, they'll keep trying to make the data fit a model that isn't big enough to contain it.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Posted this in another thread but it really belongs to this discussion:

Laura said:
watchandcompass, you might want to read this thread:
https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,33331.0.html

Meanwhile, there is a follow up on the dark Cheddar Man:

Ancient ‘dark-skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161867-ancient-dark-skinned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/

A Briton who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human.

The skeleton of Cheddar Man was discovered in 1903 in a cave in south-west England where it had lain for 10,000 years.

Until a few weeks ago, he had always been depicted with pale skin. This makes some sense, given that people living at northern latitudes often have paler skins. The explanation may be that it allows more of the weak northerly sunlight into their skin, so they can make enough vitamin D. And it seems our species reached Europe 30,000 years before Cheddar Man lived, so his ancestors would have had plenty of time to evolve paler skins.

But the new DNA analysis suggests that Cheddar Man may have had dark skin. Most news stories said his skin was “dark to black”.

Giveaway genes

To show this, researchers including Susan Walsh at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis read Cheddar Man’s DNA. Walsh had helped develop a model that attempts to predict someone’s eye, hair and skin pigmentation solely from their DNA, and the team applied this model to Cheddar Man.

The most recent version of the model was published in May 2017. It focuses on 36 spots in 16 genes, all linked to skin colour.

To test it, Walsh and her colleagues took genetic data from over 1400 people, mainly from Europe and the US but also some from Africa and Papua New Guinea. The team used part of the data to “train” their model on how skin colour and the 36 DNA markers are linked. They then used the rest of the data to test how well the model could predict skin colour from DNA alone. The model correctly identified who had “light” skin or “dark-black” skin, with a small margin of error.

When Walsh and her colleagues applied the model to Cheddar Man, they concluded his skin colour fell between “dark” and “dark to black”.
Not so sure

The research was first announced by press release, to coincide with the release of a TV documentary. It has now been posted to a preprint server (bioRxiv, doi.org/ckqq).

Walsh stresses that the study doesn’t conclusively demonstrate Cheddar Man had dark to black skin. We cannot place such confidence in the DNA analysis, she says. For one thing, Cheddar Man’s DNA has degraded over the last 10,000 years.

“It’s not a simple statement of ‘this person was dark-skinned’,” says Walsh. “It is his most probable profile, based on current research.”

In fact, we are not ready to predict the skin colour of prehistoric people just from their genes, says Brenna Henn at Stony Brook University, New York. That’s because the genetics of skin pigmentation turn out to be more complex than thought.

Too many genes

In November 2017, Henn and her colleagues published a paper exploring the genetics of skin pigmentation in populations indigenous to southern Africa – where skin colour varies more than many people appreciate. Just weeks before, a group led by Sarah Tishkoff at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia had published a paper on the genetics of skin pigmentation in people from eastern and southern Africa.

“The conclusions were really the same,” says Henn. “Known skin pigmentation genes, discovered primarily in East Asian and European populations, don’t explain the variation in skin pigmentation in African populations. The idea that there are really only about 15 genes underlying skin pigmentation isn’t correct.”

It now seems likely that many other genes affect skin colour. We don’t know how.

If we are still learning about the link between genes and skin pigmentation in living populations, we can’t yet predict the skin colour of prehistoric people, says Henn.

This debate may seem of little practical importance – although the idea that Cheddar Man was dark-skinned generated enormous public interest. However, we need to know the limitations of this sort of genetic technology.

Police could one day plug DNA from a crime scene into one of these models to determine what a suspect looks like. Walsh’s model might succeed at this in the US, says Henn, because it was trained on DNA from people with similar ancestry to North Americans. But it may well fail elsewhere.

Henn’s team has tested an older model that aimed to predict skin colour from DNA. When they put it to work among southern African populations, “it literally predicted that people with the darkest skins would have the lightest skin.”

It seems to me that the focus on skin color is a big red herring. As we've been researching over the years, the real differences between human beings are spiritual/psychological. Here's a short exchange on the topics with the Cs.

18Oct94 said:
Q: (L) Is there any such thing as racial superiority regarding the races on the planet earth?

A: Only karmically determined by physical confinement assignment.

