Humans - A cross between Grey Aliens and Ancient Ape ?

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


The burden of proof lies with you. Show us these scientists you speak of, and we'll show you how they're full of crap.

reply to post by breano


Others have pointed out the silliness of the idea on the basis of genetics, lack of any evidence of greys, etc.

However, for a moment let's say there are such creatures. Know what I think? I think that if such creatures exist, they are not human's ancestors, but rather our descendants.

From an evolutionary standpoint, they make pretty good models of what "future humans" might look like. Our craniums are growing and our jaws are shrinking. Put us in a lightweight environment with poor light and we'll develop that anime-style "skinny limbs and big eyes" look

'Course this would also mean these future humans have unlocked backwards time travel.

Or they could just be descendands of H. erectus that got a million-year head start on us.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Bring me a team of scientists that say there is 100% proof of anything, and your argument will be valid.

Every scientist on earth will tell you that, outside of mathematics (where two plus two ALWAYS equals four, no matter what) there is no such thing as "100% proof"

About the best that can ever be managed is 99.99% proof.

The odds of you being the descendant of an ape are actually much higher than the odds that you are in fact descended from the man you consider your father, in other words (that only has about 90% probability)

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

The burden of proof lies with you. Show us these scientists you speak of, and we'll show you how they're full of crap.

Your funny. You say that because you won't do the search. Ha! The burden of proof does not lie with me, I am not making the claim. You are the one who is trying to convert Me!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

The burden of proof lies with you. Show us these scientists you speak of, and we'll show you how they're full of crap.

Your funny. You say that because you won't do the search. Ha! The burden of proof does not lie with me, I am not making the claim. You are the one who is trying to convert Me!

I did the search and I found no serious scientists claiming we did not have common ancestor with apes. That means you are just making them up.

Why would god use evolution to create all life and then use something different to create humans? It just doesnt make sense, especially given all the similarities between humans and other animals. (there is nothing special about humans from biological standpoint except brain size, finger dexterity and communication.. We are just more advanced animals)

well, i reckon you are right for changelings. and the abduction experiments where greys are seen. and for the starchild skull kids in south america.

but i dont know if the human race as a whole are grey/ape mix.

i think they are ape/alien of some sort mix if the religious texts are telling the truth. which alien tho im not sure.

the elongated skull type seems to be common all over the world, incl. linked to egypt, malta, nazca, paracas, siberia etc. This seems a likely candidate.

but then the bible does say humans were made 'in their image'. so perhaps its an alien that looks pretty identical to us in most respects?

then of course there's the snake/reptile possibility. many early kings or rulers, gods were depicted with fish or reptile tales. eg. cronos. some sort of interbreeding there?

also there was interbreeding with indian kings and 'demons', which i think are a type of human looking alien.

its a little hard to sort out, becuz i think the aliens did some genetic engineering, so a lot of mythological creatures were real experiments (von daniken thinks so too, i got the idea from his book, eye of the sphinx). E.g. medusa - human/snake, pegasus - horse/bird; satry - human/goat. sphinx - lion/human; minotaur - human/bull; centaur - human/horse; mermaid - human/fish; many headed dog that guarded 'hades'; many headed 'serpents or dragons', and so on. They were all probly real i think. we are almost able to do this stuff now - with growing human ear on a mouse. so i dont think aliens would have any trouble with it. and may not have any moral scruples about using humans in experiments, as we dont, towards mice. (maybe we should treat mice better otherwise we're just as bad as aliens, from a mouse perspective..)

i do think its very interesting with the idea of 'blue blood' or royalty.

blue blood? why not red blood? why blue?
and this was the reason they couldnt interbreed with 'commoners'. to keep their genes pure. and perhaps because breeding wouldnt work so well?

also this matches all the legends, e.g. in tonga - the king is the son of a god with a human mother - the first king, and all are descended from him. they all contain the 'blood' of the 'god'. hence the 'divine right of kings to rule'. ordained by 'god' (an alien), because they have more alien blood than others via direct interbreeding, perhaps?

whereas the rest of people may have spliced alien blood from the creation experiments, but not DIRECT interbreeding with the aliens - a double dose. thats what i think a lot of the 'royal or aristocratic' families have - a double dose of alien genes. perhaps perhaps.

otherwise whats so special about them? do you really think an impartial all loving real 'god' (as an originating force) would tell certain people they could rule over others becuz of their birth? no. not that sort of a god. but an alien, whose CHILDREN these people are, would...becuz they are his children, by blood.

if you think about it, it makes perfect sense.

also, rhesus negataive blood is interesting.

