The Dawn of the Genesis Race
 For millennia the development of humanity showed a consistent homogenous pattern. Then suddenly, around 5000 BCE, great civilisations sprang up around the globe. They constructed huge monuments to their gods using advanced technological knowledge. Will Hart examines the flaws in the theory of evolution and shows we are not being told the truth about our history and origins.
The
mysteries of ancient history, such as how the Great Pyramid
was built and by whom and why, have been well established
over the past four decades. Similar archaeological enigmas
litter the landscape around the planet and they raise
many difficult questions about the origin of human civilisation.
Erik Von Daniken's series of books, which began with Chariots
of the Gods, presented archeological evidence while
recounting many mythological traditions that have "gods"
arriving on Earth from a distant world and bringing technology
and the arts of civilised life to primitive human tribes.
Many writers followed Von Daniken's lead and an entire
school of alternative historical thought called the "ancient
astronaut" theory emerged over the years. This school
must be distinguished from another branch largely defined
by such writers as Graham Hancock, which we can sum up
as the "lost civilisation" school.
The latter does not figure into this discussion nor is
it covered in my book The Genesis Race because
it never really addresses the issue of the ultimate origins
of Man or civilisation. Even if you accept the idea ancient
Egypt and Sumer
had their origins in Atlantis, who created that civilisation
and from what precursors?
The essential questions the author has been studying over
the past three decades are: 1) how did life originate
and evolve on Earth?, and 2) how did civilisation suddenly
emerge from mankind's primitive roots? To my mind it seemed
the ancient astronaut theory could be defeated if Darwin's
theory proved to be correct, which "official science"
claims it has been. That premise can be justified using
several valid arguments.
The "ancient astronaut" theory generally includes the
idea summed up in the first chapter of Genesis,
which indicates the "gods" genetically engineered a proto-human
race. The actual verse reads, "Let us make man in our
image." If Darwinism is accurate then this assertion would
be untrue and the notion of cosmic intervention by an
advanced race would fall apart.
The second reason is Darwin's theory has not only been
applied to biology, it is also used to explain the emergence
and development of human civilisation by a process referred
to as cultural evolution.
At its core Darwinism is based on a simple concept: life
evolves slowly via a process of incremental adaptations
to a wide variety of external stimulus. He applied it
to biology and anthropologists, archaeologists and historians
applied the same principles to culture and human history.
If this is correct then we should not find any abrupt
transformations in human "evolution" either biological
or historical.
I reason that if Darwinism is accurate then there may
not be any valid scientific basis for the "ancient astronaut"
theory, which posited intervention and rapid-fire metamorphosis
in both the biological and historical spheres. The results
of this research proved surprising. Darwinism is not only
unproven - it has been shown by scientists to be fatally
flawed. This is where my book, The Genesis Race, begins. Chapters two and three clearly show the flaws
in the theory of evolution. It has failed exactly where
Darwin feared it might - in the fossil record. Here we
find - instead of widespread confirmation - a large number
of missing links.
The general public is given to believe the only "missing
link" in the fossil record exists between apes and man.
This is not true. The fossil record contains hundreds
of gaps between ancient and modern plant and animal species.
Darwin referred to the gap separating the primitive non-flowering
plants (gymnosperms) and flowering plants (angiosperms)
as the "abominable problem." Why? Because the gymnosperms,
like ferns, existed for billions of years and they still
exist today. The angiosperms, like roses, appeared on
the scene about 150 million years ago and they exist today.
Where is the evidence showing the fern evolved through
a series of slow, incremental changes into a rose?
According to Darwinism the angiosperms evolved from the
gymnosperms. If this is true then where are the intermediate
forms linking the two very different types of plants?
They have not been found in the fossil record and none
exist today. This seems impossible and it is if you accept
the principles of Darwinism.
There is no scientific explanation for the lack of intermediate
plants linking the ancient and modern types. In fact,
there should be millions of such fossils since they would
have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years,
far longer than flowering plants.
Scientists also have no explanation why gymnosperms and
angiosperms exist side by side. Somehow all the intermediate
plants they say connect the two kingdoms mysteriously
vanished from the fossil record and became extinct. Logic
would dictate that the older, ancient plants (non-flowering)
should have been the ones to go the way of extinction.
This is actually enough evidence to kill Darwinism. Official
science would have us believe the only dissenters against
Darwinism are Creationists that come from the ranks of
the Religious Right. However, I present numerous references
to bona fide scientists that slam the door on Darwin's
theory of natural evolution.