Q: (L) It can be karmically determined to be born into one race or another?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are the Aryan/Celts who came to this planet from the other one that was destroyed, were they, when they came, in any way superior to the humans already here?

A: Somewhat.

Q: (L) What was the nature of this superiority?

A: Durability.

Q: (L) Physical or mental?

A: Physical.

Q: (L) Well, blond haired, blue-eyed people seem to be somewhat more delicate or thin-skinned compared to, say, the blacks.

A: In this environment on surface.

Q: (L) Which race on earth is the oldest?

A: All are same.

Q: (L) Even the Aryan/Celts from the other planet?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Was there ever a time in history when Kantek, Martek, and Earth were all three occupied by sentient races which communicated with one another?

A: No.

Q: (L) Was there ever a time in history when all three planets were occupied simultaneously?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Why are there different races?

A: Many reasons. Experimental creations. Partly.

Q: (L) Where did the Orientals come from?

A: Same as all others. Result of experimentation.

Q: (L) Did they originate on this planet? Are they native to this planet?

A: Both. Orientals reserved for souls most advanced; Aryans most aggressive; Negroes most naturally attuned to earth vibrational frequency. So are "native Americans".

And then:

16Nov94 said:
Q: (L) Now, relating to what we have been discussing lately. Did any groups of the black race, on their own, ever create a high civilization as has been reported by several archaeologists or other individuals.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) On their own without assistance?

A: No.

Q: (L) Who did they have assistance from?

A: Lizards.

Q: (L) Why have black people, in general, for most of recorded history, been living in such primitive conditions with such primitive mind set?

A: Isolation from modern interaction.

Q: (L) Why is this?

A: Karma. Punishment for past society which was cruel master hierarchical.

Q: (L) Are black people being abducted by the Lizzies as frequently as white people?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Why do we hear so little, if any, about this?

A: You hear little of black culture in general.

Q: (L) Are black people, within their cultural confines, aware of aliens and alien abductions?

A: Less aware and discuss it less.

Then:

24Sept95 said:
Q: (L) If the Orion STS brought the Celts here, were the Celts, while they lived on Kantek, in the form they are in now?

A: They were lighter in appearance.

Q: (L) You have told us on other occasions that the Semitic peoples were remnants of the Atlanteans, and yet they are quite unlike...

A: Whoa!! Wait a minute, let's not get ahead of ourselves. First things first. What Roxanne said was not entirely factual. Remember, there is much disinformation to weed through.

Q: (RC) What did I say that was not factual?

A: In this part of your 3rd and 4th density universe, specifically your "galaxy" it is the region known as Orion that is the one and only indigenous home of human type beings... reflect on this! Indigenous home base, not sole locator. What you are most in need of review of is the accurate profile of "alien" data.

Q: (RC) I thought that humans originated in Lyra and then a war broke out there and they ended up in Orion.

A: Lyra is not inhabited. There have been homes in all places, but some were/are transitory, and some are not. Pay attention to Orion! This is your ancestral home, and your eventual destination. Here is the absolutely accurately accurate profile of Orion to follow: This is the most heavily populated region of your Milky Way galaxy! This is a region that extends across 3rd and 4th density space for a distance as vast as the distance between your locator and it. There are 3,444 inhabited "worlds" in this region. Some are planets as you know them. Some are artificially constructed planetoids. Some are floating space barges. And some are "satellites." There are primary homes, travelling stations and incubator laboratories all in 2nd, 3rd and 4th densities. There are overseer zones in 5th and 6th densities. Approximately one half is STO and one half is STS. Together, along with many other colonies, located elsewhere, this is called, in translation, Orion Federation. Orions created grays in 5 varieties, as cyber-genetic beings, and installed them on Zeta Reticuli 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as on 2 planets orbiting Barnard's Star. The Reptilians also inhabit 6 planets in the Orion region in 4th density, and are owned by the Orion STS as slaves, and, in some cases, pets!!! The name "Orion" is the actual native name, and was brought to earth directly. Study the legend of the "god" of Orion for parallels.

Q: (L) Are the Orion STS the infamous red-headed Nordic aliens?

A: Yes, and all other humanoid combinations.

Q: (L) Okay, if it started with the Nordic types, and that is where the other humanoid combinations came from, what genetic combinations were used for human beings? Black people, for instance, since they are so unlike "Nordics?"

