Saturday, March 25, 2017

The ICA Stones Controversy

The Ica Stones Controversy

One of the most prolific set of images depicting concurrent man-dinosaur co-existence are the Ica stones collected by Dr. Xavier Kabrera and other explorers, and stored in the private museum of Dr. Kabrera, as well as the Ica museum, the Aeronautics museum in Lima, the Naval museum in Callao, and others. The total number of Ica Stones is between 11,000 and 15,000, and, according to Dr. Kabrera, taking into account all of the stones which have been distributed to private collectors, there are more than 50,000 stones. Dr. Kabrera estimates that in subsoil (buried or hidden) remains more than 200 - 300 thousand similar stones.
The engraved Ica stones are river boulders of andesite from 15-20 g to 500 kg in weight and from several centimeters to 1 meter and more in diameter (length) with pictograph inscribed on them by some means of engraving - grooves of 1-2 mm in depth, or executed in the technology of a low relief. The images are different enough and include:

People and extinct (dinosaur) figures

Polydactyl horses (meryhippuses), prehistoric elephants (mastodon or dinotheres), prehistoric camels (alticameluses), and other animals

Dinosaurs including triceratops, stegosauruses, brachiosaurs, pterosaurs, iguanodons, tyrannosaurs and pterodactyls, etc.

Semimen-semibirds, like kimnaras and sirens 

People astride polydactyl horses, prehistoric elephants, alticameluses, dinosaurs

Operations on ablation of extremities (limbs), transplantation of kidneys, hearts, trepanation of sculls and replanting of brain and so on

Geographical and star maps with images of known and unknown continents, the suns, stars, comets and "people" watching them

Erotic scenes of obvious homosexual activity, etc.

'People', or more correctly 'Hominid' images engraved on the Ica stones differ from modern humans with their depiction of an anatomically larger head. Their head size to torso relationship is 1:3 or 1:4, and for modern humans this ratio is 1:6 – 1:7) their heads show a slanting forehead. These 'hominids' appear to belong to a different branch of the Homo sapiens tree, something like a very large Neanderthal, or other Giant hominids. Kabrera had a similar point of view and considered that hominids on the Ica stones probably were not our grandparents.

One of the earliest mentions of the engraved stones is found in Juan de la Santa Cruz Pachakuti's report “The List of Documents of the Antiquity from Peru” (1613). In that report , Santa Cruz states that “...during governing of Pachakuti’s Inca Jupanka (1438-1471) in the region where Ica province is situated today, great number of stones with engravings had been revealed.” 

The reference to the Ica stones at the beginning of 17th century reduces to zero a probability they ALL are modern hoaxes. Of course, the document in question has to be verified, but it is unlikely that records of that antiquity will be lost in any short time frame, because several copies exist. The main record is probably held in the Spanish National Archives, and a copy in the National Archives of Peru.

However, that being said, and provenance being established, it is still likely that indigent farmers of this area, when confronted with tourist traffic that will pay for 'relics', find it reasonable and easy to create a cottage industry producing local similar fresh 'copies' to meet that tourist demand. With provenance being established for at least some of the Ica Stone, does not mean they all are authentic, any more than if does if some of the stones are copies, means they all are copies. The real conundrum is we don't know at this point which is which.

Understanding provenance on all stones being impossible to ascertain, does not in any way negate the provenance of various report from the 1500’s and later. It remains up to qualified specialists to find reasonable means to validate the authentic from the copies. In conclusion, some of the stones have been recorded in the mid to late 1500's and some of them are more than likely local forgeries. At the current time it is difficult to ascertain which is which, although dating methods should be available that can determine patina dating. I would suggest that a blanket acceptance on all stones would be as foolish as denial of authenticity of all stones. 

It is up to individual researches to do their own due diligence and research to determine which stones are authentically 'ancient' and which are modern.

An Ica stone depicting a man riding an Apatosaurus.

The depiction of the skin texture and patterning on various dinosaurs on Ica stones is “dead on” as confirmed by every paleontologist that the stones were shown to. Since the discovery of fossilized dinosaur skin in 1992, it has been suggested that the large circles (not the small ones of which there are many more), would have most likely been located on the animals in places where the skin did not move as much, such as the side instead of near joints such as hips. This is how the circular patterning is shown on the animals on these stones.

On the left stone a man is shown riding a Triceratops.

Note that the textured skin shown on the animal was not known by scientists until 1992. Not to mention the amazing fact that this stone shows a warrior riding a Triceratops!