What is, or should be, of great interest to anyone interested
in the pursuit of science - as it applies to getting to
the truth of human origins and the emergence of civilisation
- are the works of Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle.
While Von Daniken's books were becoming popular in mainstream
culture, these two eminent scientists wrote books about
the origins of life on Earth. Both were highly critical
of Darwinism and posited that life did not originate on
Earth. They said the seeds of the biosphere originated
in the cosmos.
In his book Life Itself, Crick - a Nobel prize-winner
and the co-founder of the shape of the DNA molecule -
claimed an advanced civilisation transported the seeds
of life to Earth in a spacecraft. Hoyle, an astronomer
who gave the world the steady state theory of the Universe,
proposed that life came from the stars borne on comets
or riding on the currents of light waves. The unfortunate
thing is these rigorous scientific arguments were largely
dismissed or completely ignored by "official science",
and also overlooked by the same folks embracing Von Daniken's
relatively unscientific, yet popular approach. (Erik did
make people question and think.)
I want to clarify what I mean by that statement. Von Daniken
claimed he was presenting a theory yet the title of his
first book ended with a question mark. A new theory is
normally offered by presenting arguments against the currently
accepted theory, as Crick and Hoyle did, and it is presented
assertively with equal measures of humility and confidence
that do not end in a question mark. His somewhat insecure
and uncritical approach has characterised much of the
"ancient astronaut" literature, which official science
finds easy to debunk.
That is why The Genesis Race begins with a serious
critique of Darwinism. That is followed by several chapters
re-examining the account of human genesis and the early
history found in the Bible. A revolutionary analysis of
the first three chapters clearly shows there were two
creation events of life (and mankind) on Earth. It also
shows the history given in the Bible agrees with the findings
of paleontology and anthropology. In the first chapter
we find that an early proto-human race was created and
lived in the wilderness, like other animals, as hunter-gatherers.
They were given "every green thing to eat" by the gods
and Genesis 1 ends with that covenant.
However, in the second chapter we are told Adam is created
to be a gardener and Eve is taken from Adam's rib and
the "gods" give them clothing and self-awareness. The
chronological account of Creation in the second chapter
is entirely different than that of the first chapter of
Genesis.
This is a critical point. Not only do the two accounts
differ completely, we find Adam is not to live in the
wilderness as an animal but is intended to be a caretaker
and farmer. If the two accounts are compared side by side
the difference is obvious: Adam and Eve are not equivalent
to the race created in Genesis 1; and Genesis
2 and 3 are not a detailed elucidation of the events
described in the first chapter, which is normally implied
or taught in church Bible classes.
What the first three chapters of Genesis actually
describe are: 1) the creation of a proto-human race, the
pre-Neanderthals and Neanderthals who live as hunter-gatherers
in an innocent state as described in chapter 1, followed
by, 2) the genesis of modern Homosapiens (Adam) fit for
the agricultural revolution. That is exactly the history
given in Genesis and it agrees with everything
modern science establishes about the chronology of human
pre-history.
This is a radical revision giving much stronger support
to the Biblical version of human genesis and how and why
the agricultural revolution took place. It also clarifies
who the "us" refers to when God is abruptly referred to
as 'a plurality' that intervenes and genetically alters
life on Earth, the Genesis Race; and it sets the
stage for a presentation of the enigmatic archaeological
and additional evidence that further supports the theory
of intervention by a technologically advanced extraterrestrial
race.
Archaeology has never even addressed all the questions
raised by the sudden emergence of agriculture and highly
advanced civilisations in Mesopotamia and Egypt
in the 3rd millennium BCE, let alone answered the most
critical ones.
From the perspective of conventional archeological and
anthropological thinking, the origins of humankind and
the emergence of civilisation from the Stone Age remain
enigmatic. We have incontrovertible proof our ancestors
could not have built the Great Pyramid with the tools
and methods they possessed. Yet official science simply
ignores or tries to explain away many serious questions
and issues such as how the Great Pyramid - the world's
largest precision-engineered stone structure - was constructed
using only hammer-stones, ropes, manpower and sledges.
However, there are other issues that need to be addressed
and today's genetic research is shedding new light on
this field. The implications of several important recent
findings seem to have escaped the attention of many independent
investigators. Established archaeologists and anthropologists
have either ignored or railed against the findings of
these controversial DNA studies. I am referring to genetic
studies into the origin of the domesticated dog and into
the diet of our Paleolithic and early Neolithic ancestors.