A: The Nordic genes were mixed with the gene pool already available on Earth, known as Neanderthal.

Q: (L) What was the genetic combination used to obtain the Oriental races?

A: Orientals come from a region known in your legends as "Lemuria," and are a previous hybridization from 7 genetic code structures from within Orion Union, designed to best fit the earth climate and cosmic ray environment then existent on earth.

Q: (L) Okay, what about the Semitic and Mediterranean peoples?

A: Each time a new flock was "planted," it was engineered to be best suited to the environment where it was planted. Aryans are the only exception, as they had to be moved to earth in an emergency.

Q: (L) If races are engineered on earth to be "best suited," what factors are being drawn from or considered regarding the Semitic race?

A: They are not engineered on earth, but in Orion lab as all others. They were "Planted" in the Middle East.

Q: (L) What genetic type were the Atlanteans?

A: They were the same as the "Native Americans."

Followed by:

7Oct95 said:
Q: (L) I have thought about my question from the last session and I want to ask it this way: You have said that Hitler received instructions from higher density beings about creating a 'Master Race.' Why were the Aryan genetic types seen to be more desirable for creation of this Germanic 'master race?'

A: Both similarity and ancestral link most unblemished from Orion 3rd and 4th density stock.

Q: (L) So they were essentially trying to breed a group of people like themselves?

A: Yes.

Q: Didn’t it occur to them that they could do this more easily?

A: Not point. How would you suggest creation?

Q: (L) Okay. They were preparing this breeding ground, so to speak. Obviously this was for the introduction of some other genetic strain. What was this?

A: Nephalim.

Q: (L) Well, if the Nephilim are coming in ships, 36 million of them, why bother to create half-breeds here?

A: Yes, but having an "advance party" makes 3rd density conquest much easier.

Q: (L) So, this Master Race was supposed to get everything ready...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay, what is it about the Semitic genes that was considered to be so undesirable in the creation of this 'Master Race?'

A: Would blemish genetic characteristics inclined to ruthlessness and domination.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that there is something, some genetic tendency or set of genes in the Semitic type that would counteract this?

A: Close.

Q: (L) But isn't the nature of a person determined by their soul and not the physical body?

A: Partially, remember, aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure.

Q: (L) So you are saying that particular genetic conditions are a physical reflection of a spiritual orientation? That the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential?

A: Yes, precisely.

Q: (L) So a person's potential for spiritual advancement or unfoldment is, to a great extent, dependent upon their genes?

A: Natural process marries with systematic construct when present.

Q: (L) Well, if that is the case, and the aliens are abducting people and altering their genes, can they not alter the genes so that higher level souls simply cannot come in?

A: Not incarnative process, natural biological processes. Incarnative involves strictly ethereal at 5th density and lower, and thus is enveloped in triple cycle "veil" of transfer which is impregnable ay any means. However, any and all 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th processes can be manipulated at will and to any degree if technology is sufficient.

23Mar96 said:
A: The Nordic Covenant was a duality. ... All persons of Nordic heritage hold secret power centers, can be of darkness, or of light... SV is of Teutonic bloodline leading directly to such super power source such as Thule Society and others, and she is aware of her powers and mission. It is of positive orientation. However, you are being tested by 4th through 6th density forces to determine if you have the strength and wisdom for continuance! ... Notice the difference. The duality of covenant!!! [...]

Q: (L) Are you saying that when we make mention of the Nordic Covenant and the Thule Society, that there's some possibility that SV has been programmed, or has layers of programs, and that some part of her program knows what she's doing, and maybe other parts don't?

A: Yes, but this is not a negative thing.

Q: (L) Okay, now let me go a little bit deeper. Could SV be what you described as a robot person, but programmed for a positive purpose?

A: No, robot "people" do not have bloodlines.

Q: (L) So, this is something that's programmed genetically in a bloodline?

A: Not exactly, those that have the bloodline have the corresponding soul alignment.