The stone to the right depicts an image of a man riding a pterosaur for battle purposes. Note the clear skin texture that is evident on all dinosaurs on Ica stones, as well as the dagger in the warrior’s hand. It even seems to show membrane skin on the wings and not feathers or hair, indicating these indigenous natives must have seen living specimens to have such anatomical knowledge. 

I obtained several large photos of the ICA stones from the Wikimedia Commons website and they are displayed below without much comment. All ICA Stones photos are used with permission.

What the authentic stones do seem to suggest is that we have some chronology of the history of life muddled up a bit. The stone’s story seems to say in quite clear detail, that a form of humans, not necessarily modern man, or even Cro-Magnon, coexisted with very large animals, including what we call ‘dinosaurs’. 

The fact that Stegosaurus spine plates are visible on many of the drawings, and those plates were not discovered until 1992 suggests another avenue of authenticating that man and dinosaur coexisted at some time on this planet. Based on other depictions, glyph's, carvings and legends from around the world, these animals probably existed up through the recent Epoch.

First, there are the references from the Jesuit missionaries in 1535 and in 1562; the Spanish sent some of the stones back to Spain. 

Second, archaeologists found stones in Paracas, Tiahuanaco, and Ica tombs dating from 500 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. 

Third, laboratory tests indicate a degree of antiquity with patina covering the grooves of the stones. 

Fourth, microscopic analysis reveals that there is no evidence that rotary tools or saw blades were used to carve the stones that were tested. 

Fifth, there are twelve Moche vases in Peruvian museums dating from 70 A.D. to 900 A.D. with dinosaurs on them. 

Sixth, a Nazca textile depicts thirty-one dinosaur figures. The textile was found in a Nazca tomb. The textile had been authenticated and dated from 400 A.D. to 700 A.D. 

There are over thirty thousand figures engraved on more than three thousand stones discovered in Southern Peru in 1951 at Toro Muerto, far from the Ica Providence. Many of the stones are engraved like those in the Cabrera Museum in bas relief style.

The stones are believed to be done by the Wari who inhabited the region from 500 to 1,000 A.D. Some of the stones depict dinosaurs. 

An engraved stone with dinosaurs and other animals was excavated from a tomb near the Rio Grande Palpa. The stone had been found in a Nazca tomb and has been dated from 400 to 700 A.D. There were about thirty eyewitnesses to the discovery.

The conclusion is quite clear. Many of the stones from the Nazca-Ica area are from historically recent time. Many may be copies created simply to sell to the tourist trade. This should not be shocking to researchers, professionals, science, or academia, as it is a time worn practice in many other ‘archaeology’ sites around the world. Some of the copies may be very sophisticated reproductions, where an artificial ‘aging’ process is created (baked) onto the surface. Others are cruder, and easier to identify.

The various locations where the stones are found and the different patina layering suggests the stones, like the Pre-Inca and Inca cultures survived across quite different periods of time.

The stones themselves suggest a possibility of three periods of manufacture. One is current (within 40-60 years) consisting of fakes, forgeries and copies. 

The second is ‘recent’, based on light patina and oxidation; this could be anything from near current to a pre-Columbian era around 1,000 AD. 

The third is the authentically genuine old stones that show a very high degree of patina, aging, encrustations, and uniform weathering.

Last, it is important to keep a level view of this material phenomenon. This is an ‘all’ or ‘none’ proposition for both sides of the Evolution vs Creation debate. Both sides have a very strong motive to prove one side or the other wrong, based on their particular world view and belief systems. The authentic stones do not prove anything about creationism. We are not able to determine their age, the method of carving, the method of producing bas relief images, or whether they are a library, or a written language. We do not have the first clue as to their purpose or meaning, other than they are found in many grave sites.

So it is less than genuine to speculate on their subjective relationship to any theology. On the other hand, fakes and forgeries do not in the least invalidate authentic stones. It is not necessary to invalidate the whole lot in order to disprove a ‘Gradualism’ or creationist view. What the authentic stones do seem to suggest is that we have some chronology of the history of life muddled up a bit. The stone’s story seems to say in quite clear detail, that a form of humans, not necessarily modern man, or even Cro-Magnon, coexisted with very large animals, including what we call ‘dinosaurs’, and in all probability, in the not too distant past.

The fact that Stegosaurus spine plates are visible on many of the drawings, and those plates were not discovered until 1992 suggests another avenue of authenticating that man and dinosaur coexisted at some time on this planet.