You may ask what do the dog and Stone Age dietary habits
have to do with solving the enigmas of mankind's ancient
past? The answer is everything. Until recently it was
believed dogs (Canis familiaris) came from
a variety of wild canines such as wolves, coyotes, dingos,
jackals, etc. But the latest DNA research shows that the
wolf alone is the ancestral race of all dogs.
This poses a set of very difficult problems. The first
dog would have been a mutant wolf. However, wolves are
extremely sensitive to the genetic fitness and strength
of each member of the pack. They are constantly testing
and establishing a stringent social pecking order and
only the alphas reproduce. So how would a mutant ever
have survived and reproduced given the rigours of pack
behaviour? No wolves in captivity have produced viable
mutants and geneticists tell us mutants are normally unfit
and do not survive.
We are faced with a real conundrum. If we pose that early
human tribes intervened and bred wolves into dogs we are
faced with an equally impossible scenario. How could primitive
humans have known it was possible to selectively breed
a wild animal into one possessing only those traits beneficial
to them? We take the characteristics of dogs for granted,
however, they present us with a profound mystery. A dog
is the embodiment of only those wolf traits that people
find useful, attractive and safe. How did genetically
illiterate Stone Age humans achieve this feat of genetic
engineering?
This problem is compounded when we are confronted by evidence
from our earliest civilisations showing that salukis,
sighthounds and the pharaoh's hound, had already been
bred in ancient Sumeria and Egypt.
How is it possible our ancestors, recently emerged from
the Stone Age, could have successfully engineered purebred
lines at the onset of civilisation? In addition, dogs
are not only temperamentally different than their wild
progenitors, they differ physiologically as well.
A wild alpha male and female only breed once a year, whereas
dogs can breed any time. Wolves shed their winter coats,
dogs do not. These diverging physiological characteristics
take time to develop, in fact, many generations. Again,
how did our ancestors at the onset of civilisation accomplish
this?
This mystery is underscored by the fact most of the modern
dog breeds originated thousands of years ago. Science
has not even addressed most of these issues let alone
have the experts satisfactorily explained how wolves became
dogs - 100,000 years ago - nor have they shown the step-by-step
transitions. Purebred dogs just suddenly appear in the
archeological record as if by magic. This is also true
of agriculture and our key cereal and legume crops. Wheat,
corn, beans and rice pose a second set of genetic enigmas.
Research into the dietary habits of Stone Age tribes around
the globe show our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors subsisted
on leafy plants and lean muscle meats. This makes perfect
sense because these foods were readily available, took
little or no processing, and wild game could be cooked
over an open fire. The problem with our grain crops, and
they are the basis of civilisation, is wild grass seeds
are so miniscule the cost/benefit of harvesting them was
not in favour of it. They also require harvesting, threshing
and cooking technology since they have to be boiled extensively.
This was technology Stone Age Man lacked.
The reason grains have to be cooked is that the human
gut is not adapted to digest wild grains. This makes it
very clear the use of wild grass seeds as a primary food
source is of recent origin. Our Paleolithic ancestors
did not subsist on them. Once again, this poses a set
of formidable problems that need to be studied rigorously.
If our ancestors did not harvest and eat wild grains,
how could they have domesticated and bred the wild species
so quickly?
Without many generations of trial and error experimentation
- culminating in a vast body of agronomic knowledge and
agricultural practices that would have included genetics
and breeding - it is all but impossible to understand
how the agricultural revolution was brought about. Official
science tries to explain the evolution of nomadic hunter-gatherers
into sedentary, crop-growing farmers by claiming they
discovered crops quite by accident. We are told it happened
when a primitive villager tossed a seed bearing plant
into the trash pile and noticed that it sprouted.
But that trite tale can hardly explain how they selected
the best wild species to use as the basis for the agricultural
revolution. There are thousands and thousands of potential
wild plants that could be turned into agricultural crops.
How is it people with very little experience with wild
grasses were able to pick the best varieties to breed?
This represents a quantum leap. What we are asked to believe
is that our ancestors, without much experience at the
seminal stage of civilisation, were able to select and
breed the very best varieties of wild grass species.
How do we know this is true? Because we still grow the
very crops they supposedly selected even after 5000 years
of continuous technological and agricultural development.
We are asked to suspend disbelief and accept they also
constructed the largest precision-engineered stone building
the world has ever seen - the Great Pyramid of Giza -
using only primitive hand tools and backbreaking labor.
Something is obviously wrong with this picture.