26Dec98 said:
Q: (L) Okay, let me see if I can get a couple of these other questions in. I have this book called the "Curse of Cain," and it talks about the relationship between Monotheism and Violence, positing that Monotheism itself is the root of violence. She has a chapter on Covenants. She writes 'Collective Identity, which is a result of a covenant of Monotheism is explicitly narrated in the Bible as an invention, a radical break with Nature. A transcendent deity breaks into history with the demand that the people he constitutes obey the law he institutes, and first and foremost among those laws is, of course, that they pledge allegiance to him, and him alone, and that this is what makes them a unified people as opposed to the 'other,' as in all other people which leads to violence. In the Old Testament, vast numbers of 'other' people are obliterated, while in the New Testament, vast numbers are colonized and converted for the sake of such covenants." She also talks about the idea of the 'provisional' nature of a covenant, and that this means that it is conditional. Believe in me and obey me or else I will destroy you. That's all fine and good, and the chief thing that occurs to me is that this belief business in religions or whatever, constitutes a sort of 'permission,' if you will, to take the 'vengeful' action if the agreement is broken. The Hebrew phrase for 'he made a covenant,' is karat berit, or literally, he CUT a covenant. In the covenant with Abraham in genesis, animals are cut in two and a fire passes between them in a mysterious ritual. Then, there is the cutting of the flesh at circumcision, and the Sinai covenant where the laws were cut into stone. So, these covenants are apparently what constituted Israel as a nation. The entire foundational frame of Israel is framed by the severed pieces of animals, it seems. Why?

A: Confused principles.

Q: Book says: 'In ancient Near Eastern rituals, the cut made to the animal is symbolically made to the inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior." Is this an accurate representation?

A: Maybe for some.

Q: At the making of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, there was a bunch of sacrificed animals, and Moses took the blood , dividing it in half, he cast one half on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it to the people, and they said 'we will observe all that Yahweh has decreed. We will obey.' And then Moses took the blood and cast it on the people saying 'this is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you containing all these rules.' What is this blood of the covenant?

A: Has to do with bloodline.

Q: So this symbolized the bloodline of the Jews?

A: No.

Q: What bloodline are we talking about here?

A: Aramaic/Aryan.

Q: Are you saying that the Jews are Aramaic/Aryan?

A: No. Jews are not bloodline categorizable, per se.

Q: When the person who was later represented as Jesus lived, was that, as Paul described it, a New Covenant of Blood?

A: No.

Q: Was any of this related to the Nordic Covenant?

A: In a parallel sense.

Q: Okay. Umm... It says then: 'We are heirs of a long tradition in which Monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of Judeo-Christian thought. Monotheism is entangled with particularism, and with the assertion that this god, and no other, must be worshipped. This particularism is so virulent that it reduces all other gods to mere idols, and is so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations. The danger of a universal Monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE truth; its system of knowledge, THE system of knowledge; its ethics, THE ethics; not because any other option must be rejected, but because there simply IS NO OTHER OPTION. They presuppose a kind of metaphysical scarcity, a kind of hoarding mentality, hoarding belief, hoarding identity, hoarding allegiance, because there is a finite supply of whatever, it must be contained in whole or part. It suggests limit and boundaries.' Well, aside from reminding me of the parable of the talents, she goes on to talk about how Monotheism is the chief thing at the root of violence in our culture. She makes a good case. Is this idea part of the Nordic Covenant?

A: No.

Q: Is the Nordic Covenant in any sense similar to any of the things I have read here?

A: It is a mystical thing, not related to theology in a direct sense.

Q: How long has the Nordic Covenant been in existence?

A: 5129 years.

Q: Is the Nordic Covenant made between humans and other humans, or between humans and higher density beings?

A: Mostly between humans and humans, but some of the other.

Q: Does this Nordic Covenant exist on the earth today in similar format as it did at its inception?

A: Yes.

Q: Is this Nordic Covenant the same as you have referred to as the Quorum?

A: No.

Q: Would you say that the Nordic Covenant and the Quorum are in opposition, or just different?

A: Segmented relationship.

Q: Is there any particular thing about this that I ought to ask at the moment that I am not going to discover in the course of my research? The mail group asked a few questions about this, so I thought I ought to approach the subject. Is the Nordic Covenant made between people who are blond and blue-eyed?

A: Not the central issue.

Q: What is the central issue of the Nordic Covenant?

A: Bloodline extends off the planet.