Based on other depictions, glyphs, carvings and legends from around the world, these animals probably existed up through the recent Epoch.
In conclusion, there are more than 30,000 Ica Stones from Peru. Many are copies and fakes, and many more are original artifacts from burial sites that date back 700 or more years. (Carbon dated results are based on grave remains (pottery, linens, etc. in the graves where one or more ICA stones were removed from). Experts surmise there are more than 200,000 + stones still unearthed. It appears the stones were some kind on intelligent “library” or some similar mechanism. It would seem to me a logical assumption that a surviving group from a devastating cataclysm might try to record their pre-cataclysm history while the memories were still fresh. The pictographs on the stones make the case that the original civilization was quite advanced.

ICA Stones Bibliography:

Cientifico Descubre Dinosaurios en Ica. Ojo-Lima, Domingo 03 de Octobre de 1993, p. 7.

Juan de Santa Cruz Pachacuti Llamquie: Relacion de antiquedades deste reyno del Piru. 1571.

Interviews with Dr. Javier Cabrera, his sister, Isabel Cabrera, and his daughter, Eugenia Cabrera.
Herman buse. Introduccion Al Peru. Lima, 1965

Santiago Agurto Calvo. “Las piedras magicas de Ocucaje”. El Comercio. Lima, 11 December, 1966.

Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Precolombino. Volume I (Ica: 1968), p. 25ff.

Erich Von Daniken. According to the Evidence. (Souvenier Press: Great Britain, 1976), pp 284ff.

Ryan Drum. “The Cabrera Rocks,” Info Journal. No. 17 (May, 1976), p. 10.

Robert Charrous. L’Enigme des Andes Editions. (Robert Laffont: Paris, 1974), p. 72.

“The Amazing Ica Stones. The Peruvian Times. (August, 25, 1972).

Roy L. Moodie. “Injuries to the Head among the Pre-Columbian Peruvians”. Annals of Medical History. (Vol. 9), p 278

Alejandro Pezzia Asserto. Ica y el Peru Pre-Colombino, Vol. 1. (Ica: 1968)

John W. Verano. “Prehistoric Disease and Demography in the Andes.” In Disease and Demography in the Americas. Ed. J. Verano and D. Ubelaker, pp. 15-24, (Washington D.C. and London: Smithsonian Institution Press), 1992.

John W. Verano. “Physical Evidence of Human Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.” In Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru.

Ed. Elizabeth P. Benson and Anita G. Gouv, (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2001, pp. 165-184.

John M. Jensen Jr. 




Monday, March 20, 2017

T-Rex and the Carbon 14 Dating Controversy

For openers, I would like to assure you that I am not in the least bit an advocate or supporter for any religious-creationists views, nor am I a supporter or advocate for long term gradualism-evolution. Neither seems to me, to fit the natural and observable facts of our known biological envelope.  John Jensen

T-Rex and the Carbon 14 Dating Controversy

Scientists tell us that Dinosaurs lived up until about 65 million years ago, when an asteroid about 6 miles across, slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. The asteroid may have happened, but it certainly did not kill off all the dinosaurs. This paper will make the case that Dinosaurs survived well into the early Holocene based on 14c tests of non-fossilize dinosaur bones, (including T-Rex and similar sized dinosaurs) showing the results of more than 60 'blind' 14c tests in major worldwide laboratories which returned dates between 12,000 YBP and 42,000 YBP. We will discuss in detail the discovery of Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State and her discovery of 'collagen and hemoglobin element' in a T-Rex hind limb.

Photo was taken at the Museum of Natural Science, Milano, Italy by Stefano Bolognini, Nov, 2009.

Soft Tissue from a T-Rex Dinosaur?

The following is NOT all my own original material, though it substantially follows my personal research. Extracted from an article by Brad Harrub, PhD - and other printed publications, papers and materials.
It is not a secret that DNA cannot stand up to harsh environmental factors such as heat or intense pressure. 

Additionally, we know that the molecular structure of DNA begins to break down rapidly after an organism dies. Scott Woodward and his colleagues observed: “Nucleic acids have limited life expectancies under physiological conditions, and DNA is particularly susceptible to oxidative and hydrolytic damage” (Woodward, et al., 1994, p. 1229). This rapid degradation was one of the arguments the defense used to discount the blood evidence in O.J. Simpson’s famous double-murder trial.

