aliens & their message

Here is a clip from Graham Hancock who I discovered through a book he authored called Supernatural which primarily discusses unrelated topics like Shamanism and the psychedelic drug Ayahuasca but I believe the bulk of his work deals with ancient civilizations.

His main idea in this interview is that human civilizations were really advanced in the distant past, moreso than mainstream history/archeology recognizes and he uses the mystery of Göbelki Tepe here as evidence to point to this. This idea, if accurate, would shake up the timeline of human technological advancement and essentially make us rethink history.

Note that when the host prompts him the question "Are these aliens?" he explicity states "No, they're humans". This highlights my point about quote mining that I brought up the other day in regards to Kaku -- I believe Hancock has been featured on Ancient Aliens as well and he probably provides brief interview segments with info similar to here but then they'll cutaway to the narrator talking about aliens and it gives people the false impression that Hancock ascribes to what the narrator says. I think Hancock's work is considered pseudoarcheology by the mainstream, so his reputation isn't on the line in comparison to someone like Kaku.

But I digress... I actually find Hancock's perspective interesting.

 

I assume you two aren't really serious in historians or scientists consciously hiding an uncertain DNA modification for no good reasons. Or it was at best a random thought. It definitely seems unsubstantiated

 

I knew it was the bone marrow that mattered too, but also not why (as i understand other parts of the human body are just as suitable for dna samples or stem cells). But... the answer to that doesn't lie predominantly with Sitchkin, but in genetics in general.

 

Here's a thought that some might wish to consider. Ok, imagine an egg and millions of little tadpole looking things and then an impact, penetration, and new life joins this earth. Imagine now, this earth, astroids and meteors, and the same or similar event.

Ever wonder where we ourselves came from. We're not prehistoric, yet we are and the way this world works can dumb down even the most sophisticated of beings. We learn to adapt and evolve and become … It's who we are, so … yeah … I agree with the sentiment of what's his name.

 

I was under the impression there was no "missing link".

 

It was like a kernel of corn … it transformed into something or other....

 

I'm not sure where you get this idea but I think it's either in error or outdated because humans are in the taxonomic family of Great Apes.

 

I wonder how long a time span is missing? How many years or days or month's and what they might be compared to????

 

In the current scientific consensus? How so?

 

Not in the family of banana related fruits? :-D

 

I don't think so but after hashtag's metaphor of the Earth as a giant Ova and asteroids as sperm, I've came to the realization the possibilities are wide open.

 

I'm a universe you're a universe, who's a universe, that other guy over there … yeah … that one … he's a universe too, and guess what? That's what we all are. Little universes within universes within universes within universes and the story never ends it goes on and on and on and on....

 

I was waiting upon driftrue's response but I got impatient and restless and decided to look into it. From what I gather, the idea of "missing link" is based on a misinterpretation of Darwin's work that suggests we directly evolved from extant apes. The implicit conundrum was how do we get from A (apes) to C (humans) in the evolutionary chain? I understand why this idea would appeal to Ancient Astronaut proponents.

Current scientific consensus suggests extant apes and humans share a common ancestor but our evolutionary branches split, in other words we didn't directly descend from an extant ape. This same idea could be applicable to orangutans and other apes as well, I bring this up to suggest our speciation isn't inherently special in an evolutionary sense. I'm not completely sure but I think speciation used to be viewed as more linear as where now, in part to the contributions of Darwin, evolution is viewed as more of a tree.


Speaking of misinterpretations of Darwin's work, the idea of "Survival of the Fittest" has often been misconstrued as well. I remember I used to hear all these qualifiers tied to that phrase like Bigger, Faster, Stronger, etc. but from what I recall of reading his work, adaptability was the primary key to a species being fit to survive and those qualifiers aren't inherent in the idea.

 

What if I suggested the missing link is in the seed and egg?

 

Please tell me more.

 

I might suggest but I won't tell you anything. Someone once told me, after I asked a question of him to, "do your own research, I'm not doing it for you. I like research and being a student for obvious reasons.

 

We would ask what you mean with that.

Sounds like the ol' excuse to hint at knowledge you don't actually have. If you're just pondering the subject that is good enough No need to act mysterious