Q: Is this Nordic Covenant a group that is in place on the planet for the purpose of guarding or propagating a particular bloodline?

A: To guard secrets.

Q: What does this secret have to do with a bloodline?

A: You should be able to figure this one out!

Q: Are these people with this bloodline and with these secrets the same ones involved with the genetic engineering of new bodies for the Lizzies to occupy at the point of transition to 4th density?

A: No.

Q: Are these secrets negative to our civilization or race?

A: From your perspective, maybe.

Q: Do these bloodlines have to do with Nephilim?

A: A little.

Q: What secrets are they guarding?

A: Your origins; the nature of your being.

2Jan99 said:
Q: Well, let me get to some of these other questions. Previously you said that the central thing about the Nordic Covenant was that there were bloodlines that extend off the planet. From what I understand, all humans on the planet have bloodlines that extend off the planet. In what sense did you mean this about the Nordic Covenant; that the bloodlines extend off the planet?

A: Not all so recent, not all so "pure."


Later still (and I'm not including an exhaustive set of extracts, there's just too much):

23Aug2001 said:
Q: (L) Okay, moving on to the next question: Are Semites a mixture of Aryan genetics and Negro genetics as I*** and I have theorized?

A: Partly.

Q: (L) Once before you talked about the "mission destiny profile prior encoding" of the Semitic genetic code structure. Of course, you talked about this being done 130,000 years ago, so that's a long time. But, was that original code structure put into the genetic code of the Black peoples...

A: Yes.

Q: ... to then be spread via their mixture with Aryans - as Semites - into other races?

A: Partly.

Q: (L) What is the other part?

A: Genetic tweaking of Semites.

Q: (L) Is there something in the sub-Saharan African genes that makes one tend more toward STO?

A: Not really.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Picked up a small book entitled "Mystery Us Universe: Origin and Destiny". It has short articles by Cremo, Von Ward, Escamilla and a few others. Put together by radio talk show host Tony Pratt. It's a mixed bag, but can stimulate thinking.

Von Ward writes:

About six million years ago, most scientists today believe that a variety of hominids existed on Earth. These creatures apparently changed at a gradual rate of evolution. It is likely that by 2.5 million BP, the genus Homo appeared. Some of them evolved into Homo erectus types about 2 million BP. These erectus and similar types had human-like bodies and appear to be our direct Earth ancestors.

Right here I have a problem with Von Ward. As Cremo points out, the biggest problem in paleoanthropology is the assumption made about evolution. This problem is exacerbated by fossil finds that are then declared to be somewhere on the lineage, and then nothing else is allowed. The finding of Homo Naledi was most interesting as much for the new "species" aspects as for the LATE date of the fossil!!

Back to Von Ward:

However, we must consider the possibility that extra-planetary scientists seeded life on Earth in its early geophysical conditions. Or, perhaps they simply took advantage of early species and experimented with them over time. Either way, the evidence suggests that ABs (Advanced Beings) very likely played a role in modern species.

Between 300,000 and 200,000 BP, the slowly evolving erectus types - with tool-making and social skills - began to be replaced in an inexplicably short period of time by Homo sapiens arising in Africa. Ancient text reviewed by Zecharia Sitchin and others, including myself, believe sufficient corroborative evidence exists to make the case that ABs could have been involved in the "leap" in the evolutionary timeline

About 100,000 BP, we have another "leap" over a "gap" in the fossil record. At that point, an even greater modification in the sapiens genome occurred to produce us - Homo sapiens sapiens. Fifty thousand years later, a diaspora of these modern humans in different directions can be documented. As they traveled across continents, they likely interbred with contemporary descendants of erectus types in different locations.

The progeny of these erectus-sapiens matings may have produced Neanderthals and Denisovans. The former may have been tentatively placed in Europe and the latter in East Asia. They appeared in our partial fossil record 40,000 BP or earlier. That modern Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with these subspecies is validated by some of their DNA found in modern humans. Such common genes among all these groups may suggest that AB genes provide internal links among humanoids from the beginning.

During the sapiens sapiens diaspora between 100,000 BP and 11,500 BP (date of the Biblical Flood as part of a global cataclysm), self-described, AB-assisted human communities arose on various parts of the planet. Legends of Lemuria, Atlantis, and other sites noted for highly developed civilizations fit into that time frame.

