Monday, December 05, 2005

Slave Species of god by Michael Tellinger

(I know Tellinger reads this blog, so I’ve avoided mentioning his book until I’d read it myself or I could get my hands on a review by someone who had actually read it. I’ve found one, so here it is.)

A review by Neil Kennard-Davis

Tellinger feels that he has a message to share with the world, and he does so with evangelistic fervour. The message is that human beings are a created species, created by visitors from another planet for their own nefarious purposes.

The story of this creation, it is claimed, is given to us in the ancient Sumerian tablets written in cuneiform and translated by Zecharia Sitchin.

The basic thesis is that Earth was visited by the inhabitants of a planet, called Nibiru, in a long period cometary orbit of the Sun. The planet takes some 3 600 years to complete an orbit. About 450 000 years ago these "people", the Anunnaki, visited Earth to obtain gold. Some 250 000 years later, fed up with the hard labour of mining, they created a new species by combining their own genetic material with that of Homo erectus. The new species was Homo sapiens. The visitors then used Homo sapiens as their slaves and, in turn, were worshiped by them as Gods.

The visitors established their first bases in Mesopotamia, with other bases in Southern Africa and, later, South America to mine gold. All of this was later recorded by the early Sumerians, and passed down to us.

The book relies heavily on the translations of Sumerian cuneiform tablets by Zecharia Sitchin. These translations, if accepted at face value, make some startling claims and indicate a high level of technological expertise. The theory is that the cuneiform tablets record actual events rather than mythological tales. The question that I have to ask is; did the translations inform the theory or did the theory inform the translations? Cursory research suggests that other scholars of Sumerian cuneiform tablets do not agree with Sitchin's interpretations.

I have several problems with the thesis put forward by Tellinger.

On a general level, before getting to specifics, the arguments are advanced with little, or no, reference to fact or logic. Arguments run along the lines of "Let us speculate that such and such might be possible." Then a few pages later "Since I have shown that such and such probably happened." And then a little later "As such and such has been conclusively proved." All of this without any connecting logic or evidence. Other ideas are advanced on the basis of "Surely anyone can see that it is impossible that . and therefore so and so must have been the case." In my opinion arguments proposed by these means are rarely credible.

On a specific level, there are numerous areas with which I have difficulty.
I will only touch on a few of them.

Much is made, in the book, about human beings having a damaged, or incomplete, genome. This was, apparently, a deliberate stratagem by the creators to keep us servile. Evidence of this faulty genome is the "Greed"
gene and the "Violence" gene that we are supposed to have received from our creators. This takes no account of the fact that very similar behaviour is to be found amongst our genetic cousins chimpanzees and other simians, let alone other mammals.

At the same time the message is given that we are evolving at a furious rate and that our faulty genome is repairing itself. No cognisance is given to analysis of ancient human DNA that shows it to be identical with modern human DNA. Probably the best known example being that of "Otzi the Ice Man"
who died close to 5 000 years ago and whose well preserved body was found in the Tyrolean Alps in 1991.

Apparently, when Homo sapiens was first created, some 200 000 years ago, this was done in Southern Africa and the result was, from Sitchin's translations, "Woolly haired man" a clear reference to African or Bantu races. Then, later, the Anunnaki interbred with humans and their offspring were the "Aryans" or "European" races who, supposedly, compose Homo sapiens sapiens. The difference between the two is supposed to be a further infusion of alien DNA into the human genome.

Once again genetic evidence is dispensed with. Modern research has shown that, genetically, all human beings - Woolly Haired or Aryan - are "kissing cousins." Any hybridisation with another species would show up clearly in the DNA of the different races. Such evidence is not present. Incidentally the same evidence has shown that there was no interbreeding with Homo neanderthalensis when the two species co-existed in Europe between 60 000 and 30 000 years ago.

As an example of the closeness of the genetic relationship between humans, the genetic diversity within chimpanzees - in a far smaller population - is four times that to be found in humans.

Tellinger also proposes, as fact, a planet-wide flood or deluge as recorded in the Bible and, apparently, the Sumerian texts. This, we are told, most scholars agree happened around 11 000 B.C. at the end of the last Ice Age.
Unfortunately no references are given to these "most scholars" and, as far as I am aware, very few, if any, serious geologists, geographers or archaeologists adhere to the idea of such an event.

A flood of such proportions is, however, a very useful answer to the obvious questions about the lack of archaeological remains from the 400 000 year occupation of Earth by the Anunnaki. All such evidence was destroyed in the flood. This argument ignores the fact that there are clear remains of human activity all around the planet dating from the period in question and before.
The marvellously scholarly book "After the Ice" by Steven Mithen examines just about every major site dating from the Last Glacial Maximum at 20 000 B.C. to the Agricultural Revolution in about 5 000 B.C. No sign of a global deluge is found, but there is lots of evidence of human activity.

The gigantic deluge is supposed to have resulted from the catastrophic collapse of the Antarctic Ice Cap caused by gravitational disturbances from the planet Nibiru as it made its pass through the inner Solar System. This collapse caused a tsunami of monstrous proportions that swept across the whole planet.

The actual fact is that the Antarctic Ice Cap has been stable for more than 400 000 years. Drill cores have been collected and painstakingly analysed to show this conclusively. In addition, analysis of air samples trapped in the ice show evidence of a number of events affecting the planet over this period. Ice Ages and Interglacial periods can be identified. Even large scale deforestation with the advent of agriculture has left its mark, as has the Industrial Revolution. Evidence of a planetary deluge is absent.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorra is ascribed to an attack, by the Anunnaki, using atomic bombs against rebellious humans. In my opinion a far more likely scenario would have been a meteorite strike, such as the one that devastated Tunguska, Russia, in 1908.

As telling as the clear scientific errors articulated in the story are the things that are left out. Perhaps the early Sumerian writers had no knowledge of Neanderthals who had lived in Europe and the Middle East. They cannot be expected to have known about them, but the Anunnaki would surely have done so. After all Neanderthal remains have been found in the Middle East dating back beyond 60 000 years before present, a time when the Anunnaki were supposedly at the height of their presence.

Similarly no mention is made of the eruption of the Torba volcano, some 75 000 years ago. This event wiped out all life in the Indian sub-continent, and much of the Middle East, under a layer of ash between two and six metres deep. In the process it took Homo sapiens to the brink of extinction, probably caused the extinction of Homo erectus in Asia, and tipped the global climate into a severe Ice Age. One would expect such a significant event to have been recorded by the Anunnaki, but the Sumerian tablets appear to be silent on the issue. Perhaps Mr Sitchin is ignorant of this event.

Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The claims put forwards by Michael Tellinger in "Slave Species of god" are truly extraordinary. Unfortunately, the evidence put forward to back them does not match up to the required standard.


  1. Let us hope that Erich Von Daniken never reads Tellinger or Sitchin's books. He developed the idea of exogenesis ( i.e. that mankind was created by aliens) in the mid-70s. I have not yet read Tellinger's book ( I am an advocate of mental hygiene) but based on the review you have posted, it seems that Tellinger has cribbed most of Von Daniken's ideas. He does give a name to the aliens who manipulated our genetic code and does locate them on Nabiru. But on second thought, maybe Tellinger will get off without a lawsuit, since I am not sure that you can copyright sheer bollocks.

  2. The creators of the Stargate feature film and television series may have an intellectual property bone to pick with them... that was a cool movie.

  3. Tellinger book sounds very much like any conspiracy theory, make a few basic assumptions. Then build on thoses assumptions. Later on reintroduce those assumptions as fact.
    George Y Tree could be homophobic because he does not support same sex marriages....
    .....President George Y Tree will eventually introduce a system of public humiliation for anyone that declares that they are Homosexual.

    As most people who have read this have noted, the theme that humanity was seeded by alien life forms is not a new one. Not only has Tellinger insulted our intelligence but has done it with a topic so used that it’s a wonder that he hasn’t been beaten to death by an angry mob of SF writers.

  4. Which was your least favourite part of the book? My least favourite part was the Bibliography. After all... who wants to spoil a rattling good yarn with facts?

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. I gather that most of the commentators have either not read “Slave Species of god” or have chosen to elevate themselves above the intellect level of the content of the book. Isn’t it a sad experience when one has to go around telling people that you are intelligent? Usually, and if it is indeed true that one is intelligent, then it doesn’t even take an intelligent person to notice this fact without one having to tell them. Going about telling people that you are more intelligent than another – or the content of a book, is surely indicative of the lowest intellect imaginable?

    That said, do any of the critics on this blog have more plausible explanations for the origins of the human race ... other than the BS that is sold to us by organised religion? … or are they simply of that ilk that go around criticising things they don’t fully comprehend – purely because they can’t?

    Fear of the truth must be the most terrifying fear of them all!

  7. I must say that I enjoy the fact that my posts about Tellinger and Sitchin seem to attract a fair amount of attention from their fans. It almost makes me feel like taking up my verbal sword against their ilk again, but I really no longer feel the need to beat that dead horse.

    However, in the interests of education, I will respond to this one.

    You asked if anyone had a better answer: I have one. It's called science.

    Not the pretend science (AKA Pseudoscience, or Antiscience) that Tellinger and Sitchin claim to practice, but real, honest-to-goodness, peer-reviewed, testable, repeatable science.

    The best answer that science has come up with is evolution. Despite what religionists and creationists will tell you, the concept of evolution is not in dispute by any serious scientists. The only dispute is regarding the precise mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is the best theory we have to fit the facts at the moment. It may, someday, be replaced by a better one, but at this point, there is no reason to suspect that Exogenesis is it.

    Molecular Biologists have been able to successfully replicate conditions of early Earth, and demonstrate how those conditions are conducive to the formation of simple proteins (which, over time, evolved into DNA, and then into us). I don't have names and dates of these studies handy, but I'll find them for you if you demand it.

    Panspermia hasn't been entirely discounted. It's possible that those simple proteins developed elsewhere in the solar system (or even outside it) and managed to find their way to early Earth where they prospered in those favourable conditions. However it's far more likely that it happened in the primordial soup right here on Planet Terra.

    There is simply no reason to believe the Exogenesis theory as put forward by Sitchin, Tellinger and the like. There is no verifyable evidence to support it, no repeatable, testable claims to lend it credibility and, if you know a little bit about archaeology, paleontology, simetic linguistics or astronomy (all real sciences), there are no claims that make the slightest bit of sense.

    Their stories, while compelling to the ignorant, are nothing more than that: stories. Elaborate fictions presented as fact, preying on people who don't know any better.

    Looking to established religions is also not the answer. Religion is not, nor should it be, in the business of explaining and understanding the workings of the observable universe. Religion should stick to its own function: determining the motivations and activities of imaginary people in the sky.

    Hmm... "imaginary people in the sky"... sounds an awful lot like Sitchin and Tellinger's stuff to me.

