Human History Hypothesis

[solderjunkie]

For me the most paranormal thing in existence is sitting there in plain sight - megalithic structures. The fact the largest and most durable structures made by man in our entire history were supposedly made by primitive peoples makes no sense. I have a hypothesis, albeit one with many holes, I'm curious to hear what you think.

Firstly, I am including pyramids writ large and all structures which defy conventional explanations in general in this, I do not for a moment believe the Egyptians built most of the pyramids, nor the Aztecs, nor the Incas and so on. I'm also including lesser known structures such as the foundation of the Parthenon and things such as the ancient canal builders - all of it.

I posit that the era we are in, the industrial era, is a very brief part of the process we are all a part of and the explanation of our existence is better understood as a 'rebound' from catastrophe. Humans are afflicted with tremendous amounts of disease, our existence is defined by us trying to adapt the environment to our needs, we're driven by reproduction and fear - all of this, viewed in my context is evidence of a very different and more ancient past. Why?.

Well, lets imagine that our origins stretch back much farther than we currently believe. Imagine our ancient relatives were highly advanced - how would they live and what would they leave behind and why?.

Firstly, an advanced species would probably gain control of their genome and adapt themselves to their environment - not the other way around, they would do this because its efficient and logical to do so.

Secondly, an advanced species would probably not have a very high reproductive drive because they would not reproduce willy nilly - especially not if they were very long lived with a very long maturation time.

Thirdly, an advanced species would not destroy it's environment.

I imagine the human ancestor as a long, long lived creature that was much more ruggedly built, much more intelligent and whose products would be highly biodegradable, if not entirely organic in nature.

I posit that the environment of these ancients was itself very different. There are some things which do not translate well through time, one of them being gravity. There is a formula which dictates the largest size of land animal that could exist without diminishing returns to locomotion today and it's calculated that an elephant is roughly the upper limit. With our present gravity creatures of the ancient and mid-ancient past would probably not survive - not even if they breathed pure oxygen. I won't go deeply into this, but suffice to say, I theorize gravity was much lower in the ancient past and it is purely due to this that megalithic structures were even possible.

I imagine there is some connection between this lesser gravity and and species that seem to defy it.

Why no bones? We have almost no bones of neanderthals and, considering the age of the earth that we know of, very few skeletons of anything. Without even being conspiratorial, it's not shocking there are no remains of ancient humans. Imagine if there were, say, 50,000 humans alive on the entire planet 300,000 years ago, it isn't shocking we don't have remains.

Another aspect of this that I like to ponder is biodiversity itself and how it seems as if there are eras or epochs of enormous biodiversification and other eras of very little, it seems to me this would overlap with environmental changes happening rather rapidly.

This advanced race was, for one reason or another, wiped out - almost - with us being a distant relative, plagued with genetic disease with a scant understanding of our own unique natural drives which seem to be those of a creature whose still reeling from almost being wiped out.

What do you guys think? I'm curious to hear all of your thoughts, criticisms and input.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Chapel Perilous]

I share a ley line with Serpent Mound and many strange experiences there and here, so I'm diving in! The Tail of The Serpent Effigy is coiled at the edge of a nine mile radius meteor crater. They've found giant skeletons, copper magic squares and paleo hebrew on carved vessels. One theory is that the Niphilim Built Eden after the Fall at Serpent Mound. Ohio River Valley than anywhere, 222 known mounds in surrounding areas.
There's a book by Fritz Zimmerman "Fallen Angels of The Ohio River Valley"

 

[Witch Hunt]

For me the most paranormal thing in existence is sitting there in plain sight - megalithic structures. The fact the largest and most durable structures made by man in our entire history were supposedly made by primitive peoples makes no sense. I have a hypothesis, albeit one with many holes, I'm curious to hear what you think.

Firstly, I am including pyramids writ large and all structures which defy conventional explanations in general in this, I do not for a moment believe the Egyptians built most of the pyramids, nor the Aztecs, nor the Incas and so on. I'm also including lesser known structures such as the foundation of the Parthenon and things such as the ancient canal builders - all of it.

I posit that the era we are in, the industrial era, is a very brief part of the process we are all a part of and the explanation of our existence is better understood as a 'rebound' from catastrophe. Humans are afflicted with tremendous amounts of disease, our existence is defined by us trying to adapt the environment to our needs, we're driven by reproduction and fear - all of this, viewed in my context is evidence of a very different and more ancient past. Why?.

Well, lets imagine that our origins stretch back much farther than we currently believe. Imagine our ancient relatives were highly advanced - how would they live and what would they leave behind and why?.

Firstly, an advanced species would probably gain control of their genome and adapt themselves to their environment - not the other way around, they would do this because its efficient and logical to do so.

Secondly, an advanced species would probably not have a very high reproductive drive because they would not reproduce willy nilly - especially not if they were very long lived with a very long maturation time.

Thirdly, an advanced species would not destroy it's environment.

I imagine the human ancestor as a long, long lived creature that was much more ruggedly built, much more intelligent and whose products would be highly biodegradable, if not entirely organic in nature.

I posit that the environment of these ancients was itself very different. There are some things which do not translate well through time, one of them being gravity. There is a formula which dictates the largest size of land animal that could exist without diminishing returns to locomotion today and it's calculated that an elephant is roughly the upper limit. With our present gravity creatures of the ancient and mid-ancient past would probably not survive - not even if they breathed pure oxygen. I won't go deeply into this, but suffice to say, I theorize gravity was much lower in the ancient past and it is purely due to this that megalithic structures were even possible.

I imagine there is some connection between this lesser gravity and and species that seem to defy it.