This is the first period of apparent miscegenation (not genetic manipulation) between "the gods" and sapiens that created AB-human hybrids. Depending on which ABs had intercourse with human females, a variety of AB-human genotypes were produced. This includes various categories of the "giants of old" discussed in this book.

At the same time, aboriginal sapiens sapiens kept to themselves in Africa and several more isolated locations. Their offspring who did not interbreed with descendants of independent erectus-sapiens types generally had a smaller body-type. These include various groups of pygmies like the so-called "hobbits" discovered in Indonesia in 2003 - dated at least to 18,000 BP.

These aboriginals who escaped the later, widespread miscegenation between ABs and Homo sapiens sapiens were able to maintain cultures that produced more objective views of the AB gods. Their legends of "the gods" were formed at a distance, in contrast to biblical and other texts describing intimate, ongoing AB-human relations.

Well, like me, he's trying to fit "esoteric views" derived mainly from Sitchin it seems, with the mainstream evolutionary theories that appear to be supported by the fossil record. He also makes the mistake of reading ancient texts as if they were history. And I'm not saying that ancient texts don't tell us something important, including (especially) about strange beings and other realities. But that sort of interpretation has to be done carefully. Mike Baillie's example of how a comet could become a god is a case in point.

But, reading Von Ward's take on things helps me to see my own errors.

One thing that sticks in my mind, and maybe one of y'all can dig up something about it, is that both Neanderthal and Denisovan mtDNA is off the human chart, so to say: nothing like anything in any living human; it is only in the nuclear DNA that connections are found. At the same time, the analyses of mtDNA in humans suggests that there were just a few females (naturally, in Africa, though that can be disputed), who lived between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, who contributed to our maternal lines.

Michael Cremo, on the other hand, thinks that modern homo sapiens, i.e. homo sapiens sapiens, has existed on earth for many millions of years which sort of obviates the Cs' story that modern humans evolved more or less within and from Neanderthals. And how does the Cs' story fit in with the fact that there is almost no Neanderthal DNA in Africa which is filled with homo sapiens sapiens?

Perhaps the solution is that the Neanderthals were the first MANIPULATED species and they were just one of many hominid types all over the world that had evolved from initial seedings in various places, not just Africa? Maybe there was a cataclysmic event and most earlier modern humans were almost extinct at this time? And maybe after this manipulation of Neanderthals, the Kantekkians were brought over because their planet was totally destroyed? And for all we know, this could have been a "viral" event in the sense that it wasn't actually the living bodies of Kantekkians were brought, but rather that the solar system cataclysm rained DNA that got taken up by virii and then passed to humans all over earth?

Do we have any evidence of major cataclysms 300K years ago and 80K years ago?

Anyway, just some thinking out loud (or via keyboard, as the case may be).
 

Cosmos

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Speaking about Forbidden Archeology and artifacts and findings that don't fit into the established timeline and contradict some of the fundamental assumptions about past happenings on earth, yesterday I looked up some of the latest videos Brien Foerster put up about his research of strange skulls in Peru, megalithic structures around the world and strange artifacts and found this:


https://youtu.be/dHpu427kpyA

The original video is from this channel.

As far as I can see the full results haven't been publically published yet, although Brien talks about it in some of his follow up interviews. I'm not sure, but it seems the results could be found in the following book + DVD:

The Expert Analysis DNA Results — The Los Angeles Press Conference Event DVD is 165 minutes of presentations by our DNA Retrieval Team. This information is groundbreaking and it includes the DNA results from 58 samples taken from multiple skulls.

"This information could re-write history as we know it." L.A. Marzulli

You'll hear from archaeologist Mondo Gonzales who will present the DNA information.

Our Anthropologist, Rick Woodward presents his cutting-edge research in regard to the morphological (structural differences) of the enigmatic Paracas Skulls.

Dr. Micahel Alday and Dr. Malcolm Warren add additional information to Woodward's discovery. L. A. Marzulli, Director Richard Shaw, Brien Foerester, Chase Kloetzke and Forensic artist Marcia Moore also contribute.