Is it logical to assume our Earthly ancestors could (or
would) have thrown together the agricultural revolution
and then the entire civilisations of Sumer
and Egypt out
of whole cloth? No it is not; and neither do these suppositions
represent sound science.
For those of us in the alternative history camp, one of
the most fundamental questions we must impress upon the
public and upon 'official science' is to ask where are
the antecedents and precedents? Show us the slow Darwinian
stages of development that official history presupposes.
How can you explain the sudden appearance of genetically
altered food crops and advanced engineering techniques
at the onset of human civilisation?
We need step-by-step documentation and incontrovertible
evidence and it ought to be copious and devoid of missing
links since we are supposedly talking about events that
occurred thousands and not tens or hundreds of millions
of years ago, as is the case with biological evolution.
Where did our Paleolithic ancestors acquire the knowledge
and skills to breed wild plants into food crops while
also constructing planned cities? How did they achieve
an exacting command of the principles of civil engineering
as exhibited in Sumeria and the Harrappan civilisation
of the Indus Valley? How did humans go from mud huts and
collecting leafy plants to building ziggurats, flush toilets,
public bathhouses (Mohenjo Daro), making bread in ovens,
and inventing process metallurgy seemingly overnight?
In plain language, where is the proof - the missing links
- demonstrating your (official science) theories are confirmed
in the archaeological record and meet simple standards
of logic and commonsense?
Turning to what our ancestors in Sumer,
Mexico, Egypt
and Peru have
to say about the origins of agriculture and civilisation
we find a very different story. According to the ancient
records, written and oral traditions, none of the earliest
civilisations claimed they invented it. What is of profound
interest is they are in unanimous accord in claiming they
were given the arts of civilisation by the 'gods'.
It is very unlike human nature to give credit to anyone
else for anything we have invented or achieved. The ancient
Egyptians left copious records of every aspect of their
culture in a huge collection of artwork, hieroglyphics
and texts. Yet we find no reference in their 3,000 year
history as to how or why 'they' built the pyramids. What
a curious lapse of documentation for such a communicative
race assuming they did indeed built the pyramids. Would
they have omitted any reference to their most important
monuments?
That seems a preposterous supposition and yet Egyptologists
gloss over it as they do the lack of mummies in the alleged
'pyramids-as-tombs' scenario they embrace without blushing.
These are all clues, pieces of a vast planetary puzzle,
telling the story of the Genesis Race. The references
to these 'gods' that arrived on Earth to uplift man are
described in the Bible and other ancient texts and traditions.
Their megalithic calling cards are found in Egypt,
Mexico, Peru
and China.
The Darwinian-based theories of 'official science', concerning
the origin of Man and human civilisation, lead to a series
of intellectual dead ends. If we closely examine the record
we find civilisation was founded upon five primary inventions:
1) Agriculture, 2) Urbanisation, 3) Writing, 4) The Wheel,
and 5) Process metallurgy.
Now, what happens when we try to uncover the origins of
these key inventions in the archaeological and historical
record? We find anthropologists and historians positing
that agriculture was probably discovered by accident
when our primitive ancestors tossed plants into the
garbage heap and noticed the seeds produced new plants.
Of course that does not explain what motivated them to
plant and harvest wild grass seeds (they almost never
ate) and how they learned to selectively breed and domesticate
(alter) these plants genetically.
Well, they brush aside these queries with the same logic.
This, too, was probably a serendipitous process that moved
forward by a series of benign and happy coincidences.
We are given to imagine the first domesticated animal,
an example of perfect selective breeding, also took place
when Paleolithic tribesman - via unknown techniques -
domesticated a line of mutant wolves. Then we learn that
process metallurgy, too, was the result of an accident,
when someone dropped a piece of malachite into a campfire
and observantly noticed that as it melted it produced
copper.
In short, the fundamental paradigm 'official science'
has formulated on how human life originated and how we
created civilisation rests on a series of 'miraculous'
accidents and impossible knowledge and skills! Egyptologists
would have us believe the primitive tribes living along
the Nile in oval huts who used mud-bricks to build mastabas
for millennia were suddenly capable of advanced quarry
operations, stonemasonry, architecture and corporate engineering.
Of course, they cannot explain how these primitive peoples
built a massive, precision-engineered pyramid using only
round hammerstones, wooden sledges and human labor. The
Egyptian's could not have built it, did not build it,
and never claimed they were the pyramid's creators. It
is simply not possible to quarry, lift, drag and transport
70-ton blocks of granite 500 miles from the Aswan quarry
to Giza and up 150 vertical feet and precisely position
them in the King's Chamber as Egyptologists claim was
done.