    I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow the bit about intellectual capacities. Would you care to rephrase it for my sake, as well as the sake of my readers who may also be too stupid to understand?

    I don't know about you, but I'm not afraid of the truth, although it's true that a very large percentage of the human population are. It takes a specific approach to life and a particular way of thinking to let go of the myriad delusions we have each been duped into believing and embrace a better truth.

    (I say a 'better truth' because truth is, in itself, an unobtainable ideal... truth is only a practically similar relative perspective that allows intelligent beings to communicate - another fiction, although a convenient one. The closer ones personal truth comes to resemble the actual physical universe, such as it is, the "better" that truth is - at least it's better by my standards.)

    I can't claim that I have yet mastered that way of thinking, but I do like to think that I'm getting there. I frequently become aware of a fiction that I have taken as fact, and there is always a moment of difficulty in letting go of that fiction and embracing the better truth behind it, even if that better truth is not knowing.

    It's not easy, but it is rewarding when you're able to see past the lies and the memes, and start seeing the world around you as it really is, instead of how someone long dead thinks it should be.

  8. Oh hear ye the wise words of 01 ... ;)

    No seriously - it is rather refreshing to get, what I deem to be, positive feedback on some of the posts I've left on blogs of this nature ;)

    Positive feedback? ... when you seem to taken a stab at what I have said?

    Exactimo ...I like your way of thinking 01 ... ie: that you are open to new interpretations and to come to your own conclusion thereafter. This, in my opinion is the only way we will evolve beyond that which a select few would have us believe - be it in the religious, business, esoteric, or whatever realms of our world.

    The "imaginary people in the sky" is a somewhat naive way of looking at things. Just for the moment - imagine you are a life form living on the Moon as Neil and his buddies touch down. Would you jump up and say "Hiya human beings from Earth - pull up a rock and lets chat!" ... or would you say "oh my f*ck! ... what are these weird beings and from whence do they come!?" The point is: Do you really believe that we are the only intelligent beings in the entire universe who have ‘mastered’ space flight? Do you really believe that in the few short years, since our creation, we have been able to record all planetary / space activity possible in out universe? … Do you not think that it is highly possible, if not probable that other planets may still approach, and come very close to Earth on their huge elliptical orbits .. and that these planets may well be inhabited by human-like life forms? In my book, this is not only possible, but a documented fact.

    Your admission that panspermia is not completely off the cards, is in itself an admission that other life forms may have paid us a visit in the distant past ... and perhaps even today. Why would it be possible for protein to find its way here - but not another 'complete' life form. (I use ‘complete’ loosely for easier understanding - thus it could be argued that a protein is a complete life form ... as a protein ... but here I am referring to something that resembles an intelligent being similar to us OK?).

    At the risk of been whisked away in a black panel van, I’m quite confident that you must know that the vast majority of the human population is kept in the dark about a whole host of things that would probably cause mass-hysteria if they were made public knowledge … no? Either that, or it would cause mass-unity – and that would just get the war-mongering conglomerates and other self-serving power-mongers pissed ;)

    If we can agree on the aforementioned statement, then there is scope to move forward with this discussion – but if you believe that we are kept in the loop about everything – as it happens or becomes known – then there really isn’t much point in discussing things that are hidden from the masses. Of course, I completely understand the reasoning behind keeping some things hidden – but it doesn’t go far to help the man in the street to make heads or tails out of what is going on around him … let alone how he came to be.

    Science, in our ambit of perception at this point in time, is finite and limited to what we have discovered thus far. But the mere fact that we don’t know something … or that we can’t see it – does not mean that it is not so ... or that it does not exist.

    Can you see UV with the naked eye? … Of course not. But the fact that you can’t see it, doesn’t mean that it is not there. Can we hear the same high-pitched sounds that dogs hear? … no we can’t. Again, simply because we can’t hear them, does not mean that those sounds do not exist.

    er .. um … “Science” (by the way) cannot be the answer … or an alternative … science, or evolution, came off the rails with the whole “missing link” thing. If science can satisfactorily provide that link, then I may be swayed to believe otherwise – but to date, I have heard no plausible explanation coming out of the laboratories that satisfies the question how, almost overnight, human beings took a giant leap forwards by pretty much becoming what they are today. (ie: Homo Erectus - Homo Sapiens). The same scientists have also no plausible explanation as to why we haven’t evolved much since then. I think that Tellinger has provided a very palatable scenario where evolution AND panspermia both played a role in creating what we are today. Besides, if we did evolve from apes, then we would have 24 pairs of chromosomes as they do - and not the 23 that we have.

    The unfortunate thing is that most people believe that something does not exist … or is not possible … purely because they don’t KNOW it. We can debate the notions of ‘believing’ and ‘knowing’ things – but another time :) The point I am trying to make is that our knowledge of science has only evolved precisely because there are guys out there who say “what if” … and then set out to prove their hypotheses.

    I am sticking to my guns and have to reiterate that it is indeed science (inter alia archaeology and palaeontology) that has proven Sitchin’s and Tellinger’s statements that our DNA was most certainly tampered with by some alien (I prefer ‘foreign’) visitors to this planet in our distant past. The fact that it happened is well recorded … it is only the ‘how’ that eludes us. Again - purely because we don’t know how something transpired, doesn’t make it less real … no? We, at our current state of progress, have managed to clone living beings … this is scientific fact … what makes you think that other ‘people’ from other planets had not progressed this far thousands of years ago. We (should) all know that Earth is a relatively new-born baby in the history of the universe … so it must stand to reason that we, as humans, are also infants in the larger scale of things.


  9. *sigh* I was hoping I wasn't going to get drawn into another lengthy debate on this subject. I've dealt with all these questions ad-nauseum in a number of forums months ago, and I have long since moved onto far more interesting and stimulating pursuits.

    But given the clearly well thought-out and well-intentioned nature of the last comment, I'll go through it all again.

    Before I get into specifics, I'd like to just take a moment to look at the nature of belief.

    It's an indisputable fact that some people can be fooled into believing anything. The Heaven's Gate cultists were convinced that Comet Hale-Bopp (sp?) was going to carry their souls away to paradise. People going to see James Randi's shows leave believing that he really can bend spoons with his mind, even though he shows them how the trick works!

    The fact is that it's not just some gullible people that can be tricked into believing crazy things. Anyone and everyone is capable of being tricked and led to believe all manner of lies and fictions.

    Western children are brought up believing in things like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, and when they grow up, some are just as easily led to believe that Earth is only 6000 years old or that global warming is a hippie conspiracy.

    All it takes to convince someone of something silly is a little bit of ignorance mixed with a well-timed fiction designed to sound plausible.

    Ok, now onto the specifics.

    I'm no statistician, but I would estimate that given the number of planets we have detected orbiting stars in our galaxy, as well as the total number of stars in our galaxy, and the total number of other galaxies in the known universe, it's almost a certainty that life (as we know it) exists beyond the limits of Earth. I would suggest that there's probably quite a lot of it. And there's even a statistical likelihood that some of that life has managed to develop what we might recognise as intelligence. And of those, it may even be possible that some species have have developed technology. And of those, some may have developed technology capable to taking them to other planets and solar systems. (We're now getting into relatively small probabilities, but they still exist).

    So yes, there probably are alien life-forms travelling through the universe somewhere. The odds of them being anywhere near us are pretty slim however.

    Do I think it's possible that some alien life-forms have visited Earth in the past? Yeeeeees... it's possible. Hell, anything is possible. Do I think it's likely? No. There's simply no evidence to suggest that it has happened.

    Simply because something could have happened, does not mean that it has happened.

    As for Class M planets orbiting our son on large elliptical orbits... nah. Sorry. No chance of that. The simple fact is that we would know about it. We would have seen it. We can see objects in the Kuiper Belt smaller than South Africa. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to see objects as large as a Class M planet out that far.

    No government conspiracy could prevent the hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers around the world who have access to all manner of sophisticated equipment from seeing something that large, that close. It can't be done.

    Unless the entire planet is shrouded in some form of cloaking field which not only shields it from visible light, but also isolates its gravimetric affects on every other object in the solar system, there is simply nothing there.

    And lets assume that by some heinous oversight, and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of gravity and light we somehow managed to miss such an enormous object so close to us, how would such a planet sustain life?

    There is a very narrow circular band around the sun in which planets of a particular size and composition would be able to sustain life: a band where water can exist in all three material states. Earth happens to be situated right in the middle of that band at the moment (the band moves... in about a billion years' time Earth will no longer be in that band, and all life on Earth will become extinct)

    This theoretical planet only passes through this band twice every 3600 years, and only very briefly. The inhabitants of such a planet (assuming they are carbon-based life-forms, which, if they have DNA, they most certainly are) would freeze to death most of the time, except for the brief period during which they come so close to the sun they would incinerate.

    I think there may be some confusion here regarding terminology: Panspermia and Exogenesis are two related, but distinctly different concepts.

    Panspermia is the theory that simple proteins formed elsewhere in the solar system (or in the galaxy) and found their way to Earth where they prospered. There is some evidence to support this theory, such as the presence of amino acids found on a number of asteroids in the belt.

    Exogenesis is what Sitchin and Tellinger carry on about: that complex life evolved elsewhere and was seeded on Earth, either accidentally or through intelligent intervention. Exogenesis is a sub-theory of Intelligent Design. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. The "evidence" employed by Sitchin is ridiculously misinterpreted at best, or plainly fabricated at worst.

    As far as conspiracy theories go, I am sure there is a fair amount of information being held by a number of national and international authorities that your average citizen doesn't have access to. This information no doubt pertains to military secrets, illegal exploits and information regarding the personal unethical conduct of people in power.

    There's simply no reason to suspect that any agency would withhold information regarding the existence of alien life. We all remember the fuss NASA made about the microbe fossils they found in a Martian meteorite... there was no secrecy about it. It turned out that the microbes were from Earth anyway, so it all blew over.

    I know what you're thinking... that the "microbes are from Earth" story was just part of the cover-up. But do you really think that an agency capable of hiding an entire planet from the telescopes of thousands of people is so incompetent that they would deliver a press-release on their apparent discovery of extra-terrestrial life? Come on.

    Besides, what makes you think that the leaking of information regarding the existence of an intelligent alien race would cause either panic or unity? I think it would more likely be met by a brief media frenzy, resulting in a brief sales hike of Sitchin and Tellinger's books as well as T-shirts saying "Take me to your dealer", and then it would fade away and be absorbed into the vast bouquet of consumer fads and the default human apathy would set in, not paying it another thought.

    For more information on this, I suggest you visit where a real-life astronomer examines the claims about the mysterious Planet X.

    Ok, next: evolution. The "missing link" is nothing of the sort. There are, in fact, a number of missing links - intermediate species that fall between stages in evolution that are present in the fossil record. The reason for this is rather simple: these intermediate species were relatively short-lived, and since only a very VERY small percentage of animal remains end up as fossils, it's quite possible that we may never find them. However it's also possible that those fossils remain buried, and will yet be found. Either way, the fossil record is not our only means of determining heredity.