Why no bones? We have almost no bones of neanderthals and, considering the age of the earth that we know of, very few skeletons of anything. Without even being conspiratorial, it's not shocking there are no remains of ancient humans. Imagine if there were, say, 50,000 humans alive on the entire planet 300,000 years ago, it isn't shocking we don't have remains.

Another aspect of this that I like to ponder is biodiversity itself and how it seems as if there are eras or epochs of enormous biodiversification and other eras of very little, it seems to me this would overlap with environmental changes happening rather rapidly.

This advanced race was, for one reason or another, wiped out - almost - with us being a distant relative, plagued with genetic disease with a scant understanding of our own unique natural drives which seem to be those of a creature whose still reeling from almost being wiped out.

What do you guys think? I'm curious to hear all of your thoughts, criticisms and input.

Thank you for reading.

I don't know if you have heard of this guy before but he hits upon some of the exact same tings you brought up in your post. He believes that modern humans are a complete "reboot" of the species. And that we are not originally from here.

 

[solderjunkie]

I've followed Lloyd Pye, Brien Forester and Graham Hancock, of the three Graham is (to me) the most credible and I learned quite a bit from the research he's highlighted. Lloyd Pye loses me when he goes off into this being a bigfoot conspiracy and so on, I almost feel like its disinformation because he's very well researched, makes a lot of sense and then suddenly goes off into things with very little substantiation and a lot of subjectivity to them. Of course, all of this is hypothetical anyway.

 

[Witch Hunt]

I've followed Lloyd Pye, Brien Forester and Graham Hancock, of the three Graham is (to me) the most credible and I learned quite a bit from the research he's highlighted. Lloyd Pye loses me when he goes off into this being a bigfoot conspiracy and so on, I almost feel like its disinformation because he's very well researched, makes a lot of sense and then suddenly goes off into things with very little substantiation and a lot of subjectivity to them. Of course, all of this is hypothetical anyway.

I see that, but the human family tree has a lot of branches. I don't fully accept Pye's assertions but I don't discount them out of hand either.

You said...

I imagine the human ancestor as a long, long lived creature that was much more ruggedly built, much more intelligent and whose products would be highly biodegradable, if not entirely organic in nature.

Why can't that be a bigfoot species? Just saying.

 

[solderjunkie]

Oh I don't discount anything out of hand, my reason for being skeptical of Pye is purely because he transitions from a very rational, even compelling hypothesis on human origins to asserting bigfoot exists today and is very good at hiding.

Could he have been right? sure, but I'm more receptive to his framework than his conclusion - since nobody has found a living bigfoot.

When it comes to human origins, there is a ton of research done and quite a bit left to do, with possible breakthroughs in genetics and anthropology stacking up in the direction of a much older history. It's all nuanced and complicated with a lot of great information to comb through.

Brien Forester has done a great job with the paracas skulls, which is a tremendous discovery all by itself, Graham Hancock's books are compelling and he seems rational and not an entertainer. I won't be overly critical of Pye, but suffice to say, after the starchild skull (an absolutely obvious case of Hydrocephalus) I view him with a very jaundiced eye for promoting that to be an alien skull. To me that has all the hallmarks of a huckster looking to capitalize on other peoples ignorance of biology.

 

[Harte]

The Paracas skulls are no different than other human skulls except for the purposeful deformation. Foerster deliberately lies about this. He makes his living touring naive ignoramuses through these "mysterious sites" so he's certainly not credible.

Lloyd Pye hatched a moneygrubbing scheme designed to empty the pockets of idiots by requesting more money for research - for years on end - and not spending it on research.

Graham Hancock has openly admitted that he did pretty much no research whatsoever when writing "Fingerprints of the Gods?" At least Hancock has gotten away from constantly repeating lies that were invented by other people in his genre like he used to do. Now he tells his own lies, and won't even attempt to back up what he claims. He even stated that in his most recent book.

You know, there's no reason to wonder about the past, generally speaking that is. Yeah, it's real hard to learn, much easier to sit around and pretend nobody really knows anything about it.
There's no reason to "imagine" about humans and their ancestry either. But, of course, if you prefer avoiding hard work, then that's all you got.

Harte

 

[Yeats]

The major grievance I have against those who espouse such theories is that they assume that our ancestors were too stupid to have, for example, constructed such things as the Great Pyramid or Stonehenge. Our predecessors were not ignoramuses. (Well, perhaps some of them were, but that holds true for many today as well.)

 

[Classicalfan626]

@Yeats - Yes, our predecessors in general were not ignoramuses. And they most likely had a lot more technology than we give them credit for. All that high tech was taught to our predecessors by ETs.

 

[solderjunkie]

The Paracas skulls are no different than other human skulls except for the purposeful deformation. Foerster deliberately lies about this. He makes his living touring naive ignoramuses through these "mysterious sites" so he's certainly not credible.

Lloyd Pye hatched a moneygrubbing scheme designed to empty the pockets of idiots by requesting more money for research - for years on end - and not spending it on research.

Graham Hancock has openly admitted that he did pretty much no research whatsoever when writing "Fingerprints of the Gods?" At least Hancock has gotten away from constantly repeating lies that were invented by other people in his genre like he used to do. Now he tells his own lies, and won't even attempt to back up what he claims. He even stated that in his most recent book.

You know, there's no reason to wonder about the past, generally speaking that is. Yeah, it's real hard to learn, much easier to sit around and pretend nobody really knows anything about it.
There's no reason to "imagine" about humans and their ancestry either. But, of course, if you prefer avoiding hard work, then that's all you got.

Harte

If Forester is a liar, shame on him, from what I've read though the real meat and potatoes of the Paracas skulls is in the DNA testing - do you know if that's misrepresented as well?.

The reason I hypothesize about the past is precisely because I remain skeptical of the official narrative. To each their own.