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Does [Zeta Reticulan] “little” Grey Alien + “large” earthling-Neanderthal = [hybrid] Cro-Magnon (i.e. modern man)?

Hmmmm.

One thing that always has puzzled me is that no scientist has ever been able to explain properly the existence in modern human blood of the so-called Rh-Negative Factor... which is generally a result of hybrid breeding between distinct species.

This RH Negative Factor is generally brushed under the carpet as a "mutation of unknown Origin", which suddenly “happened” in Europe, around 45,000-55,000 years ago. Then this [hybrid? Randomly mutated?] group of hominids called “Cro Magnon” (which is what modern Europeans are today) purportedly spread very quickly into the area of what is now Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland as well as into England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, etc.

During the process of “Allo-immunization” which occurs during the act of giving live birth (as with cro-magnon man), blood cells from the unborn child can actually escape into the mother's bloodstream.

These cells are recognized as “foreign” if they are a wholly “different” blood-type from the mother------- and a natural rejection process will generally ensue with the formation of antibodies to the invading cells. This process is known as red cell alloimmunization.

In more than 98% of cases, this red blood cell “incompatibility” involves the Rhesus or Rh D antigen [Rh-negative Factor] so the disease is known as Rhesus disease or Rh disease.

Although the exact percentage varies with race, 15% of the United States population is Rh-negative and 85% is Rh-positive.

If a Rh-negative woman conceives a child with a Rh-positive partner, the potential exists for the child to inherit its father's Rh-positive blood type.

There are two types of Rh-positive men. In 55% of individuals, the man is heterozygous. In these cases, his genetics allow him to produce Rh-negative offspring 50% of the time and Rh-positive offspring the remaining 50% of the time.

In the second type of a Rh-positive individual, only Rh-positive offspring can result, a condition known as the “homozygous state.”

So... Rh-negative women with a Rh-positive partner are at RISK of spontaneous miscarriage and other fetus REJECTION events.

Again….Hmmmm.

Moreover, an Rh-negative woman with a Rh-negative partner has even a smaller chance of having a Baby born alive...

NB: In animals this is seen as a problem, but ONLY in HYBRID Animals.

Could this be a vestige of some HYBRIDIZATION back around 50,000 years ago between an alien race and the Neanderthal in Europe?

YES.


of course it is.

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by breano

 

question:

What do you get when you cross a Grey Alien with a Great Ape?

A Grape! LMAO! Sorry guys, I just simply could not turn down that open opportunity to say that!

reply to post by ofhumandescent


yep.

i think they made humans so they could see with funnel vision but not the broader picture. i think they have disabled some part of humans' brains/intellectual potential. while leaving them wiht still the 'maths'/science ability, but wihtout the backup broader programming to really see the big picture - or else they would be able to figure out that they're being controlled. this way, humans can still be intelligent enough for them, and useful. but subservient.

whereas, the royalty and interbreeding experiments, may HAVE the broader vision, extra abilities. but these are kept under check i would say. by either coercion; being invovled in the cover up; or by disablin gthe maths ability of their brains to some extent (if they arent under direct control).

dont ask me how i know or guess all this i probly shudnt be telling you. not that you will believe me anyway. its just my opinion.

reply to post by rapunzel222


There is no evidence of aliens, there are no successful experiments concerning Gray aliens (or indeed any aliens), and those 'starchild' skulls result from binding.

So basically your post is just guesswork.

Back on planet Earth, the process of evolution is well understood, accepted by all biologists, and doesn't have a single shred of evidence against it. And no amount of posters who slept through biology class can change that

i hear lizards think humans are very tasty.

so do greys apparantly...

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Your funny. You say that because you won't do the search. Ha! The burden of proof does not lie with me, I am not making the claim. You are the one who is trying to convert Me!