    For more information on this, I suggest you pay a visit to the Maropeng museum in Sterkfontein, Gauteng. They have copious amounts of information on this subject.

    DNA research is also able to trace lineages. Analysis of human DNA compared to modern-day apes demonstrates an uncanny resemblance, thus confirming Darwin's theory that modern humans and modern apes are most likely descended from a common ancestor.

    As for that "missing chromosome"... another convenient omission (or perhaps ignorance) of the facts on Sitchin's part. It's true that modern apes have one more chromosome than modern humans, but what Sitchin and Tellinger won't tell you is that there is that the extra chromosome in modern chimps is actually half a chromosome... which, when stuck together with the one next to it, makes up a long chromosome which is exactly like the long chromosome we have. Nothing is missing, nothing has been modified. Somewhere along the line that one chromosome got split into two. A common occurrence and not at all remarkable.

    For more information on this, I suggest you pay a visit to the Origins Centre at Wits University in Johannesburg. You can even have your own DNA tested, and they can tell you where you come from (and I'm pretty sure they won't say you're from another planet).

    As for modern humans not having evolved significantly for over a million years... that's also nothing unusual. Species like the coelacanth and the great white shark have remained essentially unchanged for far far longer than that. Once a species achieves a certain degree of equilibrium with its habitat and is able to survive well, there is no longer a need for evolution... evolution is powered by necessity. Humans have the ability to alter our habitat to suit us, there's no need for us to adapt to it.

    Indeed, scientific progress is only achieved when certain people suspect that there may be something wrong with the current scientific understanding of the universe, and then go about substantiating that suspicion. If their idea is not consistently disproven, the generally accepted understanding alters accordingly. That is the scientific process. But when one's theory is proven wrong, it's time to go back to the drawing board, using what lessons you have taken from the failure, and produce something else, something better.

    It's a valuable thing when someone looks at the evidence at hand and comes up with a theory that differs from everyone else's. Galileo is a well-known example of someone who did this. The difference is that a lot (although not all, mind you) of what Galileo said was right.

    Unfortunately Sitchin's theory has been consistently proven wrong (despite what he and Tellinger might tell you). There is no validity to it whatsoever. I believe that if he really was a qualified scientist trained in critical thinking, he would long-since have abandoned these silly ideas and spent his time and effort on more stimulating and worthwhile pursuits. But because he clearly lacks that training (and because people continue to buy his books regardless), he persists. And somehow manages to convince other intelligent but ignorant people like Tellinger to follow in his footsteps.

  10. F*#% ... "Know it all at large" is certainly the most fitting description you could have come up with - bar none!! hehehe ;)

    I am leaving the office now so will chat more later ... but felt that I needed to tip my hat first and say that I am suitably impressed with your response :)

    Have a good one bro'!

  11. Alrighty then … on with the discussion … (Phew, I actually managed to suppress the temptation to start with a patronising *sigh* ;)

    Be warned … this is going to be a long one – so please bear with me or tell me to get the hell off your blog :)

    As an intro, allow me to repeat what I said in my last post: “I am suitably impressed with your response.” Your eloquence and general knowledge about these matters is indicative of a very bright mind and I applaud your excellent writing style. However, and as you have probably suspected, I do have one or two observations to make about what you have said.

    In my 42 years, I have made many, many mistakes in judgement or perception and have thus learned to keep an open mind about things. More often than I’d like to admit, my notions about any particular subject have had to be re-examined when I encounter new material that hangs a question mark behind my way of thinking or indeed, my belief system. This is one of those situations. The commendable manner in which you have presented your end of our debate, compelled me to (a) rethink my own beliefs about this particular topic (to quote Nietzsche: “It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!” ;) and (b) to examine the links and other information you have provided in your response and measure what I believe to be true against this ‘new’ information.

    Clearly we don’t have to continue discussing issues on which we (mostly) agree – so regarding ‘belief’ … we’re pretty much on the same page – as is the case with life on other planets. I do however differ on one aspect only and this would be on the probability of such life forms having visited Earth. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence that these visits have, and will continue to take place. Without going into any specifics, this evidence includes documented accounts of such activity taking place since the dawn of history as we know it – and continues to this day. It should come as no surprise that these have all been chalked down as hoaxes or figments of the witnesses’ imaginations - more recently, the denied existence of a 10th planet … but more about this a litte further on.

    At this point, I again need to reiterate a point made in an earlier post. I’m truly sorry for doing this the hard way – but in the interest of retaining perspective and context, I do feel it is necessary just to highlight the following statement again.

    Science, in our ambit of perception at this point in time, is finite and limited to what we have discovered thus far. But the mere fact that we don’t know something … or that we can’t see it – does not mean that it is not so ... or that it does not exist.

    Having drawn attention to this statement as a point of departure for my response to your suggestion to visit Mr. Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” website, I would like to comment on the content of his site … with particular focus on his take on the possible existence of a 10th planet, of course. I have to say that I found the site to be less than objective and I got the distinct impression that it was more a record of a very personal flaming war, if not concentrated attack, on two very specific people who he doesn’t agree with on this particular subject. To be truthful, I didn’t explore the claims or suggestions that either Mark Hazlewood or Nancy Lieder in any great detail. But reading the on-sided and, in my opinion, very closed-minded (again the word ‘patronising’ threatens to come out) attacks he launches on these people smacks of some kind of personal vendetta – in which I have no interest. I even detect a little fear of being proven wrong. (?)

    Allow me to quote from the site to get a clearer understanding of how, sadly, too many so-called scientists go to work when they share their ‘knowledge’ with us. “Whoa!” I hear someone scream ... so let me make myself clear: I say “so-called” not to be condescending – but purely because I am of the opinion that the mere fact that a person has a qualification as a this or a that, does not necessarily make them a this or a that … and even if one wants so dispute this statement, I would propose that it does not mean that one is a good this or that. Similarly, the lack of a certificate, diploma or degree, is no benchmark for the level of ignorance that a person may exhibit in a particular field of study. Quite frankly, although some people may be computer programmers by trade, people don’t often refer to themselves as computer scientists simply because they have a Bsc. Comp. degree … no?

    So, here we go …(with only one or two minor spelling corrections)

    As for Class M planets orbiting our sun on large elliptical orbits ... nah. Sorry. No chance of that. The simple fact is that we would know about it. We would have seen it. We can see objects in the Kuiper Belt smaller than South Africa. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to see objects as large as a Class M planet out that far.

    And here’s another …
    Conclusion: Planet X has no physical effects, has never been seen, and therefore doesn't exist.

    And another …
    So [if] Planet X was roughly the same distance to us as Saturn in May 2002, it should have been at least as bright as Saturn and getting brighter by the minute. Saturn is one of the brightest objects in the sky. We see nothing like this, so again I conclude Planet X does not exist.

    Last one …
    “Remember, tiny Pluto is 5 billion kilometers out, and can be easily detected using modern equipment, and Pluto is way smaller than Planet X is supposed to be. There is simply no way a big planet so close to Earth could have escaped astronomers' detection … even amateur astronomers, who even Lieder and Hazlewood must realize have no reason to lie … all these decades.”

    I guess what bothers me most about these statements (from a scientist, mind you) is his dogged assertion that something does not exist simply because it hasn’t or cannot be seen. This, I am sure you must agree, is a very naïve and, dare I say, dim way of looking at things. Forget Planet X for a second … it is actually extremely worrying that ‘scientists’ with this disposition towards their work are being produced by the Universities of the world. But perhaps its not the fault of the educational institution. Perhaps its just one of those cases where the ‘me’ becomes more important than the ‘us’ … or where someone’s head is so far up their own behind that they are blinded by the proverbial sh*t that they see before them. Forgive me, but it exasperates me (and I know it probably shouldn’t) when people make up their mind about something and will not acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong … or, indeed, that what they ‘know’ today may actually be subject to change when updated information is obtained. Perhaps my exasperation is born out of the trepidation I feel when I see our learned brethren speaking in absolutes about subjects that have proven to be less than absolute - and this is especially applicable in the study of astronomy.

    Notwithstanding the above, I do understand that the vast majority of people would rather hold onto and continue believing what they have believed for a long time (even in the face of contradictory evidence) than (a) stick their pride in their pocket and admit that they may have been wrong … or (b) allow for a paradigm shift in their belief system. Most notoriously, we find this happening in the sciences, in organised religion and in politics. Sometimes it isn’t even a case of admitting that one was wrong – a lot of similar scenarios could be sketched where a given condition may have been true at a particular point in time – but was changed due to some or other new discovery or influence that something else had on the original ‘fact’.

    Now lets take a look at some information from NASA’s site, dated 29 July 2005.
    (Whereas Mr Plait’s persistent denials about the existence of another planet tenaciously and somewhat mysteriously continue beyond this date!)

    After 75 years of speculation and false leads, it has finally happened. A team of astronomers using the 48-inch Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory and the 8-meter Gemini North telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, has discovered the largest Kuiper Belt object (KBO) ever.

    And …
    This places the new planet more or less in the Kuiper Belt, a dark realm beyond Neptune where thousands of small icy bodies orbit the sun. The planet appears to be typical of Kuiper Belt objects - only much bigger. Its sheer size in relation to the nine [previously] known planets means that it can only be classified as a planet itself.

    There are many more articles to be found about this ‘new‘ discovery … but a very interesting observation is that this planet has been nicknamed “Xena” … go figure!

    OK … this may, or may not be the planet that the Sumerian texts, Sitchin, Tellinger or yours truly are referring to … but the point is that we are discovering new facts about our Universe all the time … facts that dispel or replace previously accepted facts. Perhaps we all just use the word ‘fact’ too loosely.

    I end this very lengthy post with the following quote as food for thought:

    “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance … it is the illusion of knowledge.” - Daniel Boorstin

    PLUR :)

  12. Since I’m only an armchair scientist, I have few resources at my disposal to either confirm or reject what these people have to say about these things. So it boils down to credibility.

    On one hand I have Plaitt who has dedicated his professional life to furthering our understanding of the universe through the means of Astronomy. To this end, he has obtained several degrees and has spent years observing the known universe (he is a practicing scientist, not just someone who got a degree to crack his way into a vaguely related industry). He has been trained in critical thinking and the scientific process.

    Yes, there is obviously a great deal of emotion behind his tirades. I put this down to the fact that he is very passionate about his work. People like Lieder and Hazelwood make a lot of public noise about being experts in the same field that Plaitt works, but they are far from it.

    I know that some of his statements may sound suspect… sounding as if he is declaring absolutes rather than accepted theories. Perhaps that’s true, however, being a scientist, if those theories are disproved, he would very quickly admit his error, and adjust his viewpoint accordingly – that’s how science works.

