Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

reply to post by Xtrozero


check this out from kramer's translation of ENKI BUILDS THE E. ENGURRA

After the water of creation had ben decreed, After the name hegal (abundance) born in heaven, Like plant and herb had clothed the land, The lord of the abyss, the king Enki, Enki the Lord who decrees the fates, Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli; Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light, The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss. (my note: he built it in the abyss. later translators, like oxford, suggested instead that he built it in the abzu and that the abzu was swampland. )

The creatures of bright countenances and wise, coming forth from the abyss, Stood all about the lord Nudimmud; The pure house he built He ornamented it greatly with gold, In Eridu he built the house of water-bank, Its brickwork, word-uttering, advice-giving, (my note: word uttering? )

[...]

sings the praises of the sea-house.

Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

something like this maybe




[edit on 5-3-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Maybe I don't know, but personally I do find it a great leap when we have nothing else to suggest such a great leap.

I'm more incline to go the way of an ancient race that maybe modified mankind 35,000 years ago into what we are today, and much has been lost due to some recent and major upheavals on the earth, that not only wiped out 100s of thriving species but came damn close to wiping out man too.

Now with that said, there is no proof of an ancient race earth born or from another planet, but there are lots of evidence of some very big disturbances on the earth within man’s existence.

So all I can say is something really strange happened with mankind 35,000 years ago and some really strange events happened in the last 6,000 years, and I hope one day we come to a better understanding as to what they were, but I don't see Reptiles as any part of it.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by rusethorcain


Rh negative can't be mutated or cloned. I see this everywhere. Why do you insist that it can? Are you a hemotologist? What do you know these articles don't, pray tell? And no animal, gorilla or chimp is rh negative.

In fact it also seems no chimp is blood type B
and no gorilla is blood type A
leading me to think both gorillas and chimps were used in early genetic manipulation trials.

We have explained that diseases can change blood in even more extreme cases than what Rh- ended up becoming, as we have seen in isolated parts of Africa. It is also suspected that Rh- started in a very isolated group that lived near France/Spain that once again can explain how it started in a small group and stay within that group for a very long time. With this and other large amounts of data available why do you limit you information to a few bias sites?

I think the bigger question is how do you jump right to aliens using genetic engineering to create it all. It is mind boggling just how huge these leaps are that one must do to get all the way to this conclusion. Where are the steps in-between? That is all we ask on this…

The Enuma Elish, the Epic of Creation says this is how it was done and why.
I have to give this recorded history considerable weight in the discussion. It must be admitted as evidence.

Why do you suppose ancient people would carve fantasy in rock?
Ancient soap operas?

Do you discount archeological evidence or do you suspect the translations are in error? What part of the epic of creation do you doubt or take issue with?

Although mutations may occur in individuals I have yet to see where a disease can change a bloods "type".


[edit on 5-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by Xtrozero


When a number of unrelated sources say the same thing or offer very similar accounts of an event and they are not proved to be pathological liars, a logical and reasonable minded person can from this information draw their own conclusions without ever having been there.

A skeptic cannot. But then a skeptic is not willing to entertain ideas based on logic and reason alone. Tangible, hard evidence is all they will accept.

Trouble is.... We live in an ethereal world.

Conserving space: en.wikipedia.org...
Seleucid Empire is symbolized as an unearthly beast. Who were they?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by agentofchaos
Well, if you can get down with the possibility of reptilians having some part in our creation, have I got a video for you. www.youtube.com...


I'm sorry I forgot how to post videos on here it's been a couple months since I've tried to. Now tell me that isn't as acceptable as reptilians, however I will admit the video doesn't cover everything. As far as reptilians go, I haven't been underground yet to see so I can't say yes or no, but when I go look I'll be sure to have plenty of lights, a camera, and tell you what I find. BTW, did you know you need some really extreme permits to go into any kind of cave in the U.S.,if they even let you in the cave.

