Hard Disclosure Part Deux

This post, as a piece by itself, would not seem to belong to this forum. However, I'm building a case that links to UFO disclosure, and every scrap of this post will be required in order to see the hypothesis through to the end. This isn't the end of it. It's a necessary step to bring us up to my last post, which will cover UFOs exclusively.

You may have guessed by now that I consider this original hybridized strain of Neanderthal/Cro-magnon to be the "Nephilim" referred to in the Bible and in apocryphal works like the Book of Enoch. The "men of old" and the "men of reknown". Giants in every sense of the word. I contend that this new breed became the pyramid builders and the civilization builders. This kind of a claim requires more evidence than I'm going to cover here, and I think that such evidence can be found in the works of other researchers such as Graham Hancock. I will point out one little tidbit that should stimulate your imagination. Remember what I said about Neanderthal having a pronounced occipital bun, or "cone" at the back of his head? Egyptian statuary and iconography from the deepest past depicts the pyramid builders with coned heads. Similarly, the Mayans adopted the practice of binding the skulls of their children to produce cone-shaped skulls. Why? To honor the white, bearded "gods" who came across the Atlantic and brought them civilization and built their pyramids.

It is important to undersand that this hybridization occurred deep in antiquity, and millenia have passed in the interim. Millenia in which not only our common history has been lost but also this genetic legacy has been diluted and distributed throughout populations around the world. Civilizations have risen and fallen in the meantime. Most of the Neanderthal physical traits have been completely bred out, due to sexual selection. Modern humans are better looking than Neanderthal, and human beings are generally somewhat picky when it comes to choosing a bedmate. That's just the breaks. Modern physical bodies are also more adaptable to various climates, and are generally more agile and efficient. Some of the cognitive traits definitely were beneficial and have survived longer.

There are allusions to the attempts by different cultures over time to control breeding in a way that is more in line with breeding bloodstock than in normal human breeding behavior. The Jews are noteworthy in this. What were they trying to preserve? There is evidence to suggest that the royal lines in Europe and their careful bloodline maintenance is a part of the same attempt to retain what is best in these bloodlines. Is it a coincidence that Ashkenazi Jews (European, Khazars - red-haired and blue-eyed according to the research from The Thirteenth Tribe, which is based in part on the writings of an Arab named Ibn Fadlan. Michael Crichton based his book, and subsequent movie, The Thirteenth Warrior, on this research) scored the highest IQs in the controversial work from the 70s called The Bell Curve? Is it a coincidence that Albert Einstein, who actually carried some strong physical vestiges of this genetic legacy, was able to "visualize" the curvature of space? Was it a coincidence that the gifted physicists who were brought together under the Manhattan Project were, almost to a man, Jewish?

So, yes! It is absolutely the case that the Jews have historically been a remnant of the hybrid vigor. One of the most tragic and cruel symmetries in history was the fact that the Nazis, in an attempt to purge the "bad" genes and restore some perfect race of telepaths and geniuses, were actually gassing a part of this remnant.

The genetic legacy is not restricted to Jews, but because Jews were sticklers for marrying in-group and preserving bloodlines, their culture historically reflected some of the Neanderthal social and psychological tendencies. This goes a long way towards explaining why Jews have been social pariahs and outcasts in every country they have been in over the course of history. Look at the prophets of the OT. What were they warning against? The worship of false idols and false gods. They were warning against the worship of the self-image. To the mind that is in touch with a group consciousness and a group identity, the worship of the individual personality is a perversion. The individual personality, from this perspective, is unimportant next to the will of God, or of the group mind. To the mind of an OT prophet, an individual is meant not to be the rock in the stream, but instead the river than flows around it. This kind of thinking is found in Jewish mysticism, in Buddhism, and in yogic traditions. This is not an accident. Look up "Tarim mummies" or "Takla Makan mummies" on Google, and you will find a variety of information, and a look at ancient Chinese texts that clearly show that they believe the people who brought them Buddhism... were bearded caucasians.


[edit on 9-7-2008 by applebiter]

Yes. This is right along the same lines I have been thinking for a while. You put it together quite nicely. It all fits neatly in place, doesn't it?

Also, the ancient Egyptian Pharoahs commonly married their sisters to preserve their bloodline. They wanted to progress the kingship through the maternal line, as it was the mitochondrial DNA that was important to the succession.