I have repeatedly challenged Egyptologists, and their
irrational, unscientific fellow travellers to demonstrate
how the blocks of granite in the King's Chamber can be
quarried and lifted out of the quarry-bed and transported
using the primitive tools and methods they claim were
used. It cannot be done! Furthermore, this author claims
he can show that any academics - mathematicians, anthropologists
and/or engineering professors - who believe and teach
these absurdities to students are lunatics running the
asylums - our scientific institutions and universities.
This is certainly a serious, bold indictment and yet it
must be made because it is true and it is high time to
expose the intellectual chicanery and fraud perpetrated
upon generations. I am not making these claims to create
a controversy but to resolve a long-standing debate that
has profound ramifications since it involves eliminating
falsehoods and getting to the historical facts. How can
I make such strong accusations with complete confidence?
First, the author has studied the engineering problems
intensively and extensively comparing the building of
modern-day monuments using state-of-the-art technology
to the construction of the Great Pyramid using primitive
tools and methods. Second, I have examined the recent
record of tests conducted by Egyptologists and others
trying to prove they could quarry, move and lift blocks
of stone using nothing but ancient tools and techniques.
Both studies yielded the same results: the Great Pyramid
could not have been built with hammerstones, sledges and
ramps.
One test filmed by Nova was organised by Egyptologist
Mark Lehner and involved leading experts in a variety
of fields. The team set out to quarry, move and lift a
35-ton obelisk into place. They failed miserably at every
step. The master stonemason could not quarry the block
using the primitive tools he was given. A Cat was called
in to quarry the block and lift it onto a flatbed truck;
sensing defeat they never even tried to transport it using
a wooden sledge. The block was half the weight of one
those used in the King's Chamber.
A Nissan funded Japanese team conducted another serious
test in 1978. They set out to build a small-scale duplicate
of the Great Pyramid also using the primitive tools and
techniques Egyptologists claim the ancients employed.
This group was confident they could demonstrate how it
was done. However, when they tried to quarry the blocks
they found the hammerstones were not equal to the task.
They called in pneumatic jackhammers. When they tried
to ferry the blocks across the river on a primitive barge,
they sank. They called in a modern tugboat for help.
Then they loaded a block onto a sledge only to find that
it stubbornly sank into the sand when they tried to drag
it to the site. They called for trucks and loaders. The
final coup d' grace was delivered when they were forced
to call in helicopters to lift and position the blocks
into place. Even using modern technology the Japanese
team found, to their utter embarrassment, they could not
bring the apex of their tiny 60 feet tall replica together.
They suffered a bitter and quite humbling defeat in the
unforgiving Egyptian desert. Their replica of the Great
Pyramid turned out to be a joke.
We are supposed to believe men using tools marginally
better than Stone Age equipment, quarried, lifted and
hauled millions of blocks of stone to form a precision-engineered
4-million ton tomb. Stuff of nonsense! The conventional
scenario is not just an absurd proposition that can only
be maintained using intellectual smoke and mirrors, it
is downright silly. The real question is, how could anyone
with any commonsense have ever believed it?
There are, of course, many other problems with the primitive
tools and methods scenario and the Great Pyramid. To begin
with Mark Lehner commissioned an engineering firm to study
the site. They found that the 13-acre base had been leveled
with an accuracy equal to that achieved by modern day
lasers. Are we to believe a 13-acre limestone bench was
planed with that degree of precision using rounded hammerstones
to grind down the rock until it was almost perfectly flat?
Furthermore, the Descending Passage was actually the next
phase of this massive construction project. It too had
to be dug out of solid bedrock. The problems with this
phase of the project are manifold. The passageway was
only about 3 by 4 feet, just large enough to accommodate
one worker at a time. It was dug 150 feet underground
maintaining a precise angle of 26 degrees and a negligible
deviation from side to side and bottom to top throughout
its length. Then it was opened up into several rooms and
another passageway. How?
Why would the ancients dig a straight tunnel under a 4-million
ton tomb and how was the passageway kept straight and
true? Egyptian 'engineers' had no more than ropes in their
toolkits. The author can also prove these two phases alone
- leveling the base and digging the Descending Passageway
- would have required half the time Egyptologists have
allotted to the entire construction project. They, in
fact, never even include these two phases in their calculations.
