by Will Hart
New Dawn Magazine No. 81
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.
For millennia the development of
humanity showed a consistent homogenous pattern.
Then suddenly, around 5000 BCE, great
civilizations 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 civilization.
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 civilized 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 civilization" school.
The latter does not figure into this discussion nor is it covered in
The Genesis Race because it never really addresses the issue
of the ultimate origins of Man or civilization.
Even if you accept the idea ancient
Egypt and Sumer had their origins in
Atlantis, who created that
civilization and from what precursors?
The essential questions the author has been studying over the past
three decades are:
how did life originate and
evolve on Earth?
how did civilization 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 civilization 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
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 civilization - 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 civilization 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 characterized 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
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
What the first three chapters of Genesis
actually describe are:
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,
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 civilizations 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 civilization 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
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 rigors of pack behavior? 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 civilizations showing that salukis, sighthounds and the
pharaoh's hound, had already been bred in
ancient Sumeria and
How is it possible our ancestors,
recently emerged from the Stone Age, could have successfully
engineered purebred lines at the onset of civilization? 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 civilization 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 civilization, is wild grass seeds are so
miniscule the cost/benefit of harvesting them was not in favor of
it. They also require harvesting, threshing and cooking technology
since they have to be boiled extensively.
This was technology Stone Age Man
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
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
civilization, 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
civilizations 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 civilization?
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
Where did our Paleolithic
ancestors acquire the knowledge and skills to breed wild
plants into food crops while also constructing planned
How did they achieve an exacting
command of the principles of civil engineering as exhibited
in Sumeria and the Harrappan civilization of the Indus
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 civilization we find a very different story.
According to the ancient records,
written and oral traditions, none of the earliest civilizations
claimed they invented it. What is of profound interest is they are
in unanimous accord in claiming they were given the arts of
civilization 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
What a curious lapse of documentation
for such a communicative race assuming they did indeed built the
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 civilization, lead to a series of
intellectual dead ends. If we closely examine the record we find
civilization was founded upon five primary inventions:
Now, what happens when we try to uncover
the origins of these key inventions in the archaeological and
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 civilization rests
on a series of 'miraculous' accidents and impossible knowledge and
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
hammer-stones, 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 travelers 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 hammer-stones,
sledges and ramps.
One test filmed by Nova was organized 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 hammer-stones 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
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
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
hammer-stones to grind down the rock until it was almost perfectly
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.
Why would the ancients dig a straight tunnel under a 4-million ton
tomb and how was the passageway kept straight and true?
'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 civilizations - 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 civilization 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 civilization 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 civilizations. We should expect
to find civilizations 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.
Sumer, the 'birthplace' of (the actual) civilization,
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 civilization in the
middle of a barren desert wasteland? Egypt was also bereft of
forests, as was the Indus Valley. The point is not that civilization
was or is impossible in these areas, but that it is supposed to have
originated in these harsh, desert environs lacking many basic
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
specialization, 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
The other curious features we find in common among Earth's 'first'
civilizations are that none of them claimed they invented
agriculture, laws, morality or the other prime tools of
The Sumerians claimed they owed everything to the 'gods' (Anunnaki)
that had descended from the heavens to Earth to create and teach
mankind the arts of civilized life.
The ancient Egyptians referred to the
Nefertu (the Watchers)
who ruled over them during
the Zep Tepi (First Time) for
thousands of years until they handed over the reigns to the human
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.