Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
MattAsh13

My theory on Alien intervention on Earth

210 posts in this topic

First of all, I am a strong believer of Aliens. And I believe they have been watching us grow since the dawn ages of our primitive existence.

What I want to talk about the most, is my theory on different human races. I've been studying on Human features a lot. Okay well, about 6 years or so. I've noticed, and noted down the tree of human evolution. I gathered similarities and difference in different races that we have here on Earth. I am a man of mixed blood. I traced back my family tree and found that I have Malay, Chinese, Indian, Portuguese, and Dutch blood. But Malay seems to be the dominant race in my family. And having that, I believe that Malays are lighter colored Africans, while Caucasians are pale colored Indians. And other looking races can be sub sectioned into the two major races: African and Indian.

I couldn't negate my theory because I've read that Africans and Indians are one of the most oldest races there is. And that Hindu is a really old religion that still exists today. The Africans that left Africa, went around the world, down to australia. Soon I theorized that Africans enjoy traveling by sea. I've also made a map of the journey of Africans. It seems like they went East and then South, by sea and swamps. Indians went West and North, mostly by land. They soon evolved into pale skinned people. Those are the natural evolution of man. However, what I want to talk about is Chinese people. I've found no similarities of the Chinese to the other races. Their faces are naturally flat. Their eyes are not concaved in, as they are align with their eyebrows.

So... where the hell did these people come from? Were they a product of early Alien intervention? Or are they some different kind of evolved ape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no such thing as different races of people. We are all people , .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no such thing as different races of people. We are all people , .

I agree. We all come back to this similar form, and shape. Maybe even spirituality. But what I was really looking into was human features. I'm speaking highly of human evolution, but my theory is on a halt as I don't know where Chinese people come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They come from China

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry that was rude, You could start resreaching the Peking Man , i think its called , . Not too sure . Its a homo erectus fossil found in china .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just dont forget that we are all Star Stuff ! when we move on to the next form it all atomic in nature ! And FTL is just a thing we all will do with ease ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry that was rude, You could start resreaching the Peking Man , i think its called , . Not too sure . Its a homo erectus fossil found in china .

Gidday Dan

I am currently reading Robert Sawyers Hominids, and he delves into nomenclature of Neanderthal/Neandertal. He points out that although many prefer the updated Neandertal as opposed to the thal pronunciation (In 1901 an orthographic reform in Germany changed the spelling of Thal (valley) to Tal), this does not seem to apply to Peking man who was found in what is now known as Beijing.

I found that interesting, and slightly amusing.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I am a strong believer of Aliens. And I believe they have been watching us grow since the dawn ages of our primitive existence.

What I want to talk about the most, is my theory on different human races. I've been studying on Human features a lot. Okay well, about 6 years or so. I've noticed, and noted down the tree of human evolution. I gathered similarities and difference in different races that we have here on Earth. I am a man of mixed blood. I traced back my family tree and found that I have Malay, Chinese, Indian, Portuguese, and Dutch blood. But Malay seems to be the dominant race in my family. And having that, I believe that Malays are lighter colored Africans, while Caucasians are pale colored Indians. And other looking races can be sub sectioned into the two major races: African and Indian.

I couldn't negate my theory because I've read that Africans and Indians are one of the most oldest races there is. And that Hindu is a really old religion that still exists today. The Africans that left Africa, went around the world, down to australia. Soon I theorized that Africans enjoy traveling by sea. I've also made a map of the journey of Africans. It seems like they went East and then South, by sea and swamps. Indians went West and North, mostly by land. They soon evolved into pale skinned people. Those are the natural evolution of man. However, what I want to talk about is Chinese people. I've found no similarities of the Chinese to the other races. Their faces are naturally flat. Their eyes are not concaved in, as they are align with their eyebrows.

So... where the hell did these people come from? Were they a product of early Alien intervention? Or are they some different kind of evolved ape?