It was also the picture painted in the famous movie Jurassic Park. Moviegoers learned that DNA could not sustain the test of time—but blood-sucking insects preserved in amber still possessed usable DNA. 

And from that people began to speculate: “Could we create a living dinosaur from DNA?” That question has been recast into the spotlight as researchers made an amazing announcement. The Washington Post reported: 

Soft tissue found within a dinosaur bone!? How could that be? “For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70-million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus Rex” (Schmid, 2005, emp. added). 

In a Science article titled “Tyrannosaurus Rex Soft Tissue Raises Tantalizing Prospects,” Erik Stokstad commented: “On page 1952, the team led by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh describes dinosaur blood vessels— "still flexible and elastic after 65 million years—and apparently intact cells” (2005, 307:1852). In the opening abstract of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues remarked:

“Soft tissues are preserved within hind limb elements of Tyrannosaurus Rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round micro structures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. 

Some regions of demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of micro structures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaur soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience." (2005, 307:1952, parenthetical item in orig.).”

The authors go on to disclose that this Tyrannosaurus Rex specimen was discovered “at the base of the Hells Creek Formation, 8m above the Fox Hills Sandstone” (307:1952). They estimated the creature’s age at approximately 18-years-old. However, the fascinating part of this report was in the pictures. Schweitzer and her colleagues included over 20 microscopic images of the soft tissue that was recovered from the dinosaur bone.
Schweitzer and her colleagues carried out an experiment in which they applied a weak acid to demineralize the dinosaur bone. They observed: 

“After 7 days, several fragments of the lining tissue exhibited unusual characteristics not normally observed in fossil bone. Removal of the mineral phase left a flexible vascular tissue that demonstrated great elasticity and resilience upon manipulation. In some cases, repeated stretching was possible.” (307:1954).

In a personal communication, Schweitzer discussed the serendipitous way in which the material was discovered. The Washington Post account mentioned that the bone was broken when it was moved, which permitted access to the soft tissues. When asked if that was, indeed, true, Mary Schweitzer responded: “Yes and no. It was broken in the field—too heavy for the helicopter in one piece. But that only allowed access to the bone chunks they didn’t need to ‘rehabilitate’ the dino. The soft tissues were not immediately apparent or expected” (Harrub, 2005, emp. in orig.). By having more than one piece, Schweitzer and her colleagues were able to get a better view of the internal aspects of the bone.

Expected or not, the end result has opened a chasm of questions. Scientists are questioning how this soft protein material can be so fresh when it was discovered in “70 million year old bones.” Maybe the question they should be asking is: “Are we sure these bones are so old, given that they contain such fresh proteins and elastic soft tissue?” In the conclusion of their report, Schweitzer and her colleagues noted:

“However, we demonstrate the retention of pliable soft-tissue blood vessels with contents that are capable of being liberated from the bone matrix, while still retaining their flexibility, resilience, original hollow nature, and three-dimensionality.... This T. Rex also contains flexible and fibrillar bone matrices that retain elasticity” (307:1955).

This scientific evidence does not hold up under typical dinosaur age timelines.

In the description of one of the images included in the report the authors observed: “Round red microstructures within the vessels are clearly visible” (307:1953). The report in Science News further proclaimed: “The researchers squeezed round, microscopic structures out of the presumed T. rex blood vessels. Those small spheres, which ranged from dark red to deep brown, may be red blood cells, says Schweitzer.” (Perkins, 2005, 167:195). When asked if the contents of the blood vessels were indeed blood cells, Schweitzer gave a carefully guarded answer. She stated: 

“I don’t know what any of it is until I do tests. I have been in paleontology enough to know that just because something looks like something we recognize does not mean that it is” (Harrub, 2005, emp. in orig.) –‘a wise response, given the negative response from the scientific community to her 1997 discovery in which she mentioned blood cells from dinosaur tissue. In that article she described the moment in the laboratory in which it became apparent:

“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells.” (Schweitzer and Staedter, 1997, p. 55). 

The colleague that “took one look” was University of Montana professor, “Dinosaur Jack” Horner, one of America’s best-known paleontologists, who discovered his first dinosaur fossil when he was eight years old. So in the past it was red blood cells. But now we have soft tissue—including blood vessels! 

Iron-clad "Dinosaur-era" tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: 

In this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a Mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.

More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur:

According to Nat'l Geographic, there's yet another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a Hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels, connective tissue, and blood cell protein amino acid chains partially sequenced at Harvard University. This allegedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. 

Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring outside claims of a false evolutionary timescale (65 million year old extinction of dinosaurs) which has so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.

For decades these kinds of announcements have been mostly just ignored because of the old-earth evolutionary assumptions. But now that original dinosaur tissue has been repeatedly confirmed, the existence of biological material and even living bacteria in allegedly million-year-old specimens should be acknowledged and re-assessed. 

As listed by Dr. Walt Brown…

  • Allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
  • Allegedly 18 million year old salamander muscle and vessels filled with blood (Proc. Roy. Soc. 2009)
  • Allegedly 40 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
  • Allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
  • Allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
  • Allegedly 400 million year old fish amino acids (Journal of Applied Genetics 2003).
  • Allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

Biological Material from a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx:

One would think that these "dinosaur-era" finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But as late as 2012, so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSF: 

  1. Have never even heard of these developments
  2. Initially deny them (soft-tissue deniers) 
  3. Assume that it must be creationists who found the sample, repeating the debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but bacterial biofilm contamination.
  4. Now the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports the discovery of various types of original biological material in archaeopteryx feathers and bones that allegedly has survived for 150 million years. 

The New Scientist report, "Soft tissue remnants discovered in Archaeopteryx,” put it: 

‘It boasts more than just...impressions of long-gone feathers. One of the world's most famous fossils...Archaeopteryx – also contains remnants of the feathers' soft tissue. ... "It's amazing that that chemistry is preserved after 150 million years."

Paleontologists had long thought that only impressions remained. [But] "There is soft-tissue chemistry preserved in places that people didn't expect it," says geochemist Roy Wogelius. [RSF: Not enough biological material was discovered to call it tissue but only remnants of tissue.] 

Carbon-14 found everywhere it’s not supposed to be 
(even in "dinosaur era" fossils):

C-14 decays in only thousands of years and therefore cannot last for millions. Thus evolutionists did not expect to find C-14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old (Answers, 2011). Carbon-14 is found in coal, oil, limestone, fossil wood, graphite, natural gas, marble, dinosaur fossils, and even in supposedly billion-year-old diamonds! A secondary assumption by old-earth scientists proposed that the C-14 in diamonds (coal, etc.) must have come from C-13 and neutron capture. Calculations can falsify this claim as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati argues, for scarce crustal radioactivity could explain less than one 10,000th of the C-14 in diamonds, and similarly, there would have to be thousands of times more uranium, thorium, etc. throughout the earth's crust everywhere that these globally dispersed materials are found.)

That Mosasaur (above), shown by researchers to have original biological material and not contamination, also contained five percent modern carbon. Radiocarbon also exists even in supposedly million-year-old two-mile deep natural gas wells (CRSQ Fall 2007): "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years.” See more at RSF's List of Not So Old Things and in Round Four of our debate with AronRa. C-14 in specimens supposedly millions or a billion years old is so ubiquitous that it is longer an anomaly. And while Gradualists had hoped they could attribute it to contamination, Dr. John Baumgardner, of Los Alamos National Labs has documented in Dec, 2010 Creation Matters that C-14 exists even in the hardest naturally-occurring, contamination-resistant substance on earth, within diamonds.

Summary of supporting evidence for accuracy and reliability for the significant presence of C-14 in dinosaur bones and therefore young RC ages.

Short Summary: The most obvious scientific justification for accepting the RC ages for dinosaurs in the thousands of years is the concordance of RC ages between bone collagen and bone bio-apatite. If the date for a particular specimen is questionable or controversial RC dating labs recommend that the C-14 testing be repeated on several fractions using AMS and/or on larger samples using both AMS and conventional C-14 methods. We have made such repetitive tests and we obtain dates in the 22,000-33,000 range for dinosaur bones each time a different dinosaur bone or portion of the bone was tested for C-14. For example: Triceratops collagen was 30,080 ± 200 using AMS and 33,830 +2910/-1960 using the conventional method with a large sample (See Table 1).

Further Chart of C-14 test of additional non fossilized dinosaur bones.

Conclusion to RC (C-14) Dating Dinosaur Bones

It is a really simple question, Dr. Schweitzer. "Why not AMS RC (14c) test the so-called T-Rex hind limb? It is a straight forward 'falsification' step in the process. Why will Academia not test ANY dinosaur bones that show 'elastic collagen and hemoglobin elements"? It IS being done in other parts of the world, and now with more than 360 results in Eurasia, and more than 65 results here in North America, we are reaching the threshold where Science and Academia begin to lose their credibility. 