    I don’t know what field you work in, but I’m in the IT industry. I’m one of six people in Africa who are capable of working on a particular system, which makes me somewhat of an “expert” on the subject. I don’t know everything there is to know about the system, but I know enough to know when someone is talking crap about it. If I was passionate about my system, and I heard someone publicly making false claims about it, I would likely be quite upset about it - enough to motivate me to publicly denounce that person’s statements. It’s not at all incongruous to me that Plaitt does the same.

    Sitchin and Tellinger are not Astronomers. Neither of them have any qualifications on the subject (Sitchin holds a degree in Economic History and Tellinger is only qualified as a Pharmacist). The same goes for Semitic Linguistics and Archaeology. Yet these are the doctrines they call upon in order to substantiate their claims.

    This amounts to hiring a diesel mechanic to perform open-heart surgery – he might get it right, but he probably won’t.

    To borrow an example from Scott Adams, if 100 people walk into a room and walk out again five minutes later: 98 of them say there was a pink elephant in the room, and two people say there wasn’t, I would believe the 2, not the 98 (assuming the 2 were seemingly sane, have eyesight sensitive enough to have seen a pink elephant, and were educated enough to know a pink elephant when they see one). If it was 99 to 1, I’d go with the 99, because the 1 was probably crazy, but 2 people is enough to convince me that something doesn’t exist.

    How the 98 came to believe there was a pink elephant, I don’t know. Perhaps some genuinely thought they saw a pink elephant. Perhaps others didn’t know what a pink elephant looks like, but they saw something they didn’t understand, so when someone else gave it a name (albeit a false one) they assumed that was what it was. Others may not have seen anything at all, but since so many other people seemed convinced that there was a pink elephant in the room, they went along with it and actually started believing that there was one.

    The reason for this is, as I said before, anyone can be fooled into believing any ridiculous thing, but it takes a certain clarity of perception to be able to recognize that something doesn’t exist, especially if a lot of people around you say it does.

    Having read evaluations of Sitchin and Tellinger’s theories by numerous qualified researchers in those fields, and having seen that no credible (by my standards, as outlined above) scientists have granted them any validity, and since I don’t possess the tools to be able to evaluate those claims myself, I choose to side with the more credible “expert”. Some might call it “faith” or “belief”, but I prefer to call it “trust”.

    I’m well aware of the probability that some day those “credible” scientists may be proven wrong. The possibility even exists that Sitchin and Tellinger are right. But based on my understanding of the universe, I’d say that the probability of that is very small.

    If I am proven wrong, I will gladly admit my error – but that day has not yet come.

  13. I think that we have discussed this topic enough now and that I suspect that we have established a fair degree of mutual respect for our respective points of view :)

    However, I am (somewhat narcissistically) holding thumbs that the IAU will choose 'Rupert' as the name for '2003-UB313' ;)

    Thank you for the mental stimulation I received from our discussions and I will certainly swing by from time to time - even if only to find something to 'stir' with you about ;)


  14. Hello:

    Your review of Michael Tellinger's book"Slave Species of god by Michael Tellinger" is scholarly and noteworthy.

    It appears Michael was inspired by both Von Daniken and Zitchin.

    One error that is visible in Zitchin's theories is his claim that the underworld is South Africa.

    The underworld is "inside earth", also known as the abzu. It is not South Africa!

    Ancient Astronauts, creators of Homo sapiens

  15. Well we agree one one point... South Africa certainly isn't "The Underworld".

    The Sumerian underworld is the same basic concept as the classical Greco-Roman Underworld, the world of the dead, which was later picked up on by the Judeo-Christian religions as Hell.

    Suffice to say there is no such place, no matter what you call it.

  16. I'm pleased to read the polite manner in which comments have been made. I want to make some observations:
    Any professional scientist knows that he has to toe the establishment line. It is all well and fine that the scientific community in any discipline is conservative and only changes it's views or interpretations when irrefutable evidence becomes available but then the problem is that scientists refuse to even contemplate phenomena that do not slot neatly into existing theory. Moreover funding would never be made available for 'unorthodox' research. Any attempt to do research in such areas is professional suicide. So please do not put your faith in public pronouncements coming from orthodox scientists. Recent example: 45 years ago continental drift was considered absurd. Prominent scientists had declared that heavier than air flying machines were an impossibility. I could mention numerous similar examples from the 20th century. We also have the other extreme: People like Tellinger expect intelligent readers to accept everything they say. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough but I have not been able to ascertain the sources Tellinger has used to support his thesis. I have an open mind and I am very eager to hear opinions but there has to be evidence. Tellinger et al have weaved a wonderful tale that provides a satisfying interpretation of Genesis a book which otherwise seems a mish-mash of contradictory myths. I'd love it if ancient Sumerian texts support all this. How could I come by translations of these texts so I can judge for myself?

  17. Tell me more about this "establishment".

    Where is its headquarters? What is its official name? Who is its president? Who are its board of directors? What is the name of its publication? Where is its website? How does a "professional" scientist obtain membership? Why does membership necessitate that the "line" must be "towed"? What process do they follow to determine which theories form part of that line and which don't?

  18. The subject of this debate is about the most fundamental need of mankind – to find out the truth. Its discovery would surpass all past and future discoveries, and could end all conflicts on our planet. Hopelessly idealistic, you may say, but why dream small?
    As an engineer by profession (and philosopher by default), I have a systematic approach to such debates, and despite not having had much formal education in the sciences, I don’t believe scientists alone have cornered the market on critical or logical thinking.
    The first step to a healthy debate is a mutual understanding of the rules of engagement. Apart from the obvious such as attacking the issue and not the person, respect, open-mindedness etc, we need to agree about the soundness of certain statements:
    • “There is no evidence …” – should this statement be used to dismiss a theory, verify the contrary or merely suggest an unconfirmed possibility?
    • “No reason to suspect …” – as above
    • “Not trained in critical thinking …” – should comment from such persons be dismissed or considered irrespective of content?
    • “Life sustaining environment…” – does this pertain only to life and the environment as we know it, or should we consider the possibility of other forms of life and habitat?
    • “Small probabilities …” – dismiss or consider with an open mind?

    Once we agree on the above, the debate can continue harmoniously – sticking to the facts that we know, and the facts that we don’t know. And what we should debate about the books of Tellinger, Hancock/ Bauval, Sagan etc, is not so much their theories, but their unanswered questions:
    • Who built the pyramids, how and why?
    • Why the obsession with gold in the hunter-gatherer era?
    • Where did the knowledge come from to mine the gold?
    • How do we explain the crop circles?
    • How do we explain the rate of human evolution vs apes?
    • Are there anomalies in our genome?

    Is the truth really too much for us to one day comprehend, or do we only feel that way now because we don’t know it yet? I believe that our progress in finding that truth is growing exponentially - thanks to technology but mostly thanks to the intellectual evolution led by free-thinkers like ourselves.

  19. You're quite correct that a truth-seeker should keep an open mind to any possibilities, no matter how remote they may seem. But that's not to say that it's worth embracing any theory anyone puts forward.

    As far as your list of "unanswered questions" is concerned, you may want to look into those a little futher... they may not be as "unanswered" as Hancock and Sitchin claim them to be.

  20. As a 17-year-old, in (the then) Fort Victoria, Southern Rhodesia, I saw a UFO hovering low in the night sky. It was an incredibly large sphere, glowing orange all over. For several minutes it hung motionless, then sank slowly behind the tree-line.

    It’s one thing to hear someone else’s version of a UFO sighting—but when you see one yourself it’s a different thing entirely. But when you tell people about it you sense the scepticism.

    These things have been spotted since time immemorial. Fighter pilots on both sides during the Battle of Britain regularly sighted them (spectators to the high altitude dogfights). Modern airline pilots have reported sightings. UFOs have even registered on radar screens. Apparently UFOs have been sighted by astronauts as well. I tend to be a natural sceptic, but then I have to ask myself: are all these people delusional?

    How does one explain away the fact that the Dogons of West Africa knew that “Sirius A, the brightest system in our firmament, is next to a small white dwarf called Sirius B, which was not identified by western scientists until 1978. The Dogons knew about it at least 1000 years ago”. They claim this information was given to them by extraterrestrials.

    Read the Dogon article, pasted below:

    [The Dogons
    The Dogons are a people well known by their cosmogony, their esotericism, their myths and legends that interest foreigners at the highest point in search for culture or tourism.
    The population is assessed to be about 300,000 people living in the South West of the Niger loop in the region of Mopti in Mali (Bandiagara, Koro, Banka), near Douentza and part of the North of Burkina (North west of Ouahigouya).
    The Dogon's (Mali, Africa) homeland has been designated a World Heritage site for its cultural and natural significance. They are also famous for their artistic abilities and vast knowledge about astrology, especially the Sirius star, which is the center of their religious teachings. The Dogons know that Sirius A, the brightest system in our firmament, is next to a small white dwarf called Sirius B, which was not identified by western scientists until 1978. The Dogons knew about it at least 1000 years ago. Sirius B has formed the basis of the holiest Dogon beliefs since antiquity.
    Western astronomers did not discover the star until the middle of the nineteenth century, and it wasn't even photographed until 1970. The Dogons go as far as describing a third star in the Sirius system, called "Emme Ya" that, to date, has not been identified by astronomers. In addition to their knowledge of Sirius B, the Dogon mythology includes Saturn's rings and Jupiter's four major moons. They have four calendars, for the Sun, Moon, Sirius, and Venus, and have long known that planets orbit the sun.
    How this Dogon's Enigmatic Scientific Knowledge about Astronomy came from?
    According to their oral traditions, a race people from the Sirius system called the Nommos visited Earth thousands of years ago. The Nommos were ugly, amphibious beings that resembled mermen and mermaids. They also appear in Babylonian, Accadian, and Sumerian myths. The Egyptian Goddess Isis, who is sometimes depicted as a mermaid, is also linked with the star Sirius. The Nommos, according to the Dogon legend, lived on a planet that orbits another star in the Sirius system. They landed on Earth in an "ark" that made a spinning decent to the ground with great noise and wind. It was the Nommos that gave the Dogon the knowledge about Sirius B !]

    Perhaps we shouldn’t get too caught up in scientific gobbledegook and, instead, apply the Occam’s Razor principal that “one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”. In other words, what you see is what you get.

  21. Marvin.

    I'm sure your UFO sighting was a fascinating experience. You are clearly convinced that what you saw was some sort of extra-terrestrial manifestation. While there is a non-zero possibility that that is the case, there is a much larger probability that it was something mundane that you didn't recognize when you saw it.

    I don't have enough information on your sighting to be able to postulate what it was. I don't even know if the sighting actually took place, so I won't comment on it further.

    With regards to the knowledge the Dogons allegedly have, I simply don't care enough about this anymore to go and look up the information I need to refute the claim. Maybe I will at some point, but as far as I'm concerned this whole issue has been put to bed a long time ago.