I will firstly say, pleased to make your acquaintance. It is nice to see someone on this forum who appears to have similar interests to my own. I have studied this same topic you have outlined here for about two years (excellent work on yours--it's fascinating). I personally have found in my own studies that the extraterrestrials (I prefer to call them gods--the ancient equivalent of the modern word extraterrestrial) could be considered a species of human; or perhaps super-human. In my research it is quite evident that our species is in fact a product of their genetic experiments (they "created us in their image"--along with an assortment of other species, such as dwarves [Neanderthals], elves [human-god hybrids], etc.). In other words, we are descended from them. Aliens don't look like us--we look like them. This is of course the case for only one of a number of distinct races of beings from different worlds which have travelled here, to our planet. In the Sumerian-Babylonian texts they are called "Anunnaki", meaning "those that came to Earth from the heavens". In Sanskrit (my personal favorite), they are called "Devas" (or sometimes "Suras" or "Asuras")--meaning roughly "those who are enlightened", or "those who have come from outer space" (the latter translation, is admittedly controversial--my uncle however was formerly an archaeologist and Sanskrit expert, and made quite clear to me the meaning of the word). In particular, the race called Anunnaki in Sumer was called "Rudras" in Sanskrit--or alternately "Aryans", given that they had come from a world called "Arya" (yes, Hitler was interested in the human-Rudra connections, and made the absurd, nauseating assumption that only those who shared their fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes were sophisticated enough to persist). Indeed, the Rudras, apart from their height (between 10 and 12 feet for men--6 and 8 feet for women), were largely indistinguishable from the ideal "Aryan" conceived of by Adolf Hitler (a highly-regrettable case); excepting for their larger brains, pointed ears (the "elves" retained this trait), and exceptional beauty and abilities. It seems to me from the accounts of the ancient texts that the gods arrived on Earth almost immediately after it formed, circa 4 billion years ago (they also inhabited Mars for many billions of years--it is largely barren now due to a brutal war circa 2.5 million years ago). They "terraformed" it to suit their own needs, and eventually (seemingly by accident), Earth life developed--perhaps from the germs within their own bodies. This is the reason why their DNA is so similar to ours--the DNA of our entire world is stemmed from that of their own world. As for our genetic similarities to them, they only gifted us with a few of their own: those 223 anomalous genes in our genomes which grant us speech and brain sizes beyond that of most other animals. They withheld however (seemingly after some amount of deliberation) their own secret of immortality (not true immortality--they lived each approximately 500,000 years), evidently the same types of techniques which scientists are contemplating today (telomere repair via gene therapy; nanobots inserted into the bloodstream; etc.).

If you wish to know more, I would be happy to discuss what I know--and would be fascinated to learn more of your own work. I regret to say that, unfortunately rather expectedly, my occasionally "unusual" theses have been greeted on these forums with little more than utter incivility and mockery. I would be very thankful and delighted if you would be more open-minded and kind in your appraisal of my research (which at present represents the knowledge of over 65 years of careful study). Once again, pleased to meet you. Namaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to all I have just said, let me say welcome to the Unexplained-Mysteries Forums. I only just realized that you have joined us here yesterday--and I would like to be among the first to to welcome you. I should also like to warn you that many people here can at times be quite narrow-minded and aggressive--as I've learned for myself. I sincerely wish however to hope that you will fare better than I, and that we can be on the same side as it were in the debate here. Welcome again. Namaste.

In addition to all I have just said, let me say welcome to the Unexplained-Mysteries Forums. I only just realized that you have joined us here yesterday--and I would like to be among the first to to welcome you. I should also like to warn you that many people here can at times be quite narrow-minded and aggressive--as I've learned for myself. I sincerely wish however to hope that you will fare better than I, and that we can be on the same side as it were in the debate here. Welcome again. Namaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will firstly say, pleased to make your acquaintance. It is nice to see someone on this forum who appears to have similar interests to my own. I have studied this same topic you have outlined here for about two years (excellent work on yours--it's fascinating). I personally have found in my own studies that the extraterrestrials (I prefer to call them gods--the ancient equivalent of the modern word extraterrestrial) could be considered a species of human; or perhaps super-human. In my research it is quite evident that our species is in fact a product of their genetic experiments (they "created us in their image"--along with an assortment of other species, such as dwarves [Neanderthals], elves [human-god hybrids], etc.). In other words, we are descended from them. Aliens don't look like us--we look like them. This is of course the case for only one of a number of distinct races of beings from different worlds which have travelled here, to our planet. In the Sumerian-Babylonian texts they are called "Anunnaki", meaning "those that came to Earth from the heavens". In Sanskrit (my personal favorite), they are called "Devas" (or sometimes "Suras" or "Asuras")--meaning roughly "those who are enlightened", or "those who have come from outer space" (the latter translation, is admittedly controversial--my uncle however was formerly an archaeologist and Sanskrit expert, and made quite clear to me the meaning of the word). In particular, the race called Anunnaki in Sumer was called "Rudras" in Sanskrit--or alternately "Aryans", given that they had come from a world called "Arya" (yes, Hitler was interested in the human-Rudra connections, and made the absurd, nauseating assumption that only those who shared their fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes were sophisticated enough to persist). Indeed, the Rudras, apart from their height (between 10 and 12 feet for men--6 and 8 feet for women), were largely indistinguishable from the ideal "Aryan" conceived of by Adolf Hitler (a highly-regrettable case); excepting for their larger brains, pointed ears (the "elves" retained this trait), and exceptional beauty and abilities. It seems to me from the accounts of the ancient texts that the gods arrived on Earth almost immediately after it formed, circa 4 billion years ago (they also inhabited Mars for many billions of years--it is largely barren now due to a brutal war circa 2.5 million years ago). They "terraformed" it to suit their own needs, and eventually (seemingly by accident), Earth life developed--perhaps from the germs within their own bodies. This is the reason why their DNA is so similar to ours--the DNA of our entire world is stemmed from that of their own world. As for our genetic similarities to them, they only gifted us with a few of their own: those 223 anomalous genes in our genomes which grant us speech and brain sizes beyond that of most other animals. They withheld however (seemingly after some amount of deliberation) their own secret of immortality (not true immortality--they lived each approximately 500,000 years), evidently the same types of techniques which scientists are contemplating today (telomere repair via gene therapy; nanobots inserted into the bloodstream; etc.).