The answer has nothing to do with the long held animosity between Science and Religion, but has everything to do with the actual truth. Which is, "Dinosaur have lived on this planet for a very long time, and NOT all, although some MAY have, gone extinct 65 million years ago. In fact, some may have lived well into the mid to late Holocene. 

John M. Jensen Jr. 




Photos:  All Photos are included under the ‘fair use’ act for non-profit, educational, or training purposes. Most are included from Government or other Public Domain sources. Private or copyright photos are attributed where possible. This online eBook is an education-research publication.

Friday, March 10, 2017

The Electrostatic Earth and the Gravity Question

March - 2017

So here I am again after nearly two years of what has turned out to be a weird time for me. I started getting sick and weaker about two years ago, which finally culminated in having a major heart attack last Nov 1st followed by a quadruple bypass. It's four months later, and I am feeling much better and decided to get the rest of my papers out on the blog. So here goes.

The next several papers will deal with my research into the nature of Gravity and the Electrostatic Field. This work was initially put together around 2012.

The Electrostatic Earth and the Gravity Question

In this paper we are going to look at the major factors that dictate whether ‘Gravity’ is “attenuated”, “variable” or a fixed law of the “G” force.

“Unlike electromagnetic force, which acts at right angles to charge motion, gravity is a simple direct inverse-square of distance force, as IS electrostatic action. Yet we struggle and fail to forge a link between gravitation and electromagnetism. Can it be that what is seemingly impossible, mutual electrostatic action between matter that is uncharged electrically, is the true answer to the mystery of gravitation?"  Dr. Harold Aspden 2005. 


In this paper we will review the idea in detail, looking at the question of whether “Gravity” is a fixed law as proposed by Newton, or whether the “G” force is in fact variable and something entirely different than “Gravity.”

This work started out as a single question about the dynamics of Newton’s law of universal gravitation and Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The question asks “How, and by what mechanisms do events and phenomenon occur that appear to contradict the fixed law of gravity and the assumptions of general relativity?” It eventually evolved into a derivative question, “Does phenomena exist and do anomalous events actually occur that contradict the law of universal gravitation? It seems likely that much of the phenomena does or did exist, and anomalous events actually do occur, so the question regarding the law of universal gravitation, by definition, has to be investigated in terms of whether gravitation has a hidden or unknown variable, or some other explanation that accommodates such phenomenon and events.

I have been doing full time research for the last seven years around a discovery I made in 2008 regarding ancient/sunken harbors, canals and channels on the East and Gulf Coasts of the US and Mexico. That research is detailed on my website: During that process, various phenomena continually appeared that seemed to be at odds with the universal law of gravitation, or at least in the beginning my understanding of that law.

The first sets of phenomena include the wide variety of gigantism and dwarfism of flora and fauna in the geological column. Without discussing any specifics of regression or dating, the general known artifacts of giant flora and fauna demonstrate 3-4 general ranges of size, typified by very large, large, medium, and moderate sized dinosaurs are but one example. Many other species of animal and plant life follow the above general size characteristics and categories. The question of variable, or ‘attenuated’ “G” force arises when considering a 90,000 pound sauropod down to the moderate sized large mammals of the late Pleistocene, early Holocene that went collectively extinct following the end of the last ice age. How exactly, in our current gravitational environment did muscle power alone provide the torque necessary to raise a 40’ neck and head weighing over 50 tons more than 60’ in the air? How could leg muscles alone lift a quarter of a million pounds off the ground if the animal ever lay down to sleep or accidentally fell? We know for a fact those dinosaurs existed, and if muscle power alone can’t account for their motive power and ultimate survival, what are we left with?

The phenomenon is supported by the fact that a very wide population of flora and fauna show the same relative variants in size distribution. Fossil remains of extremely large trees that had circumferences of well over half a mile, and estimated heights of above 7,000 feet are well documented. That a tree of that size had to have some of the same gravitational issues as the 120,000 pound sauropod is self-evident. Dragonflies with 6’ wingspans are also known from the fossil record. The articulated bones of dinosaur flyers with 35’ wingspans, weighing upwards of 400 pounds, hang in museums today. Also in the historical and fossil record are giant hominids of varying sizes. One example is a 5’ footprint impression found in an upright granite slab in South Africa, which would represent a hominid of about 35’ stature. Historical records from Sumerian texts to the more recent “Book of Giants”, (part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) detail giants that were between 14’ and 16’ tall, called by the Sumerians ‘Annunaki’, to a smaller group between 12’ to 14’ tall, (the giants of Bashan) and a medium group between 10’ and 12’ tall (biblical Goliath), and a moderate group that were between 8’ to 10’ tall.