    The simple fact is this: with all the alleged alien sightings, abductions and other encounters, how is it possible that not one tiny shred of physical, irrefutable evidence has ever been produced? Not one piece of alien technology has been recovered. Not one "abduction" victim has ever come back with alien skin scraping under their fingernails.

    Taking into consideration that the vast majority of such reports can be explained by mundane explanations: misinterpretations of astronomical events (meteors, comets, the planet Venus), misidentified aircraft (weather baloons, blimps, flares), sleep-paralysis, hallucinations, deliberate hoaxes and flat-out lies, it would seem that Occam's Razor does indeed apply. Which is more likely:

    1. Aliens have been visiting Earth for millennia, but despite their frequent visits, they have somehow managed to avoid ever leaving any physical trace of their presence.

    2. Humans, with their imperfect humans brains and imperfect human senses frequently observe things they cannot immediately explain, and instead interpret those events in terms of cultural norms of the day (in the past that would have been angels, demons, djinns, fairies, chupacabras, Old Hags, leprechauns, tokoloshes, and in modern times, aliens).

  22. The level of this debate is, as someone said, noteworthy in its civility and erudition. I will refrain from making a long post except to say that whilst I do not discount Tellinger's book entirely since some of the information he provides is fact around genomes I have to agree with 01 that for me he provides insufficient evidence of his hypothoses and there are too many assumptions and Let us suppose and then subsequent conclusions drawn from what were only suppositions to start with. I have steered clear of von Daniken as well and choose to keep an open mind regarding our origins and not excluding anything until it has been irrefutably proven.

    In the same spirit I also wish to say that just as Tellinger's claims are tenuous at best for lack of evidence, so too is that of the evolutionists whose missing links are excused away by equally disingenuous excuses such as "there only being a few of the species" and so on. A missing link is a missing link which ever way you are coming from and no matter what other evidence you may have that appears to support your evolutionary theory. Tellinger's book talks about "jumps" and for me that is the same as "links" If there is a gap in the theory then the theory is not yet fact.

    Religious bodies do have written texts and also archaeological evidence to support what they are claiming but even there one needs to realise that the interpretation of facts changes from one person to another even among those who claim to be coming from the same starting point.

    I am no scientist, and as yet I still do not know where we came from or why we are here and will continue to keep an open mind to all until someone can prove it beyond a question of a doubt one way or the other.

  23. Reading your criticism, i find it hard to believe how you can take yourself seriously.
    Sitchin and Tellinger take logic and common sense where it would and all you can reply is (again and again) "in my opinion".

    Cheap shots from someone who like to hear himself talk.
    Thank god for people like Tellinger and Sitchin who stick their necks out for the likes of your to hack at.

  24. Here is my take on this Lovely interesting eye opener book....

    The following questions are posed in "Slave Species of god", however there’s nothing really new here. We’ve read / heard it all before. It’s just the same old rehashed issues.

    What do we really know about our human origins?
    A whole lot, research and findings has given us some valuable information regarding our human origins. Check out this website, it has loads of information about our human origin -
    If that is not enough “google” human origins, visit a library and read a book or 10.

    Where did humankind suddenly appear from around 250 000 years ago?
    Suddenly? Who said it happened suddenly? Would you say that 250 000 years ago is suddenly?

    Why has humankind been so obsessed with GOLD since the earliest of time?
    We have? Says who? We haven't been. We have been obsessed with Identity, Belonging and Purpose.
    All wrapped up in the strange concept we call "relationship" and "love".

    Why has GOD been so obsessed with GOLD from Genesis?
    He has? How do you know this? Where is the proof of this?
    There’s no mention of this in the Gospels / Bible… oh my word hang does appear in the Gospels, however it’s all used in a negative sense. Does that constitute obsession? Isn’t Obsession that when you want more of it and not trying to “get away” / “avoid” it in a negative sense?

    Why have we been practicing SLAVERY since a time before the flood?
    Why is this significant? Who cares? We are not living then, we’re living in the now. Is there anyone that know / can prove / demonstrate that slavery was practiced before the flood? Is the author talking about the Flood of Noah or was there another flood that was “discovered” / "new evidence"?

    Why are there so many religions if there is only one CREATOR?
    Free choice? Stupidity? Deception? Ignorance? Should I continue?

    Why do all mythologies have the same group of GODS?
    They do? Interesting, wonder how much research / knowledge was done pertaining to mythologies? This is categorically false. Anyone that has some mythology background knows that the Roman Pantheon is vastly different from the Egyptian gods.

    Why is the FLYING SERPENT the creator god in all mythologies?
    This just confirms that very little research or information was obtained on mythologies. Let’s see, nope I can't think of a single mythology, with a decent pedigree, that actually has a flying serpent as the creator god.

    Why do we humans only use less than 3% of our DNA? …Less than any other species…
    Wow, I’ll be …. , only 3%?
    Where do you get this information, in this day and age one can find all and any information at your finger tips – yip the internet. This is categorically false. We use all of our DNA all of the time. Want more info, check out this website. Need more info, yip you guessed it, “google” and Library for lots of reading.

    How is it possible that the Chimp has twice as many genes as humans?
    So what? Does this really have any relevance to our lives? And dolphins have four times as many, what's the point? Some Plants, Coral, even humans has more genes than other Humans, so what, why is this a discussion point, if you’re not in this field of science do you really care? The drummer from Def Leopard only has one arm. Does that mean signify the world's end? What is the relevance to us living our lives?

    So you tell me that its interesting reading, I bet.
    Makes you wonder about the "new found evidence" if the facts from existing evidence and research are not 100% correct. If you think about's really general knowledge to most of us, why ask questions that has answers, factual ones at that.

  25. Well put, Hanli, thank you. I had given up responding to all the Sitchinites on here some time ago, because I felt I had said all that could (or should) be said.

    But you put it quite nicely, thank you for fighting the good fight!

  26. Word Hanli!

    I totally agree.

    As I recall 01 saying... or was it rupert.. anyways, not going to read the entire blog again because it will contradict what I am about to say.

    Stop wasting time on writing books on heresay rubbish and focus your energies on fact before you have something to say. This being aimed at all the 'qualified' authors out there just trying to make a fast buck from the ill-informed, naive average joe who just wants answers. Makes me sick, like mtv

    Who cares, pass the sauce.

  27. Folks...i think some should review their comments made we are now well into the year 2008.
    Globally things are changing rapidly, scientific evidence has also somewhat changed.
    NASA has admitted to many blunders.
    The Hubble telescope is obsolete - another more powerfull machine is in the factory.
    Mr.Tellinger, well done!
    Good to see you are not afraid of the Illuminati.

    Light and Love.

  28. Molecular Biologists have been able to successfully replicate conditions of early Earth, and demonstrate how those conditions are conducive to the formation of simple proteins (which, over time, evolved into DNA, and then into us).

    Not COMPLETLY true here!

    Stanley Miller and Harold Urey attempted to recreate the environmental and atmospheric conditions of the early Earth. They continuously exposed a mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen gases to electric discharges and ultraviolet light for a week (Miller & Urey, 1953).

    The experiment and its results were viewed as a resounding success, as these experimenters were able to produce a few complex organic compounds and amino acids such as alanine and glycine; materials and elements also found in meteorites.

    Nevertheless, this organic
    soup failed to show any signs of life.
    No elephants, tigers, dinosaurs, single celled bacteria, or even a fragment of DNA were produced.

    Melvin Calvin performed similar experiments and repeatedly irradiated a variety of substances
    and inorganic compounds, including solutions of water and carbon dioxide with electrical discharges.

    He too failed to produce life or even a fragment of DNA, as have all subsequent attempts by numerous investigators, no matter how sophisticated the experiment.

    However, because some organic compounds were produced, including many of the elementary
    sugars and amino acids which are considered the “building blocks” of living matter, many scientists
    view these and similar experiments as a success! Indeed, Miller created 12 different kinds of amino
    acids in his flask, some of which are found in proteins. Hence, it has been argued that given similar
    conditions early in the Earth’s history, living organic material may have been produced continually -
    even though these experiments completely failed to create any living matter or even a fragment of

    In fact, although various scientist have produced individual elements of various “building blocks” these elements were not linked together even when mixed together so that they might combine.

    These elements produce in the Miller, Urey, Calvin, et al., experiments also lacked genetic instructions or any semblance of what could be construed as RNA or DNA.

    Panspermia hasn't been entirely discounted.

    indeed, it is now believed that exobiological organic matter must have fallen to
    , and was then washed into the seas where these life promoting substances accumulated, formin an organic sludge.

    Read more and Source:

  29. With regards to the knowledge the Dogons allegedly have, I simply don't care enough about this anymore to go and look up the information I need to refute the claim. Maybe I will at some point, but as far as I'm concerned this whole issue has been put to bed a long time ago.

    Well, here i see HOW frightning close minded you really are.

    You dont want to look at evidence therefore there IS no evidence, therefore you proof to yourself that you are right and you can savely close the toppic. Then you try to brutally attaack and discredit people who show you the evidence you did NOT WANT TO LOOK AT!

    U use Sience to "proof" your point, BUT you only use little parts that "shows" you are right. Yet you do NOT look at the whole picture, that is, Sience has progressed a LOT furder then the point that you dozed in! (e.a. closed your mind.)

  30. “I'm sure your UFO sighting was a fascinating experience. You are clearly convinced that what you saw was some sort of extra-terrestrial manifestation. While there is a non-zero possibility that that is the case, there is a much larger probability that it was something mundane that you didn't recognize when you saw it.

    “I don't have enough information on your sighting to be able to postulate what it was. I don't even know if the sighting actually took place, so I won't comment on it further.”

    I had no intention of commenting further on this subject but seeing it seems still to be a live issue I’ll say a word or two more. First of all, you do seem predisposed to doggedness, at least insofar as the subject of extraterrestrial life is concerned.

    With regard to my previous comment you made quite a big assumption leap when you said I am clearly convinced that what I saw was some sort of extra-terrestrial manifestation. Then, to add figurative insult to injury, you cast aspersions on my honesty. Damned if I did and damned if I didn’t.

    What I said was I saw a UFO. I’m sure you know what those three letters stand for. The only thing I am convinced of is that I saw the same thing so many people around the world have seen and reported seeing. I did not mention LGM. I’m sure you know what THOSE three letters stand for.

    Planet Nubiro, if it exists, could not support human life due to its elliptical orbit (taking it far out into deep space and away from the sun) and also due to the fact that it is supposed to be many time larger than our Earth which would immediately pose insurmountable problems of gravity.

    However, the fact still remains that UFOs have been sighted since time immemorial (even in the old testament of the Bible). And of course there is the, as yet, unexplained phenomenon of the Dogons.

    Scientists have worked out that there probably are hundreds of thousands of planets in our milky way alone which are exactly like Earth and therefore able to support human life. But, and it’s a big but, the nearest of them would be hundreds of thousands of light years away. And Einstein’s theory of general relativity doesn’t allow for a spacecraft to travel at anywhere near the speed of light.