As pointed out, no respectable scientist will tell you that any theory is 100% true. If it were such then I imagine it would be known as the Law of Evolution. However evolution is the most widely accepted scientific theory for how humans came to be. It has been exhaustively tested, and observed for a very long time with the final belief that very, VERY, likely this is how man came to be.

I know that that doesn't matter to you. You will just cross your arms, shake your head vehemently in the negative, and scream IS NOT, IS NOT, IS NOT!!! You remind me of what I imagine ignorant, closed-minded men of the 15th century must have sounded like when scientists of that time said, "We can't say with 100% certainty, but after much research based on A, B, and C we have this theory that the world is round."

Originally posted by rapunzel222
i do think its very interesting with the idea of 'blue blood' or royalty.

blue blood? why not red blood? why blue?

Your answer (I thought this was common knowledge, it's extremely well documented)

It’s a direct translation of the Spanish sangre azul. Many of the oldest and proudest families of Castile used to boast that they were pure bred, having no link with the Moors who had for so long controlled the country, or indeed any other group. As a mark of this, they pointed to their veins, which seemed bluer in colour than those of such foreigners. This was simply because their blue-tinted veins showed up more prominently in their lighter skin, but they took it to be a mark of their pure breeding.

So the phrase blue blood came to refer to the blood which flowed in the veins of the oldest and most aristocratic families. The phrase was taken over into English in the 1830s. By the time Anthony Trollope used it in The Duke's Children in 1880, it had become common:

It is a point of conscience among the — perhaps not ten thousand, but say one thousand of bluest blood, — that everybody should know who everybody is. Our Duke, though he had not given his mind much to the pursuit, had nevertheless learned his lesson. It is a knowledge which the possession of the blue blood itself produces. There are countries with bluer blood than our own in which to be without such knowledge is a crime.

reply to post by EdCase512


Thanks for that history lesson, I was looking up that info but you beat me to it. Not that it will do any good mind you. Those who want to believe this whole interbreeding with aliens thing bad enough to go out on such limbs will just tell you that the term "blue-blood" is undeniable, irrevocable proof of it, and that you are a government paid disinfo agent sent to ridicule them.

reply to post by davesidious


i dont think anyone has suggested the 'starchild' skull found in sth america is a result of skull binding. its fat. not long.

i think the suggestion has been that the elongated skulls, like those of nefertiti, akhenaton, their children, (akhenaton who was a 'living god' btw) in egypt, certain of the lapita people (the cannibalistic batuku the skull) in the marquesas islands, skulls found in malta, and in nazca and paracas and in siberia, and some in australia, i think the suggestion has been that these are resulting from binding. while head binding did occur in many cultures, some skulls have anomalies. certain of the malta elongated skulls do not have human characteristics on the roof of the head which is admitted; also the malta archaeologists are on record as saying they are 'another race'. the youtube vid of the unearthing of the siberian elongated skulls is also interesting. the archaeologists there talk of 'special abilities' possessed by these people...

course, they could be lying to you.

but they wouldnt do that, would they?

reply to post by Majiq


oh, you beat me to it.

blue blood... is reptile blood blue?

funny how even in ancient egypt the aristocrats interbred with each other to keep their blood 'pure'. didnt they want any moorish contamination then? i think the idea of pure blood pre-dates the moors and spain im afraid.

but nice try

[edit on 1-1-2010 by rapunzel222]

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Our DNA can be matched 98% with that of Chimps and the other 2% is normal for species variation.

Sorry but were 100% homegrown old fashioned Earthmen!

That's terrible logic . . .

We could share 98% of our DNA with aliens from another solar system for all you know.

All life in the universe could share the same/similar DNA.

Originally posted by JPhish


That's terrible logic . . .

We could share 98% of our DNA with aliens from another solar system for all you know.

All life in the universe could share the same/similar DNA.

No, because altough we share 98 % of our DNA sequences with chimps, we share much less DNA with other lifeforms.
The best logical explanation is that we are related.

I've read somewhere that we actually had a lot of dna mixtures in our beings, from several different spices. which is kinda cool i guess.
But i don't think that we are just a cross breed between apes and grays. not at all.