It seems more likely to me that if many other species of flora and fauna show a wide range of giant size diversity, then certainly hominids should show a similar diversity, making hominid giants much more probable statistically, than the idea that the only hominid homo sapiens that have ever populated the earth is an average 5’ 8” Cro-Magnon-modern human.

Due to recent additions of various skull types to the family tree of Homo sapiens, including the non-cranial deformation elongated skulls of Peru, Egypt and other parts of the world, and the Starchild Skull, it seems likely the list of variations of hominin-hominid-homo sapiens will continue to grow. 

Looking at the diversity of giant flora and fauna in the geological column, and most particularly the size range and diversity of dinosaur and other flora and fauna populations requires an in-depth evaluation of Newton’s law of universal gravitation. If any part of it, as the above issues suggest, has a variable or ‘attenuation’, then it isn’t a “law,” and probably isn’t ‘gravity’ at all, but some other force entirely. 

This is how the original question evolved. One last thought; it is important to keep in mind that I make no claim whatsoever regarding “ages” of giant flora and fauna, including dinosaurs. It is entirely immaterial when they lived, and or went extinct when considering their size variations and that relationship to a law of universal gravitation. Any rebuttal to this paper should consider such acknowledgement as already given. 

There are many other alternatives to an asteroid impact, and when studied carefully, the Earth (geological column) exhibits characteristics that indicate some (or many) of those alternatives may have occurred at one or more times in our geological past. Some of those alternatives may have had a direct impact on the ‘density’ of the “G” force. An example is the 'Blue Eye of the Sahara'. 

Photo is supplied by NASA

Everything we know about 'Thunderbolts' suggest that the “Richat Crater” above is a scar from an incoming positive 'charge-strike', which explains in Electrical Engineering terms the difference in so called Gravity or 'G' force before the resulting global catastrophe, and the different 'G' force following it. (As evidenced by the extinction level event of mega fauna across the Holocene Start) It is the only plausible explanation for giant animals and humans that at one time were quite large, and now are reduced to no living creature larger than an elephant being able to walk upright. As discussed earlier, it is just not possible for a 125 ton animal to move, lie down, or get up in conditions of current so called 'G' force. The same restriction hold true for 500 pound flyers.

There are a whole lot on non-electrical Scientist that throw a tizzy when I start talking about 'G' force being nothing like the quaint 17th Century maxim that it is purported to be. The so called 'Law of Gravity' (Newton's Maxim) is now being proven to be as archaic as Tesla said it was.

And he was not nearly as charitable about it as I am. He said at one point that Einstein was a "parlor magician.” We now know that so-called 'G' is at least 'attenuated', which proves it is NOT a fixed law, after all. The fact of what 'G' force actually is, should remain for another day, but whatever the answer is, it fits everything we have observed of so called UFO's, their occupants and collective behaviors.

Unknown Craft and Encounter Phenomenon

A second level of inquiry into the variable nature of gravity, is the so-called UFO event phenomenon, and reported occupant encounters. Without getting into any speculation as to ‘who they are, or where they come from’, or any support regarding ‘ancient aliens’, the phenomenon of the historical reports that number in the tens of thousands, indicate that some underlying facts must underpin the multitude of sightings by credible and reliable witnesses. What I am concerned with here, is not whether reports are valid or even true, but what are the general and often universal characteristics of these reported events? For the sake of clarity, I will use the term craft in describing any ‘UFO’ or ‘UUO’ object of observation, and ‘encounter’, ‘hominin’ or occupants as describing any close contact phenomenon involving craft personnel .

After about 20 years of serious research regarding craft and encounter reports, I am convinced of two things. One, the tens of thousands of reliable and credible reports suggests some event phenomenon IS in fact occurring, regardless of the number of reports with mundane explanations and/or inflammatory, exaggerated, or intentionally misleading content and bias; and two, the events have several significantly similar characteristics that argue FOR some credibility in report veracity. They simply are not ALL swamp gas, illusions or mass hysteria, neither are they necessarily “Extraterrestrial” or “Aliens” as the media and public has become accustomed to defining them.

Similar craft event characteristics include:

Instantaneous appearances and disappearances, regardless of whether they are stationary, moving slowly or traveling at very high speeds.