If you wish to know more, I would be happy to discuss what I know--and would be fascinated to learn more of your own work. I regret to say that, unfortunately rather expectedly, my occasionally "unusual" theses have been greeted on these forums with little more than utter incivility and mockery. I would be very thankful and delighted if you would be more open-minded and kind in your appraisal of my research (which at present represents the knowledge of over 65 years of careful study). Once again, pleased to meet you. Namaste.

Hi Arbitran

Firstly, let me say that I am in no way mocking you and am certainly not going to be uncivil towards you, yet what you say above appears purely your own ideas and not taken from research. You say that these aliens first visited our planet 4 billion years ago. If that was the case they would not have stayed very long as it would have been uninhabitable at that time. You go on to say they inhabited Mars, yet there is no evidence (yet) that this have ever occured on Mars. You say these aliens were 12 feet tall. Any skeletal remains that would prove this? It appears there is no evidence to back up any of your theories, other than perhaps some religous writings, none of which have any genuine evidence to prove the authenticity of their reports.

I would like to beleive that at some time in the past we have been visited and maybe we have. Maybe we will just never be able to prove it. I just find some of your ideas extremely hard to beleive being as there is no evidence to back up what you say. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a few of us here that buy into the possibility, such as myself.

Yes, you (we) will face heavy opposition but thats good right?

all I ask is that if we are to enter and win this war (debate) then dont arm us with feathers (fantasy) otherwise they will win very easily as they have some heavy armoury (facts)

So what is the most compelling piece of 'evidence' you have found through the research?

(oh, and welcome) :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the origing of man. My best advice to you, arbitran, is to pay attention to psyche 101 (and the links he posted) he knows this stuff better that most people here. As for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, I can find no credible evidence to support that belief so I dont share that at all.

Most unidentified flying objects are eventually identified as hoaxes or astronomical events, aircraft, satellites, weather balloons, or other natural phenomena.

Some are not resolved because of inconclusive information/evidence.

None have been resolved by putting forth overwhelming evidence that aliens have either flown by or landed on our planet.

Welcome to UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the most compelling piece of 'evidence' you have found through the research?

This should be an interesting depressing read. My guess is that its Billy Meier, a youtube UFO compilation or something equally moronic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Arbitran

Firstly, let me say that I am in no way mocking you and am certainly not going to be uncivil towards you, yet what you say above appears purely your own ideas and not taken from research. You say that these aliens first visited our planet 4 billion years ago. If that was the case they would not have stayed very long as it would have been uninhabitable at that time. You go on to say they inhabited Mars, yet there is no evidence (yet) that this have ever occured on Mars. You say these aliens were 12 feet tall. Any skeletal remains that would prove this? It appears there is no evidence to back up any of your theories, other than perhaps some religous writings, none of which have any genuine evidence to prove the authenticity of their reports.

I would like to beleive that at some time in the past we have been visited and maybe we have. Maybe we will just never be able to prove it. I just find some of your ideas extremely hard to beleive being as there is no evidence to back up what you say. :)

Thank you for being civil and kind. You ask reasonable question, which I shall respond to.

You say that these aliens first visited our planet 4 billion years ago. If that was the case they would not have stayed very long as it would have been uninhabitable at that time.