But we have other important fish to fry. During decades
of research the author noted some curious similarities
between
Sumer,
Egypt and the
Indus Valley - the sites of our earliest civilisations
- that do not add up. As we all know now, the ruins of
Sumer are located
in modern day Iraq.
Our history and anthropology books routinely tell us that
agriculture and civilisation were given birth in benign
and highly fertile river valleys. But when we stop and
closely examine these locations we find they are some
of the hottest, driest and most inhospitable places on
the planet.
The temperatures in these locations for 6 months out of
the year are typically between 35-48 degrees Celsius.
It is true the alluvial flood plains of the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates
and ancient Indus rivers were fertile. But it takes considerable
agronomic and hydrological knowledge to know this and
to convert the marshes and control the floods to turn
these wetlands into productive farmland. The question
is how did our ancient ancestors, so recently emerged
from the hunter-gatherer way of life, so quickly acquire
this knowledge and develop these skills?
When we peer out from the ziggurats of ancient Sumer,
the sandblasted pyramids of Egypt
or the ruined cities of the Indus Valley, we do not see
fruited-plains but vast, blistering, desert expanses.
Is it not difficult to envision our primitive ancestors
rolling out their blueprints for civilisation while squinting
into the sun and deciding this is where the first cities
and great monuments would be built and the first real
cropland cultivated?
The scenario jars the mind and makes hash out of the comfortable
fantasies painted by 'official science'. Is something
starting to smelly funny or is the author's nose just
too sensitive? I do seem to detect the subtle aroma of
too many skeletons and enigmas - having been shoved hurriedly
into too many closets and musty catacombs - wafting up
from ancient stones and bones.
We have to examine several other items that do not pass
the smell test. Sumer,
Egypt and the
Indus Valley share some other critical features in common
which make them unlikely places for primitive peoples
to have developed our first civilisations. We should
expect to find civilisations evolving where people had
immediate access to a wide variety of resources. The most
logical scenario would be in river valleys near forested,
mineral rich mountains.
This is a logical expectation since people needed water,
fuel (wood) for fires, tool handles and building materials
as well as copper, gold and silver to make jewellery and
tools and so on. We would expect to find this association
not just to establish they had immediate access to these
necessary resources, but also that they had been engaged
in a prolonged period of extracting, processing and working
with these resources.
Unfortunately, Sumer,
the birthplace of civilisation, was completely lacking
in forests, minerals and even stones. This is a curious,
illogical fact. How did this strange tribe, speaking an
odd tongue and calling themselves 'the black-headed people',
invent civilisation in the middle of a barren desert wasteland?
Egypt was also
bereft of forests, as was the Indus Valley. The point
is not that civilisation was or is impossible in these
areas, but that it is supposed to have originated
in these harsh, desert environs lacking many basic resources.
Yet we find the Sumerians ingeniously mining copper and
tin and creating the first alloy, bronze, in kilns around
3000 BCE. In rapid-fire succession they invented the wheel,
the chariot, the sailboat, writing, cities, labor specialisation,
civil engineering and on and on. Ostensibly, the tribes
of the Indus Valley and the Nile would soon follow. They
did all this while most of the world's tribes were still
living as hunter-gatherers, another fact that demolishes
the theories of cultural Darwinists. You cannot explain
the radical departure from the human norm by several tribes
without invoking some form of racism or inexplicable genetic
deviations.
The other curious features we find in common among Earth's
'first' civilisations are that none of them claimed they
invented agriculture, laws, morality or the other prime
tools of civilisation.
The Sumerians claimed they owed everything to the 'gods'
(Annunaki) that had descended from the heavens
to Earth to create and teach mankind the arts of civilised
life. The ancient Egyptians referred to the Nefertu
who ruled over them during the Zep Tepi
(First Time) for thousands of years until they handed
over the reigns to the human pharaohs.
Our real human history as handed down by our ancestors
is far more exciting and incredible than the pabulum 'official'
science has been force feeding us for many generations.
Mankind is indeed on the threshold of a re-awakening to
a new dawn; the time of profound revelations about the
truth of our astonishing origins and history is at hand.
Copyright © Will Hart
Will Hart is a journalist, photographer, and filmmaker who has investigated ancient mysteries and evidence of extraterrestrial intervention on Earth since 1969. He lives in Arizona, USA. His book, The Genesis Race: Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origins of the Species, is available in Australiaby sending $39.95 plus $4.95 p&h to New Dawn, GPO Box 3126FF, Melbourne, VIC 3001.
© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions. This notice must accompany all re-posting.
|
articles 