There is also a 140 page, full-color book that all the team members contributed too. This book is packed with information and details about the Paracas skulls.

"We might be looking at a new sub-species!" Dr. Michael Alday

We are also giving away a free DVD: The Alien Implant Removal and the Mark of the Beast when you buy both the book and the DVD together.

We know that the Nephilim were in the promised land at the time of the conquest led by Joshua and Caleb, some 3,500 years ago. Was there a diaspora of these tribes? Did some of these tribes make it across the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans and settle in the New World?

While what we discovered is certainly intriguing, more testing needs to be done, especially obtaining the elusive nuclear DNA which would give us the other side of the genetic equation. L.A. Marzulli

This L.A. Marzulli guy has some books where one maybe has to weed out the wheat from the chaff about Nephilim mystery and strange skulls.

Brien Foerster put up a number of other videos after the announcement above, in which he explains some of the DNA results:

FINALLY: DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 1
DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 2: Black Sea Connection
DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 3: Physical Anomalies
DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 4: Facial Reconstruction
DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 5: More Facial Reconstruction
DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 6: The Experts
FINALLY: DNA Results Of The Paracas Elongated Skulls Of Peru: Part 7: Summary

He also recently published a video about strange artifacts in Mexico:

Lost Ancient High Technology Artifacts In Mexican Museums

Haven't looked into all yet, but it seems that the universities "couldn't get DNA results" on quite a number of those skulls and Brain speculates that one possibility is, that this is because the results were to anomalous, so they dismissed it and/or didn't reveal it. Another speculation from my part is, that some of the skulls might be much older and thats why they can't find good DNA material. For those skulls that they got DNA results, it seems like the halo groups they found are related to the cacausus and the dead sea area in the middle east. The skulls are apparently 2000 -3000 years old, which kind of brings up a number of problems in regards to the official migration story and so forth.

The Anatomy of some of those skulls is really strange and can not be simply explained by artificial deformation of the skull via boards. Some features are quite different from human skulls.

Last year I looked up, if there is new research available from Klaus Dona (see forum threads about his research). What he said then, is that this year and the coming years will be interesting since he found more stuff that he plans to present. So we have to see what he comes up with. I think we will see more in the coming months and years.

When we take it all together, the giant "human types" that probably roamed the earth at some point, the numerous strange skulls all around the world, artifacts and excavations that go completely against the current assumptions, the datings that suggest that a lot more was going on, a lot earlier, and so on, I think there is just so much we currently simply can not know.

If it is true that some circles in the scientific community are well aware of those archeological anomalies (as the C's suggested and I think is pretty likely as well) and hide it from the public, or worse, destroy it to get rid of the evidence, or simply don't account for it because it doesn't fit into their believe systems, there is so much we could know by now, if the scientific community wouldn't be so corrupted.

My guess is that there is still so much buried (both literally and figuratively) that we don't even know about it and can be pretty certain that we are still far away from the "complete picture". Every new discovery can change the current picture. The earth is a big place and there is so much history to be found everywhere, that I sometimes think that the scientific community picks out this or that fact and forgets that there is most likely so much more to be found in the future, that can and will change the picture constantly. If you dig up something here and there on this big blue marble, it is easy to forget that there is so much more space here that HAS NOT been digged up. It sometimes seems like an attempt to create "a full story" around a pretty low number of insulated facts while there are millions of other facts out there as well, that we can not account for yet.

I'm also wondering if what the C's say about the 309.000 year mark and other dates about the human past, if this maybe was just "the latest" happenings of that sort on earth? Maybe what the C's meant by "many more civilisations" is that history repeated itself on this planet for "such a long time" that what they referred to was just the "the latest" on that line, closest to ours. Maybe that could explain the discovered human remains that can date back to even 600 Million years (saw that in one of Michael Cremos video presentations). So maybe there is not really a ultimate start point of human beings roaming the earth, but it is more like a cyclical thing that happens over and over again and the C's simply referred to the latest cycle?

What we have at this point strongly suggest to me, that the current view of human evolution (and things that happened on earth in general) is much more complicated and nuanced and has a much richer history then any standart theory presents via their fixed linear and purely darwinien and materialistic facts without any major setbacks from comets and other natural disasters.

It is all quite intriguing.
 
Top Bottom