    There is a way for space craft to shortcut those distances by creating wormholes in space. You see space isn’t straight. Space is enfolded like a corrugated iron roof with exaggerated deep folds. Wormholes would allow a space craft to cut across the folds. And we already know how to create wormholes we just do not have the technology at this stage of our development.

    In closing let me repeat: I do not presume to know what UFOs are, I just know for sure, due to my own sighting, that they exist.

  31. @Anon:

    "Miller created 12 different kinds of amino acids in his flask"

    Not true. Recent re-analysis of Miller's original specimens have yielded traces of 22 amino acids, 5 amines and an assortment of hydroxylated molecules. You might want to keep a weather-eye on the science news.

    Just because no life was produced by no means implies that the experiment was a failure. What the experiment succeeded in doing was to show that the necessary components for forming life were present on primordial Earth, and that, given enough time life could have arisen on its own.

    When I say "given enough time" I'm talking about millions of years here - which is a lot more time that can be allocated to any laboratory experiment.

    Just because this experiment was a success by no means rules out the idea of panspermia. We now know that the local universe is thick with amino acids, and it's not at all unlikely that amino acids that rode to Earth on ancient comets could have been among those that formed the original self-replicating molecules.

  32. @Erwin

    "You dont want to look at evidence therefore there IS no evidence, therefore you proof to yourself that you are right and you can savely close the toppic. Then you try to brutally attaack and discredit people who show you the evidence you did NOT WANT TO LOOK AT!"

    You're right that I don't really want to look at it. If you really feel it's that compelling, and is likely to change my mind, then present it, please.

    What I can say is that nothing I've seen so far is remotely compelling, so this Dogon evidence would have to be pretty darn special (like CNN headline news special) to be at all convincing. Since I haven't seen it on CNN (let alone places like LiveScience, New Scientist or Scientific American), I'm guessing there's probably not much to it.

    But, that's just a guess. Bring along the evidence. Let's see what you've got.

    "U use Sience to "proof" your point, BUT you only use little parts that "shows" you are right. Yet you do NOT look at the whole picture, that is, Sience has progressed a LOT furder then the point that you dozed in! (e.a. closed your mind.)"

    Okay, so you're accusing me of cherry-picking data. Interesting.

    While you haven't made any specific claims as to which data I'm supposedly cherry-picking, there's not much point addressing this specifically. I invite you to point out specific examples so we can engage on this in a reasonable way.

    But I will ask a question: what do you think Tellinger and Sitchin do with disconfirmatory evidence?

  33. @Marvin

    I invite you to take a look at one of my more recent posts in which I look into the question of UFOs in more detail

    Back to Basics: UFOs

  34. One thing we want from a theory is consistency with other well-established evidence. In the case of any special creation story for people, whether the agent of the creation was supposed to be a magic super-being, advanced alien visitors, or anything else is that there is SO MUCH evidence showing that humans are a part of the terrestrial tree of life, and normally integrated with its history. Most special creation stories depend on almost entirely ignoring this, and the reviewed book seems to be no exception.

  35. I have to wonder why an intelligent species who creates another species to act as slaves, would create the slave with greed and violence genes. These tendencies would surely lead to mutiny, not complacency. If I were the master of the universe, I would have made my slaves far less intelligent, much stronger and with no strong tendencies towards anything other than procreation and hard labour. But hey, maybe that's just me.

    I am surprised that there isn't more of an outcry against this book from black people due to the racist statements (i.e. Europeans having more alien dna, thus more advanced) and from Christians due to the use of the bible in support of these alien claims. I would also have expected more of a revolt from the scientific community, but I suspect that the perception is that it is not being taken seriously enough to warrant attention. Perhaps when the scientists catch wind of the incredible claims of his latest book we will see that changing.

    Another good review can be found at:

    The writing style is rambling and overly complicated - probably an attempt to create the illusion of expertise and knowledge on the topic. I didn't find the book particularly thought-provoking, but it would probably make a good movie since it carries the same mysticism displayed in The Fifth Element and Stargate. I think the book appeals to people who have been largely disillusioned by Christianity but still need the comfort that a belief in a creator god brings. I am all for freedom of speech, but when people lap up books like these and defend it as if it were fact without much interrogation of the logic or sources used, or not as the case may be, I grow concerned.

  36. @Heidi

    "I have to wonder why an intelligent species who creates another species to act as slaves, would create the slave with greed and violence genes. These tendencies would surely lead to mutiny, not complacency. If I were the master of the universe, I would have made my slaves far less intelligent, much stronger and with no strong tendencies towards anything other than procreation and hard labour. But hey, maybe that's just me."

    Indeed. Star Trek is much better science fiction than Slave Species, as it shows us a much better way of ensuring obedience from a slave race. Too bad the Annunaki weren't as smart as some human science fiction writers.

  37. Well, ....well. it's all a bit....well!

    God...Creator... Assumptions (x)?

    Religion ..... Belief.... Science?

    Religion is what you want.

    Belief is the possible.

    and science... is the future FACT, and always changing.

    It is hard to come to terms with the idea or vision that perhaps Adam and Eve, just, landed or stared walking.

    We are all just built from .......everything that surrounds us(human DNA is in everything, or is everything in human DNA?)Molecular compositions from our DNA can be found in everything we touch, feel taste, see and hear!

    It is great you want to be God or play God, or just want act like God

    Do just YOU can have meaning in this world.

    Your idea's might be wrong and could be very right on occasion, but you must be willing to accept this and other perceptions, to sit behind your computer and try persecute a well written book, or idea about life in a new world is just silly.

    This is how people think, YOU,and THE OTHERS, have no idea how much these therories help us designe new concepts, and how to sell Reliogions and beliefs, and once we have enoughg money can start changing our own exisitance, we do not realise that our DNA is actually very simple.THE STRONG LIVE AND THE WEAK DIE.

    Go out and do something different

    At the end of the day or night or just day or just night, is this question that you are asking really gonna give YOU results?

    WHO AM I?

    The book is an opinion, and just that, we never saw these transcripts or SLABS, never dug them up, never touched, read or translated them, and cant read Chinese or any other language,( Okay ...sorry ....maybe , Latin, french, Gallic, Africans and THIS)

    Put your own time line together, take the time and look into it. and then comment. Is Israel rely the promised land? Did Mosses take them there? There was people living there already?Y/N


    There is no need to Crucify someone just because they might be right, or have some insight, and even if the are not right, Who gives you the right cause a fight, a fight that is just not right! not justifiable! Just a little EGO!

    You have always got to be right!!

    Just EGO!

    LOL!!! it's a joke.

    k got to soke!

  38. @ Anonymous

    I think I speak for all of us in here when I say: Um, what?

  39. Well gee whiz....
    I'm certainly no mental giant like the rest of you Brilliant Geniuses ... but I found the book to be absolutely fascinating and compelling.'s not perfect...and YES...I could poke a few holes through it as well if I really wanted to waste my time explaining everything in painful detail like you Geniuses. However...I happen to think that he's heading in the right direction and at the very least...his ideas are provocative and dogmatic. And I most certainly enjoyed reading the book.
    Oh...and @ 01 ... please refrain from speaking for don't speak for me. I understood the message from the Anonymous poster prior to your last post.

  40. "'s not perfect...and YES...I could poke a few holes through it as well if I really wanted to waste my time explaining everything in painful detail like you Geniuses."

    Well it's true that you can "poke holes" in just about any argument, if you look hard enough. The problem comes in where you poke enough holes in enough important places in an argument that the argument can't hold up anymore, and it is revealed as false. That appears to be the case here.

    "However...I happen to think that he's heading in the right direction and at the very least...his ideas are provocative and dogmatic."

    Provocative, sure. I would suggest that it is the purpose of science fiction to be provocative. The problem comes in when an author presents science fiction as science fact, as appears to be the case here.

    "Oh...and @ 01 ... please refrain from speaking for don't speak for me. I understood the message from the Anonymous poster prior to your last post."

    Then perhaps you can interpret it for the rest of us. It looks like English, but it makes no sense to me at all.

  41. I have recently read Slave Species,and having explored the Bible somewhat realised that Michael Tellinger and Zachariah Sitchen might have a point, although I differ from Tellinger regarding the plot by the Annanuki as far as Jesus is concerned, most of what he writes about can be linked to a lot in the Old Testament, and also to Jesus and the New Testament. Why the 01 is so adament to disprove or downgrade Sitchen and Tellinger's work is a puzzle to me. The sumerian tablets do exist, many accepted historians have published some of their findings relating to them, and many correspond to these two people's findings. Why would the those tablets exist? To spread a fairy tale? A fairy tale basically confirming the Bible, a fairy tale created between 4600 to 6000 years ago, long before the Bible even existed? Was the Bible perhaps compiled in part from these tablets? And if that is the case then 01's efforts to try and discredit Tellinger and Sitchen makes a lot of sense. 01 basically states that anything discovered by someone not regarded by accepted leaders as experts in that specific field is "bullshit", even though he himself admits that he is not an expert in the field the two mentioned authors are writing about. Science is the best tool we have in our efforts to try and determine who we are and where we are going, but science is an ongoing search, and today's findings and stated 'facts' are mostly tomorrow's lies.

    And science is usually the culprit! The thing is 01, start accepting the fact that no matter how solid that what you know today might seem, tomorrow usually comes up with a better answer, people like Tellinger and Sitchen fits you category of 98 to 2, give them the credit they deserve, stop breaking down others efforts to learn and teach others new ideas, but instead join them for the efforts of all is to have a better understanding of everything, we all learn as we go, better to laugh at our flaws tomorrow than cry about those we have killed because we did not understand them.

  42. @Walter

    I've already dealt with most of your points in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat myself, except for on this one:

    start accepting the fact that no matter how solid that what you know today might seem, tomorrow usually comes up with a better answer

    Take a look through my comments and you will see that I have said exactly this, over and over. The problem is that Sitchin and Tellinger are not presenting a better answer, they are presenting one that is demonstrably false - pure fiction.

  43. I think Mr.Tellingers' work about the ancient 'living gods' is extremely timely and right on. It is people like he and Zachariah Sitchin that can lift us out of our misguided and slavish mentality that has pervaded the human race for so very long. Research the material and you will see their conclusions are totally accurate and far closer than the orthodoxy we have been fed cradle to grave in our 'understanding' of history.

  44. @tjrxk7

    If you do a little research into something I like to call "reality", I think you'll find that Tellinger and Sitchin are wrong, and probably lying.

    The only thing they're trying to liberate you from is your money... by the sounds of it, they've already succeeded.

  45. Wow what an interesting blog!

    I am fascinated by the ruins in South Africa - which haven't been mentioned in the blog, but perhaps are integral to Michael's theories as he claims they are so old and yet has produced no carbon dating proof of this great age just a supposed dating from the calendar stone which again supposes he knows what they were lined up with.