This is drawn from research, as with all of my other theses, I can kindly assure you. This particular thing stems largely from the Hindu texts of ancient India, many of which record the first instance of a divine presence on Earth as being near its creation, 4 billion years ago (yes, they also use that date). And as I said, they arrived here early, when it was uninhabitable. However, they very quickly set to work in terraforming it to their own needs--such as oxygen (where did those first huge quantities of oxygen come from in our atmosphere; which appear to have arrived before photosynthetic organisms?), water (again, where did Earth's water come from? I do not deny that comets or the like could be responsible--however extraterrestrial terraforming is an equally-probable suggestion), etc. At the first they evidently dwelt in orbiting stations, and perhaps some heat-resistant earthbound dwellings. They are said to have worn sorts of "air suits" prior to the installation of a viable atmosphere.

You go on to say they inhabited Mars, yet there is no evidence (yet) that this have ever occured on Mars.

As you say, there is as-yet little evidence. I do not deny this. I will say however that it has been determined that a massive nuclear blast devastated Mars about 2.5 million years ago, according to scientists (I don't know how to link yet; I'm very bad with computers--I apologize).

You say these aliens were 12 feet tall. Any skeletal remains that would prove this?

Not as such. There have been numerous discoveries of oversized, human-like skeletons over the years, but I do not rely heavily on these--many of which are likely hoaxes. There have also been discoveries of oversized human footprints fossilized in rock dating back to past geologic epochs--these are more concretely interesting, however again, I don't hang my hat on such things. Another aspect to recall of this particular subject however is that it is made quite clear that the gods cremated their dead. This is of course not to rule out any individuals who might have perished under circumstances for proper cremation were not possible--however, one may recall that during the earliest years, our world was still molten and hot. Any who died under unfortunate circumstances would likely have been cremated naturally.

I will thank you again for your civility. I appreciate too your questions--they are valid questions, and I enjoy answering them for you. I hope these answers help (I might be able to do better, but it would take considerably longer; longer than I would be comfortable sitting here writing out on the computer...). Namaste.

Edited by Arbitran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a few of us here that buy into the possibility, such as myself.

Yes, you (we) will face heavy opposition but thats good right?

all I ask is that if we are to enter and win this war (debate) then dont arm us with feathers (fantasy) otherwise they will win very easily as they have some heavy armoury (facts)

So what is the most compelling piece of 'evidence' you have found through the research?

(oh, and welcome) :tu:

I will firstly thank you for your civility. As for the most compelling evidence I have to date, there are many directions in which I could go. Perhaps among the most remarkable is the fact that nearly every culture in the world has stories and writings discussing the same events (not the best evidence yet). Perhaps what some have considered the best evidence is when an ancient culture (which is regarded as primitive by modern "anthropology") can be clearly seen to possess scientific knowledge--which ought to be unknown to a primitive society. For example, the ancient Hindu texts, such as the Vedas, describe in minute detail the principals of the precise speed of light, gravity, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the number of planets in our solar system, nuclear power, aeronautics and astronautics, etc. (I apologize most sincerely for my incapability to link to pages--if I can find the time I'll attempt to write out the relevant passages myself at a later time). And, of course, when such knowledge is displayed, and the source of the knowledge is requested, there are two possibilities:

1 ~ They learned it the same way we did, through experimentation and observations.

2 ~ They learned it from a more heavenly source, namely, the gods who came from outer space.

I think we are all aware which one of these two answers is the unanimous choice of the ancient texts...

I will thank you once again for your manners and kindness. Namaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the origing of man. My best advice to you, arbitran, is to pay attention to psyche 101 (and the links he posted) he knows this stuff better that most people here. As for the extraterrestrial hypothesis, I can find no credible evidence to support that belief so I dont share that at all.

Most unidentified flying objects are eventually identified as hoaxes or astronomical events, aircraft, satellites, weather balloons, or other natural phenomena.

Some are not resolved because of inconclusive information/evidence.

None have been resolved by putting forth overwhelming evidence that aliens have either flown by or landed on our planet.

Welcome to UM.

Thank you for your welcome.

You are of course entitled to deny the existence of the gods, as is anyone who sincerely disbelieves in them. I for one rely very little on modern accounts of UFOs, and prefer to study the remarkable knowledge recorded by the ancient peoples of our world, in relation to the gods from the stars. Of particular interest to anyone who wishes to know more about modern UFOs however, I do have some degree of information acquired from the ancient texts which is highly relevant (feel free to strike up a conversation with me if you are at all interested).

Once again, thank you for the welcome. Namaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's quite obvious as to how the Vedas can be freely interpreted. Sure they contain many a phenomena, but their authenticity is not definitive neither the age of the scriptures, there are many differing views among Sanskrit and Hindu scholars. However to assume that they talk about aliens intervening is quite a jump to take, maybe your moulding the research to fit you're preconcieved ideas.