Here you are. Posted this video for you. To do it - From the url address repaste the short code that's after the = (equal sign) to the info box that pops up when you click "YOUTUBE VIDEO"
I haven't watched it yet but well see what they are saying anyway

reply to post by rusethorcain


Hey thank sfor posting it, I got busy and forgot to go back and repost and good lookin on the instructions. As far as what they say, it's atleast as plausible as reptilians having some part in our beginnings. Anyways, it's not something I beleive, I just find it to be kind of an interesting way to look at our solar system if it were true...

reply to post by agentofchaos


No, it's not plausible. There are no strange things in our DNA that can be explained by Reptilians. Our evolutionary history is well understood, at least to scientists, it seems.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Have you actually read a version of the Enuma Elish that hasn't be interpreted by Sitchin? The actual story focuses more on Marduk's exploits than anything else. Furthermore, it describes him making the world out of Tiamat's body and Man out of Kingu's blood, both of whom were gods. I fail to see how that offers any support for your theory.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


and enuma elish is a hatchet job itself, considering the older texts that say Abzu wasn't a god, Tiamat wasn't a god, and Enki created humans along with 7 birth goddesses and so forth.

reply to post by undo


Here are a couple of versions of "the hatchet job"

www.csun.edu...
jewishchristianlit.com...

Exactly what text have you found "older" than these tablets?





[edit on 6-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Have you actually read a version of the Enuma Elish that hasn't be interpreted by Sitchin? The actual story focuses more on Marduk's exploits than anything else. Furthermore, it describes him making the world out of Tiamat's body and Man out of Kingu's blood, both of whom were gods. I fail to see how that offers any support for your theory.

Genetic manipulation? No, I don't have proof but many fact lead us in that direction. And if you don't want to go that way, or if you don't want to buy it... nobody is dragging you there. Believe what you want. As will I.

Originally posted by rusethorcain

The Enuma Elish, the Epic of Creation says this is how it was done and why.
I have to give this recorded history considerable weight in the discussion. It must be admitted as evidence.

Why do you suppose ancient people would carve fantasy in rock?
Ancient soap operas?

Not sure, but what if our world was erased by massive upheavals and 10,000 years from now someone dug up a copy of Lord of the Rings? Think of how that person would have viewed our world if they took it all as factual.

Do you discount archeological evidence or do you suspect the translations are in error? What part of the epic of creation do you doubt or take issue with?

First I find the tablets to not be old enough (1100BC to 2000BC) to support a rough time line of alien influences, but are old enough to help supply the story lines for the bible and other religious works. I would rather have other evidence available with the tablets supporting that evidence, but what we have is the tablets only, and so you tell me, how much credence do we give them in telling the true creation of man? Do we say ancient tablets tell the epic of mankind and so they must be correct without anything else supporting the theory?

Was man genetically created by a more advance race of aliens using alien DNA and the DNA of the Neanderthal to create a smart slave laborer?

Big question, so I don't have an issue in the direct translations of the text, but I do have issues with how people interpret those direct translations into an alien storyline with the only source of empirical evidence being their own interpretations of the translations.

Although mutations may occur in individuals I have yet to see where a disease can change a bloods "type".

I posted this awhile ago..

When you look at blood types (of which there are ABO, Rh, about 20 more common groups, and hundreds of uncommon ones that mostly only interest researchers), realize that we're looking at antigens that are medically relevant. Rh causes the strongest immune reaction aside from ABO group antigens, so it's medically relevant. It can cause reactions in blood transfusions, or during pregnancy.

The Rh group is actually composed of 3 antigens, C/c, D/d, and E/e. The upper and lower cases refer to different alleles, but the d gene produces no product. People who lack the D antigen (and have only the non-functional d gene) are considered Rh negative, even though they have genes that code for other Rh antigens. Some mutations cause a person to truly lack any of the Rh antigens, which can result in weaker red blood cell membranes and unusual ion concentrations (probably a result of defective membrane structure). This is called the Rh Null phenotype.

Variation in red blood cell antigens can sometimes be linked to diseases present in the region someone's ancestors came from. For example, those with African ancestry usually lack Duffy group antigens. This confers resistance to malaria, endemic to Africa.


So what this is saying is Rh- has the antigens, C, d, E, with d being inactive and Rh + is C, D, E which means they are all active antigens. We see in Africa there are other mixes of antigens other than the C, D, E that were caused by disease, so Rh- is not unique.

Talking about blood...

DNA research on full-blooded indigenous populations from around the world has led to the discovery and documentation of genetic markers that are unique to populations, ethnicity and/or deep ancestral migration patterns. The markers having very specific modes of inheritance, and which are relatively unique to specific populations, are used to assess probabilities of ancestral relatedness. Available services include: Ancestral Heritage DNA testing, Native American DNA Verification, Y-Chromosome DNA Testing and mtDNA Sequence Analysis.