    Proof - evidence - something to put your teeth into. Sure if eveidence were the crux of the matter there would be no theory and no cult following which is what I think is beginning to happen or at least what is desired by Michael in order to create an income for himself. And why not - everyone is entitled to make a living and by creating theories of human kinds beginnings no matter how fanciful leads to broader thinking and creative ideas for advancing discoveries.

    Remember how Troy was found!

    However Michael made a recent statement included in full at the end re 800 black settlers which begs his level of scientific acumen.

    I once replied to his info letter asking for more detail and got a negative response so realized that he is not open to real enquiry - he is spinning a story for the gullible - a fantasy really - loosely psuedoscientific to impress certain people - but I enjoy getting his aerial pictures of the ruins and am very curious to know more about it from someone else.

    It seems to be Michael's bread & butter secret regarding the whereabouts of these, but I'd very much like someone to contribute information about it on this blog.

    Oh yes another thing- Its all very well to say that we were created by other intelligent life forms or that life came to earth from somewhere else - but that just puts the big question further away of how did life begin where ever it did begin. For myself I think science answers very many questions (and allows us to live in a technological age of amazing machines)and the "missing link" is just an honest truth seeking scientific question that Christian fundamentalists have latched onto in a reactionary manner to save face and keep the believers together.

    Belief is a fundamental survival tool of mankind which probably has its roots in our earliest beginings and possibly part of our break away from the animal kingdom which relies on direct learning and another mystery called instict. For example, children and people were told dont go out of the cave at night as the wild animals will eat you. You had to believe that or you will die testing it out. So belief there was a critical part of survival, but based I'm sure on facts that people who did go out didn't come back and their remains were found or who did come back badly scared and so the gullible had no further need for evidence.

    Such a belief, and this is applies to our cultural religion (and dogmatic belief in science is as strong) we are brought up with is almost impossible to change as it is a matter of survival beyond the reason of most people.

    One of the first questions Michael asks of people subscribing to his letters is "are you open-minded?", however he didn't add that he's going to feed you a line that he expects you to swallow. He is clearly not open-minded as he is totally convinced that his theory is correct - he impresses me as trying to be a new religious or cult leader and no doubt along the line and if he gets enough support he will become spoken to by the aliens/gods and be their new prophet on earth.

    Ok well maybe possibly you never know do you!!!?

    Michael says "One of the most perplexing things about these ruins is the size of the population that they must have housed. The settlement of southern Africa by the Bantu people only started in the 13th century and took several centuries before there were any substantial numbers of African settlers from the north here in the southern part. Anthropologists claim that the influx of Bantu settlers from the north happened in very small groups, the largest being no more that 300 people. ----At the time of the South African War (Boer War) there were no more than 800((you joke????)) black settlers from north and east Africa who over time became known by the names we call them today. And yet there are thousands of ruins dating back thousands of years ((??? proof reqd.)) suggesting there must have been a population of between 200,000 and 600,000 people living here long before we previously imagined.

    This is now certainly playing havoc ((!!!)) with many academic minds since they have never before been asked to stretch their imagination this far back in time to actual human activity."

    Wow see what I mean. If he keeps this sort of inaccurate stuff up I doubt he'll be the aliens spokesperson on earth! But still the question of the ruins is valid and needs an answer.

  46. Neil Kennard-Davis's review is very informative and although his concept of logical progression and/or deduction is crude he makes some very good points on how Tellinger makes quantum jumps from his premises to his conclusions using statements like "Surely anyone can see that it is impossible that . and therefore so and so must have been the case." Neil, thank you for your review of the main-stream theories pertaining to Tellinger’s subject matter … it is comprehensive and very informative. Although I personally believe most of your alternative main-stream theories better apply than Tellinger’s you have to remember where your Main-Stream theories come from … Scientists who are supposed to use rigorous empiricism, induction & statistical certainty as their method of establishing conclusions. I am an Engineer & Mathematician and have work with many types of scientists for many years and am aware of how the majority of them, including Archeologist & Anthropologists, conduct themselves. Scientific facts are typically deemed true because after a limited amount of supposedly relative testing or investigation a majority of the data validates their predictions supposedly related to their hypothesis. Sounds like a lot faith is involved! The extent of this statement typically depends on budget, ego, politics, ECT … Don’t put so much emphasis on facts that come from the paradigm Science that has become and institution with its own agenda. Carl Sagan was a classic example of what I have described.

    Where did the many artifacts and sophisticated ancient structures on the earth that pre-date main-stream Archeological & Anthropological time-lines come from? Start with Adam’s Calendar.

  47. It is very strange that the archaeologists haven't investigated Adam's Calender.

    The beauty of scientific method is any thesis or hypothosis can be tested to see if the result can be supported or disproved.

    A true scientist welcomes another person giving his theory a rigorous test.

    Unfortunately Michael Tellinger's theories are speculation with very little attempt to verify his theory with hard facts or evidence.

  48. @ Anonymous

    "In fact, although various scientist have produced individual elements of various “building blocks” these elements were not linked together even when mixed together so that they might combine. These elements produce in the Miller, Urey, Calvin, et al., experiments also lacked genetic instructions or any semblance of what could be construed as RNA or DNA."

    Actually, much progress has been made by researchers in the realm of synthetic biology and abiogenesis since Miller and Urey. Here are some recent highlights:

    In September 2008, Jack Szostak of Harvard Medical School gave synthetic life a possible container - a proto cell. These proto-cells are really just layers of fatty acids that coalesce due to the presence of water. Stozak has demonstrated that these 'fat bubbles' are stable at various temperatures, and that they have the potential to manipulate trapped DNA like molecules through simple thermal cycling. For more on this see this WiredScience article here.

    So now we have a container, but what about some nucleic acids and enzymes to go with it.
    We have something along these lines as well. Here is a 2008 study that documents RNA fragments spontaneously fusing due to favorable environmental conditions, despite the absence of typically required enzymes. See: Nonenzymatic RNA ligation in water. J. Biol. Chem, DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M805333200

    Then in January this year, while you were posting your reply to this thread, Gerald Joyce at the Scripps Research Institute prompted synthetic enzyme pairs to self replicate and even mutate causing the original replicators to become extinct after a certain period of time had elapsed. See this WiredScience news report on the discovery here.

    Then in February, Steven Brenner takes Joyce's experiment a little further by adding six amino acids into the mix creating in his own words "a self-replicating chemical system that can evolve along Darwinian lines". In addition, unlike Joyce's system Brenner's in somewhat more contained. See the press release here.

    An finally, not so long a go, in June this year, a self-assembling molecule called tPNA was synthesized. When left to it's own devices tPNA spontaneously achieves a DNA and RNA like stable configuration without any input from enzymes. Researchers say that tPNA also hints at being able to self-replicate, although this has not yet been achieved in the lab. See the paper entitled: Self-Assembling Sequence-Adaptive Peptide Nucleic Acids in Science, June 12, 2009 here.

    So to re-cap: We have a possible container or proto cell, a few enzymes and a self-assembling nucleic acid like structure (tPNA). Now if the synthetic enzymes pairs in Joyce's experiment could just teach the tPNA or similar molecule to self-replicate, and if iy were to find its way into one of Stostak's protocells or similar and find a viable mechanism of generating energy, we could be on the verge of witnessing the emergence of a synthetic kind of pre-life. Whether that was in fact how it went down, or if a flying spaghetti monster or other debris from space was involved, we will at least know one possible way that life could have arisen spontaneously i.e on its own.

    All in all, we've come quite far from the humble beginnings of 22 amino acids generated by Miller in the 50's. Remarkable really, if you consider that scientists are trying to compress events that must have taken many millions of years into the span of only a few decades of research. So lets give the guys in white lab coats a little more time and who knows, perhaps we wont be alone for very much longer ...

  49. Unless their blood is mixed with the Adamic race by means of interspecies procreation there is a reason why the Negro resembles the ape feature for feature and behavior for behavior while the Adamic race does not.

    This indisputable fact and the difference in the Negro DNA as those who have delved into the study of DNA have attempted to report are two of the extraordinary proofs that satisfy the rhetoric of the now deceased Carl Sagan who is also known to be a jew world order shill who only rose to prominance for his willingness to subvert the scientific method he is fraudulently associated with.

  50. Wow, Anonymous. Racist biggotry, character assassination conspiracy theory bullshit! You really have elevated this discussion to a whole new level of crazy!

    Don't you idiots realize that by spouting this kind of seriously insane nonsense, you're not doing your side any favours?

  51. This indisputable fact ... Are you kidding?

    Assertions but no chapter and verse. That's just hot air.

    Anachronistic premise also.

  52. There is more to heaven and earth than ever dreamt of by mortal man. why try to discredit this about the existence of Annanuki and what others say. Prove rather that there is not only one species created. whats the possibility that other humannoids were also created. There is sufficient evidence that there could have been others here before the Annanuki who also populated this beautiful blue planet of ours.

  53. Dear Colleagues, esteemed Wikiologists & Googlers. I do not doubt the level of intelligence here or lack of stimulation invoked by the previous posts. However I do question the productiveness further reaching beyond our own self actualisation. Though I actually suppose that is what we are all after, but it needs to be done by producing more scientific fact rather then just trying to rationalise existing. I do also understand that the original intent of this blog was for a review, but it seems to have blossomed into something more and I feel enticed to jump on the bandwagon. I just have a simple point to shine across and I don’t mean to burden you all with guilt or responsibility, though as I stated before, the level of intelligence here is quite impressive and this deserves to be utilised. May I boldly suggest that we (including myself) should become “doers” and a little bit more productive. Theory is vital and should not be verbally discounted by any means. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would have sounded to hear that the earth was not flat, but actually round. Theory should be tested! What ever resources we have available we should be using or consolidating, whether it is a simple motivational telephone call to your local university inquiring about their response to this latest theory or hopping on a plane and actually getting your hands dirty at ground zero. I challenge you to endure some discomfort and try and contribute to this very exciting issue. Please offer any suggestions you have as to expand on my measly examples!!

  54. The last couple of days I've been looking for info on Slave Species of god by Michael Tellinger and gladly I stumble into your blog, it has great info on what I'm looking and is going to be quite useful for the paper I'm working on.
    BTW is crazy how many generic viagra blogs I manage to dodge in order to get the right site and the right information.
    Thanks for the post and have a nice day

  55. One man alone can't figure out the story or tell it. I think sometimes books like Slave Species of god although not completely scientifically accurate and lacking certain evidence or parts of the story, still tell a story of substantial facts and collections of evidence that makes one think about how fucked up our origins really are. Shouldn't we know who we are if we were created by The GOD of all creation? Why is it that we don't know jack squat and have been kept in ignorance?

    The book proves that we have without a doubt been manipulated. By whom or what? Who really knows for sure but there is plenty of evidence that we are not alone here or out there in the Universe. I think there are many players in the field besides the Annunaki and we will meet them soon as some have already meet them.