I have a huge respect for the Vedas and any scientific or other phenomenal knowledge can be attributed to men of that time, or the other flip side, it's revelation from god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's quite obvious as to how the Vedas can be freely interpreted. Sure they contain many a phenomena, but their authenticity is not definitive neither the age of the scriptures, there are many differing views among Sanskrit and Hindu scholars. However to assume that they talk about aliens intervening is quite a jump to take, maybe your moulding the research to fit you're preconcieved ideas.

I have a huge respect for the Vedas and any scientific or other phenomenal knowledge can be attributed to men of that time, or the other flip side, it's revelation from god.

I had no preconceived notions about extraterrestrials prior to my research of the ancient texts--other than perhaps the fact that I did not believe that they existed at all. It's not at all a jump that the texts refer to alien beings; how much clearer could it be than "those that came from outer space" (as well as numerous accounts of the specific planets and stars from which the beings hailed)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I had no preconceived notions about extraterrestrials prior to my research of the ancient texts--other than perhaps the fact that I did not believe that they existed at all. It's not at all a jump that the texts refer to alien beings; how much clearer could it be than "those that came from outer space" (as well as numerous accounts of the specific planets and stars from which the beings hailed)?

The "ancient astronauts" theory interested me in the past, but the more I read/heard the more skepical I got. Of course, it is possible that visitors from outer space did land on earth a few thousand years ago and communicate with our ancestors.

But it seems more likely that prehistoric people themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture. The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occams razor should be applied and the hypothesis rejected.

The reason is simple, there is no credible scientific evidence to support it.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no preconceived notions about extraterrestrials prior to my research of the ancient texts--other than perhaps the fact that I did not believe that they existed at all. It's not at all a jump that the texts refer to alien beings; how much clearer could it be than "those that came from outer space" (as well as numerous accounts of the specific planets and stars from which the beings hailed)?

It's clearly down to interpretation of the scripture and Sanskrit! Your interpret it as outerspace others as the heavens, it's also dependent on contextual variables, including historic, oral, written, cultural contexts. Hence why I said the flip side is that they came from the heavens, angels, gods, Demi gods, whatever the case maybe it could be interpreted as something different and according to most scholars it's reference to heavenly bodies more in correlation with a deity than E T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clearly down to interpretation of the scripture and Sanskrit! Your interpret it as outerspace others as the heavens, it's also dependent on contextual variables, including historic, oral, written, cultural contexts. Hence why I said the flip side is that they came from the heavens, angels, gods, Demi gods, whatever the case maybe it could be interpreted as something different and according to most scholars it's reference to heavenly bodies more in correlation with a deity than E T!

There is no difference whatsoever between a "deity" and an "ET". The descriptions are absolutely identical. Thus there is no demarcation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "ancient astronauts" theory interested me in the past, but the more I read/heard the more skepical I got. Of course, it is possible that visitors from outer space did land on earth a few thousand years ago and communicate with our ancestors.

But it seems more likely that prehistoric people themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture. The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occams razor should be applied and the hypothesis rejected.

The reason is simple, there is no credible scientific evidence to support it.

Indeed, it would be more likely that the ancients simply did all of those amazing things themselves, except...

1 ~ Many of those amazing ancient things (constructions, books, etc.) display a level of sophistication on the part of the creator which is significantly beyond that which the ancient peoples of our planet are thought to have possessed.

2 ~ The ancients made it quite clear who really did those amazing things: the gods, from outer space.

Factors such as these are of supreme importance in these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, it would be more likely that the ancients simply did all of those amazing things themselves, except...

1 ~ Many of those amazing ancient things (constructions, books, etc.) display a level of sophistication on the part of the creator which is significantly beyond that which the ancient peoples of our planet are thought to have possessed.

2 ~ The ancients made it quite clear who really did those amazing things: the gods, from outer space.

Factors such as these are of supreme importance in these circumstances.

How can you be sure that this is what the writer/constructor had in mind when creating "your evidence"? How can you be sure that this isnt just your (modern man) interpretations of these texts and other artifacts,... As in, I believe that you (and guys like Erich von Däniken) are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you be sure that this is what the writer/constructor had in mind when creating "your evidence"? How can you be sure that this isnt just your (modern man) interpretations of these texts and other artifacts,... As in, I believe that you (and guys like Erich von Däniken) are only looking for the things that supports your preconceived notion?

Again, no preconceived notions. Well, not no preconceived notions... My current ideas are diametrically opposed to the preconceived notions I used to have.

Of course we can't be sure what the original creators of those things had in mind--that's open to interpretation. I simply have one of many possible, equally-valid interpretations of the evidence. Any one of them could be correct. My essential point is that my theses are based solely on the available evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.