It fits then that the Jews were either originally Egyptians or they were the Hyksos Kings. If the Jews were the Egyptians, then they would be the natural progression of the inheritance. But, if they were the invading Hyksos, then they could have just adopted the practice in order to give their kingship legitimacy. They may not have the Dragon Blood. Or, they probably married Egyptian princesses.





[edit on 9-7-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by applebiter


I personally think humans built the Pyramids, along with numeorus other things. One thing I learned in college was that we can't even build the Roman Colliseum, Aqueducts, and even the Pantheon in modern times without the use of modern construction tools and equipment. Heck even the concrete the Romans used was in mnay ways superior to what we have today. So to me humans have vast, vast potential when they put their minds to it. Two words: The Moon. Amusingly there are people today who still can't comprehend or believe that we went to The Moon.

I should also mention that whoever built Teotihuacan was not the Mayans. The builders of the city the Aztecs named Teotihuacan pre existed the Mayans. Even the Aztecs didn't know who built it and gave it the name its known by, which means "birthplace of the gods". Even today scholars are not sure who built this grandest of cities. When it was at its height during the same time of 1st century CE Rome, it was possbly the greatest city on the face of the Earth. Yet we have no idea for sure who built it.

The city dates back to at least 200 BCE. Both the Pyramid of the Sun(The Third largest Pyramid in the world) and the Great Pyramid of Cholula( The largest Pyramid in the world) date back to that time and before the Mayan classic period which began around 250 CE. Not to mention they were over 400 miles away from Mayan civilization.

Now I don't deny that Europeans or someone else came across the Atlantic. I think there is a good case for that, but who exactly is another question. Carthaginians are a good possibility.

Now the Jewish theory is just well really out there. Jews rarely have red hair and to suggest that we are part Neandertal sounds silly. If anyone has an abundance of Neandertal DNA its White Northern Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars, this is myth. Genetically Jews are Semites, we are virtually genetically identical to our Arab brethren. There has been interamrriages and such, but Jews have retained a mostly homogenous Semite ancestry. Its a core part of the ethnoreligious way of life that is Judaism.

The whole concept really sounds like 19th century Theosophy. Replace Aryan with Nephilim/Neandertals and there you go.
Thats probably why this second part of "Hard Disclosure" has had very few replies, except for someone who thinks we have Dragon blood. Dragon blood!? Oy Vey

Neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago, the pyramids were built in the last couple of thousand years. thats quite a jump!!

early humans, hybrids or not, were hunter-gatherer types until about 10,000 years ago, when they started farming, so the likelihood that they understood bloodstock inheritance concepts before this seems smaller than small. again, another big jump.

i have to assume you knew this, you've given the impression that you have researched this area in depth, so i beg the question, do you have a convenient explanation or are you trying to deliberately mislead, and if so, why?

there are many problems within your post, which explain the lack of replies you deplored in the pt1 thread.

The first issue is Eugenics. brreding for performance, like in crops. too bad that it does not really work that way (crop failures may be tragic, but the same happening to human populations would be surreal) and is logically inconsistent.

first, 'hybrid vigor' which is usually somewhat mitigated by infertility, i might add, and by our perceptions of what's 'good', but that's another matter entirely. then inbreeding to preserve a bloodline.

what can i say, it's most certainly no coincidence that 'inbreeding depression' is a well known term in biology...



as if that wasn't enough, you bring The Jews (spelled right?) into it, with the same breath, so to speak. the combination, no matter how you slice it is historically tainted, your reversal of priorities does not change much if anything. the issue here is entirely political and aryan race excuses are just that, something to swallow for the gullible who need it.

Fascinating! I like where you are going with this. I've learned to trust my intuition, to appreciate the kind of intimate knowledge available when one is unafraid to open their mind. Your writing really works for me on that level. I especially like what you said about the collective unconscious and the worship of false idols. I'm looking forward to the next part.

I'm definitely a lightweight in this class of conversation, but it did occur to me that this theory might explain why the Jews consider themselves God's chosen people.

Note to the OP, good threads.

The sequel is good so far. I starred first and read second because you obviously have put a lot of work into this and have the courage to throw yourself to the lions in a manner of speaking.

Don't leave us hanging for too long on the finale. I know you are feeling pressure right now to keep quiet, but if you have discovered the truth people need to hear the message.

Way to go staying calm in the face of adversity also. We may not all agree on the the message, but the fact that you are presenting it logically, calmly and rationally makes this thread a refreshing oasis in the barren intellectual desert of ATS.