  56. I agree with Pure Earth's comments.
    Like most things, information can be pieces of the truth. The idea that there is another planet "out there" is rather obscure, as we have the ability to see much further.
    But somethings don't explain others. Why did early cultures need to write so much about gods? We have been told man created gods to explain how the world worked, because they didn't have science. But they DID have some forms of science...they weren't primitives living in caves. They farmed, they domesticated animals, they produced clothing, pottery, practiced some forms of medicine, and wrote about their world. Since several civilizations, the Sumerians, the Hebrews, and more, wrote paralleling "tales" of their origins, these things need to be looked at.
    Why is it almost all early civilizations had a god or gods, and have similar stories about them? Think about it. Did man just migrate around the globe and spread similar stories, or did these civilizations come up with their own?Why is the Old Testament God rigidly against murder, but killed off most of mankind, including babies, including animals, because he regretted making him?
    Some of us want to know our origins. We will look at things, but won't many leaps of faith. I find the Sumerian writings interesting, because of what they say. Someone went to great lengths to write this down. Same with the bible. Same with other religions.
    Could man have been created by aliens? Arthur C. Clarke postulated that with 2001: A Space Odyssey. Do we have real evidence? No. But there are some things that make us wonder, because they are unsettling and we cannot explain them.

  57. This was interesting. i actually read everything lol.
    What i concluded is that, 01, you are closed minded. Point stop.
    You make a good argument yes, and even claim that you are open. But your words and actions differ. Point Stop.
    I Have read Slave Species, among a lot of other books.
    And i have, as well as my family seen more than one UFO's. I am an 'amateur' astronomer and my dad is an avid 'aeroneutics' admirer, in short, between the two of us we can verify what we have seen as indeed a UFO.
    But you will discredit it, due to us being 'not quallified' or due to 'lack of degree'.
    So no need for you to even react to this post, your answers has already been predicted...
    Of all the different works that i have read, i have come to this conclusion. And this is actually all i want to say;
    Debra; But there are some things that make us wonder, because they are unsettling and we cannot explain them. - that is exactly what everything that has been argued about here comes down to.
    Not everything that people like Tellinger or Clarke or Hancock or Von Danicken (i have actually read works of all of them) should be taken at face value, nor should everything be discredited.
    Science is great, but it is still 'incomplete'. it has a long way to go still. And in that journey is where a little bit of 'extreme fanatism' comes in.
    It is our human nature to go on 'quests' to look for something more than what we have been told. Why is that? Maybe because somewhere in our DNA it is hardwired that there is something more out there? Something more to us?
    And that is why we must never discredit individuals with a different theory.
    Always remember, up until the last almost two hundred years ago, 'scientist' of the time believed that everything revolved around the earth.

    Anyway just wanted to share that thought

  58. Shine on, Sweet Jesus. The crazy... it burns!

    But what a smorgasbord. Even the weird spam post as a condiment.

  59. I stumbled on this blog in an effort to find a complete copy of Slave Species Of Gods. which reminds me, does anyone know where to find a copy?....I found a pdf file with only part of chpt 1 @

    anyway, I must comment after spending over an hour reading all the comments on this thread. 01 you sound somewhat educated and articulate, but closed minded and egotistical.
    I think you are over critical in your criticism on the book (I can tell this even without reading the entire book in question)I am somewhat familiar with Sitchin's work and his views, also the obvious similar views of Michael Tellinger.

    I am afraid this comment is going to be time consuming and long but I need to point out a few things that struck me as I read over this entire section of comments....
    Firstly, I will comment on the most basic premise of the book in question. This is I guess 2 fold, are we alone?, and if not, have we been visited by intelligent race/s originating off planet somewhere?...evidence? well as far as evidence goes, this is hard to say. I have not seen it with my own eyes of course, however the question of evidence is in itself a very complicated issue, and I can spend days just on that one part of the complicated puzzle we have here. Without scrolling up and spending time looking for the exact quote, 01 you hinted that you basically totally trust CNN(main stream media)and the government to tell you the true nature of reality, and that my friend, is to your own determent, for your reference I send you to Now before you close your mind and categorize me as some "conspiracy theorist", I have quite an understanding of Geopolitics and economics. I omit I have no degree in the aforementioned fields, however I have done years of research that has lead me to believe that this civilization from its beginning, has been ruled by a fear based, distortion of truth. The motivation behind this fear based system is control,power,money. With that said, to answer the question you asked earlier in this thread, how/why would the powers that be lie about the existence of other intelligent life, and the fact that we have been engaged by these civilizations. The answer is Geopolitics, again for your reference to understand all this, the "How" and "why" visit Read the Executive Summary and Briefing Document, and also The Unacknowledged Threat. Then you should understand the how and why they would lie.
    Which brings us back to the evidence of ET and whether we have had contact, I am certain there is physical evidence, but if you don't have "a need to know" well you wont ever see any evidence. So we are left with endless testimony of witnesses leaking and reporting what they have seen, which is enough to win a case in court alone. Besides absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    (I only get 4,096 chars? be continued)

  60. wow did I mention this will be long, and I have not even finished a single point of logic!...
    Back to the basic premise...are we alone, have we been visited? If this was a court case testimony alone proves that we are not alone, and we have been engaged by other civilizations. Now lets look at some simple logic to back up this idea even further.
    we live on a small rock in a infinite universe, and most people cant fully comprehend the full meaning of this. this one planet is so diverse in the different life forms that it is a complete oversight to think that diversity stops beyond our atmosphere.
    Plus our scientist have all these equations to show how many possible worlds there are that can support life...however they are too narrow sighted in thinking all life must have similar needs as our own, so if Planet x does indeed exist and it is inhabited, that is possible and plausible. Further more in the 80's Planet x was a big news story and then it quickly disappeared...why? 01 argued that amateur astronomers would see it, not necessarily true, many planets are discovered by tell tell signs like the wobble of a star and other observations. So that discredit by 01 in regards to his disbelief that there is a planet x(Nibiru) is like most of what he says, not entirely true. I once read an article that explained in detail how a "debunker" operates and I see many similarities in 01's and other advocating his views, in brief it includes attacking the messenger and their advocates with words and statements like this direct quote that 01 said;
    "Their stories, while compelling to the ignorant, are nothing more than that: stories. Elaborate fictions presented as fact, preying on people who don't know any better." wow you should be ashamed 01!

    OK got a little misdirected, to sum up the first point, the basic premise of the book in question...Are we alone/have we been visited, I personally see enough logic,testimony,archeological finds to support this answer as a YES.

    Did Sitchin make possible mistakes in his translations? probably a few I suppose, but does this discredit his entire hypothesis? I would say NO...besides to me it explains allot more than anything else I have conceived when considering who we are and where we have been, and more importantly where are we capable of going?

    On another note, 01 questions the motives of sitchin and the author of Slave Species of Gods, and that of anyone of that same genre. so why have you not yet question the motives of your beloved mainstream science? you obviously think that all scientists, universities, governments, and other orginizations serve the best interests of humanity, and cant possibly have alterior motives to serve their own(or someone else)interests. Well I tell you that whats good for humanity is not their goal. When I say "they" I mean the international banking cartel, or the "global elite" ie, Federal Reserve, CFR, Tri-Lateral comision,Chase Manhaton, all the conglomerate corps basicaly, Rockafeller, Rothchild...the list goes on and on. Some where in this thread you asked where is the headquarters of this group?, who are they?..I suggest watching Invisible Empire; A new World Order Defined on www.prison or youtube. then maybe those questions you posed will be understood.
    (to be continued)

  61. Well at this point the close minded skeptics are I am sure tuning me out by now, and they will not seek verification of anything I have said....and hey that's to be expected. I will tell you this though...If you are one who thinks we are free and NOT slaves, and one who thinks that the average person has a clue to what actual reality IS....I say you are out of touch and you need to pay attention. most of us Are SLAVES, we are enslaved by a debt bubble economy that is going to collapse one day. The family unit has been destroyed in part by the need to make more goes on and on....long story short...there is a global conspiracy, history has been re-written by the ruling class, and all the logic and patterns seem to fit with this book Slave Species of god, but its is not only this book, do research on the Illuminati or any secret "The Law Of One" by L/L research (read here for free)
    do some research and you will see a common message throughout many different sources...and you most likely (only in open mindedness)will come to the same conclusion as I...."something is not right here, we have been lied to big time" and the internet is endless in information, it a mixture of truth, lies, half truths, misconceptions, ect...but if you use simple logic, UN-biased by the programming of society, then you can sort out WHAT IS most likely.
    Trust the scientific community and you will only know what is meant for you as a consumer slave to is definitely a "need to know" world we live in, meaning, as in National security and military, if you don't have a purpose or a need to be informed of what is going on, then you will not know.

    So after all the name calling and arguing about evidence and all that...they have you exactly where they Need you to be, IGNORANT.
    So think about that, maybe Sitchin and Tellinger are totally correct, maybe they are only close to correct in there ideas, but we wont know for sure till the vail of secrecy is lifted, and we have truly wise and honorable leaders in the White House. Not till the excuse of National security is no longer used so that the government can go with no oversight as they are right now, will we know any degree of what is real or not.
    I know this thread was not exactly about this, but it IS directly related to the defense of the author of the book in regards to 01's conclusion to his work. There are many related factors that this book don't cover, such as all ancient cultures seem to have fixated on the Pineal gland. check out what David Wilcock talks about at He has some very interesting theories.

    anyway never let a message get lost by scrutinizing the messenger, or following one who is a self proclaimed critic, who uses a play on words to express his own ego...I will admit I may not be anywhere near as smart as anyone else on this site, and I am fine with that, my ego is humble...but it don't require a scientific background or a million dollar education to see simple logic that even a child is capable of. We all have the same potential to be as intelligent as we wish, and those who proclaim their own intelligence while knocking the intelligence of others shows lack of wisdom, honesty, and compassion...

    and lastly do you want to know why we are here? is so is to learn to love, that is the most important part of our evolution...that is why we are here.

  62. Well I didn't even make a dent compared to what I had in mind, but I am rather annoyed by the char limit so I am over it!....the best advice to anyone in a case such as this, for those who really seek the "truth" do your own research and avoid the banter you see here, a healthy debate is good, but when the obvious attempt is to lift oneself up to gleem before people, while verbally bashing ones view and those who subscribe to that view is very counter productive. I see no real consensus or anything positive achieved here...01 has one good point, never naively complete buy into one point of view to your own detriment...including religious dogmas. Other then that it was a complete ego fest.

  63. So good topic really i like any post talking about Ancient Egypt but i want to say thing to u Ancient Egypt not that only ... you can see in Ancient Egypt Ra God The Sun God and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,

  64. I enjoyed Tellinger's book Cheers

  65. Hi Owen,

    Nice site and nice review. Thanks.