This whole blue blood debate is kind of funny for there are a bunch of "blood blood" scenarios. The above quote explains how they can do DNA research on your blood to determine ancestral history. this means all of our blood are somewhat genetically different as is Rh- is to the Rh+ population.

The idea that Rh- is alien blood mix and blood cannot be genetically changed, or has not changed through mutations is only a story with zero support while having lots evidence against it. So here are a few mutated blood types within the human race. Which ones of these are also alien mix since they are a hell of a lot more alien to Rh+ than Rh- is.



45 rare blood types

What is it about blood that hasn't been posted that you feel is missing in this debate?



[edit on 6-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by rusethorcain


here's a few
Enki and the World Order
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...#
Enki and Ninmaḫ
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...#
Enki's journey to Nibru
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...#

reply to post by autowrench


it is probable, even if I think that we have been created by the Grey

reply to post by undo


I will leave the

yes it is
no its not
yes it is
no its not
yes it is

type of discussion you already have going on here with many posters thus inconsiderately hi-jacking the original thread from it's author....

to you.

reply to post by rusethorcain


i gave you what you asked for, did i not?

the subject is about reptilians creating humans yes? the argument was put forth that reptilians don't exist so how could they create humans. i provided textual and artifact evidence that they do exist. you're quoting sitchin's translation of the enuma elish, as if it were factual, when even sitchin knew the enuma elish was a hatchet job of the older texts. on top of that, he translates them anyway, and uses his translation to back up his nibiru theory, even allowing the text to change ABZU into the sun, for his planetary model.

what ?

reply to post by undo


Texts and artefacts are the weakest form of evidence. If we go by that, then Nessie exists, Santa Claus exists, the Easter Bunny exists, Harry Potter exists, the Terminator exists, and so on and so forth.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by undo

 

I will leave the

yes it is
no its not
yes it is
no its not
yes it is

type of discussion you already have going on here with many posters thus inconsiderately hi-jacking the original thread from it's author....

to you.

And here I thought we were really coming to some conclusions on the viability that reptilian's had any part in the human process. I’m not saying this in jest for I haven’t researched this very much and this thread force me to defend my beliefs in how man came about, and as I said I really feel something very strange affected the human race about 35,000 ago and I do find that the Sumerians springing seemly out of nowhere, compared to the millions of years prior of slow advancement of the human race as another enigma with our past, so there are still mysteries with how we came about that was not just the slow evolutionary process that is mainstream.

With that said, if you are done posting I just want to say thanks for the fun in challenging my mind.

reply to post by davesidious


well i didnt stop there. as you can see, i don't just parrot, i investigate. we have literally thousands of reptile bones/skulls/etc and they were occassionally mixed in with "human" bones. So if you find a reptilian head and nearby you find a bipedal, non-monkey mammalian type skeleton, why would you assume the reptile head belonged to the mammalian skeleton, especially if you were told from the outset that what you were looking for was early human skeletons, such a neanderthal and so forth? you'd assume the old mammalian skeleton belonged to an earlier form of man and not that it was in anyway attached at one point, to the reptilian head, which would be characterized as an alligator, crocodile, tortoise, large snake, anything besides the head that went with the skeleton of the bipedal body.

so here we have some egyptian mummy skulls and a few other examples, i found while investigating the similarity between the artifact and text evidence, which suggested the manifestation of human hybridization was most readily apparent in elongation of the skull in which head binding was not the cause:

Here's a little study I did on Anunnaki traits in ancient Royals:

The Akhenaton Family

Princess Meritaten, the daughter of King Akhenaten
www.thestargates.com...

According to this article at National Geographic, this skull was NOT the result of disease.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

King Tutankhamen
ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

Seti I
www.thestargates.com...

Sitamon - daughter of Ahmose
www.thestargates.com...

Djedptahiufankh - son of Ramesses
www.thestargates.com...

Tuthmosis III
www.thestargates.com...

the next question i asked was, if they had such long heads, how come i didn't notice it in their other representations? well, that's because they wore very tall crowns. and it wasn't just egyptians that did so, but also the chinese emperors, the hindu gods and goddeses, and so on.