Keep it up! We're hooked!

reply to post by emsed1


I have to stop now. I want to share the rest of my hypothesis, but (and I have already been told this is a typical cop-out) there is a higher law that I cannot and will not disobey.

The only thing I will add is a suggestion to go and see the latest Indiana Jones movie, or rent it when it comes to your favorite video store. Yes, it's allegorical, but the truth is in it if you have a discerning eye. Spielberg must have come to a similar conclusion to mine, though it is compressed into symbols that fit a Saturday afternoon matinée milieu.

i commend you for putting puzzle peices of history together in a logical fashion. Its a bold step to attempt your own personal history lesson after finally excepting the UFO phenomenon. Your post hopefully will inspire others to get involved in a historical debate or better yet a historical collaboration of information.

its funny that nobody ever brings up the underwater structure off the coast of japan, its always pyramids pyramids pyramids..there are other structures out there which hold huge secrets as well.

reply to post by applebiter


Is it the 'big head' thing?

It sounds like you are creating a link between our big-headed ancestors, big-headed ancient cultures and aliens with big heads.

I am sure it is much more complex and subtle than that but it seems to be a common thread running through your posts.

I am of Western European and American Indian descent. I have blue eyes and a really big head (no kidding) and I am bald. I am not making fun, just hoping that you can give us a little more detail and not leave us hanging.

Also, can you give us a hint as to who/what is pressuring you to not reveal more? Is it an earthly entity or something else?



EDIT: This post sounds snarky but I am really not making fun. It is really interesting and I hope you can share more, but don't put yourself in danger.

[edit on 7/10/08 by emsed1]

reply to post by emsed1


No, none of the physical traits mean anything at the end of the day. It's all bout potential and the ways we find to reach it. It's all going to come out in a short while anyway. A very short while.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by applebiter]

Maybe it's just me but you seem biased to Judeo-Christian mythologies/ideas. From my research those paternal religions (including Islam) borrowed HEAVILY from mythologies from the mesopotamian (sp) area thousands of years earlier, and chopped the original stories all to hell to fit the concepts of "newer" times.

Consider the Sumerian creation myth (basically as I remember it)...

When the god's created man v1.0 they noticed that "he saw too far". They kept trying to dummy him down with v1.1, v1.2, etc, but they just couldn't make him the way they wanted. So they scraped the damned thing and went back to the proverbial drawingboard.

Round two: The new model... They tried some different techniques, put some governors in parts of the brain, took some parts OUT of the brain, wrapped it up in a sleek stream-lined body and viola, homo sapiens v2.0 was spawned (that's us).

Now, it doesn't necessarily discount your claims, but I think it would be a better foundation/context in regards to the theosophical aspect of your theory.

reply to post by Flux8


Sure, I am biased in terms of models and imagery, because it's part of the culture I've grown up in. If I were born and raised in Cambodia, then I would use a different model. Models are just models. Just like "particle physics" uses "particles" as a model, since it is easier for us to understand particles, and visualize energetic interactions thus. As with all models, it's a tautology.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by applebiter]

reply to post by applebiter


Hello Applebiter, have you researched "The Tavistock Model"?
Does it fit into your theories?

www.nycgrouprelations.org...

reply to post by Ah_Pook


No, I hadn't seen this. Yes, it will henceforth. Thanks.

I'm not sure if I missed your point or you missed mine. Are you infering that all models (empirically scientific, theoretical, philosophical, etc) are equally correct?

reply to post by Flux8


No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that you could have n models to describe a set of phenomena, and if they are all equal in regards to how closely they map onto the observable features of the phenomena, and if they are all equally predictive, then they are all true. Typically one model is very good at explaining some features at the expense of others.

reply to post by applebiter

I'm not trying to derail you here, but,

ARE they all equal in regards to how closely they map onto the observable features of the phenomena? ARE they all equally predictive? When a model is good at explaining certain features at the expense of others it is incomplete and therefore incorrect, (even though it may be close enough for jazz).

Generally, to build a more complete model/hypothesis one needs to go back to the earliest source for evaluation, which in this case is not the Judeo-Christian mythologies. Therefore, the theosophical aspect of your hypothesis seems to be primarily built on selective evidence. But then again, isn't all evidence selective?

But, hey, you're the wordsmith (no pun intended)... And what is that saying, "write what you know"? Lookin forward to part 3!

reply to post by Flux8


I've never studied theosophy. I've never even read one book on the subject. If my hypothesis aligns to something in theosophy, does that lend more or less credence to the hypothesis or to theosophy?