Speed and abnormal flight characteristics which are unknown in our technologies of flight.
The general, though not universal lack of recognizable audio or sound properties.

The appearance of recognizable technology such as flashing or pulsating multi colored lights.

The appearance of some form of unknown symbols or signs as coherent identifying marks.

The visual condition of the craft changing from various degrees of transparency to complete opaque visibility, and/or invisibility (disappearance). This condition is more common than almost any other.

Size and shape similarities and differences. By far the most common being the so called “disk” shape. This universal shape is depicted in pre-historic cave paintings and 16th century oil paintings.

A single craft splitting into many small elements, moving independently, then rejoining or reforming into a single unit.

The ability to transition between water sub surface and aerial flight without resulting water surface turbulence.

There are certainly many more individual craft event characteristics reported, but the above are generally those that are consistently repetitive. 

I hesitate to make characteristic comparisons to close encounter occupants, though there are however, a few body types that are consistently reported.

Reptilians (Earliest culture reports)
Grays, Tall and Short. (Current reports)
Pleidians, Lyrans (Tall blonde Nordic type with long white hair)
Others, Angels, Demons, Elves, Leprechauns, and Blue Fireplug

Most disturbing to me is the misleading and/or mis-characterization by the military, academia, science and the media, that often relegates craft and contact reports as ‘fringe’ or ‘kook’ category level data, rather than examining the report information in a rational and unbiased way. 

I’m really not clear as to the reason, but the most antagonistic attackers are religious based theologians, theoretical sciences, academia, and the media, which covers just about anyone with an agenda. I would suspect that religion has the most to ‘lose’ if phenomena actually exists that puts at test a ‘God’ centric universe, but that is only speculation on my part.

I have no ax to grind in looking at the data and information. I am neither a proponent nor antagonist to creationism, intervention, alternative theory, evolution, theoretical physics, historical sciences, or structured academia. I find them all aggressively incompetent to explain an impossibly complex universe of divergent event phenomena on and in our little blue ball.

Collectively, the UFO and CRAFT reports must have some general truths, even if that truth is hallucinogenic or hysterical in nature. It is possible that we are looking at something akin to a holographic image of something that was ‘recorded’ at some point in the distant (space-time continuum) which replays sporadically when local or ambient electrostatic currents attune to a frequency that displays the image. Something like how a holographic projected image might be displayed in some real world “Star Wars” like image of Princess Lea’s warnings to the Federation. The truth is, we don’t know what the phenomenon actually is. 

What we do know is that the amount and kind of reports that are globally occurring on a regular basis suggest it is highly unlikely to be ‘mass hysteria”.

I don’t personally advocate the ‘Hologram Recording’ explanation as a position I can support, but until discounted, it should be considered, along with the others discussed here. Regardless of ‘What’ the phenomena is, it deserves some review regarding the nature of ‘G’ force, because of the reported collective characteristics of the aerodynamics of the crafts observed. As a response to these questions, the following data looks into the state of scientific research for potential explanations.

The following summary review is of the Sturrock/Rockefeller Report covering studies of the (UFO) phenomenon in the late 1990’s. This material is extracted from a report compiled by Anthony J. Craddock with assistance from Dr. Paul LaViolette and many other researchers and was edited by myself.

Sturrock/Rockefeller Report

The Society of Scientific Exploration, with funding by Laurence S. Rockefeller, put on a workshop organized by Dr. Peter Sturrock, with the purpose of reviewing physical evidence purported to be associated with (UFO) craft sighting events. This was the first major review of these issues by the scientific community in nearly three decades, and the results were reported in the national media.

The abstract of the workshop proceedings (which was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration) is reprinted below. This is followed by the Stanford University News Service Press release about the workshop proceedings. The full report of the proceedings is available from the Journal of Scientific Exploration and was later expanded in a book by Dr. Peter Sturrock in 1999.

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports:

The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 – October 4, 1997

P. A. Sturrock, et al., Varian 302G, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4060

The purpose of this four-day workshop was to review purported physical evidence associated with UFO reports, with a view to assessing whether the further acquisition and investigation of such evidence is likely to help solve the UFO problem, namely the determination of the cause or causes of these reports.

Seven UFO investigators presented a variety of physical evidence that they claimed was associated with UFO reports: photographic evidence; luminosity estimates; radar evidence; interference with automobile functioning; interference with aircraft equipment; apparent gravitational or inertial effects; ground traces; injuries to vegetation; physiological effects on witnesses; and analysis of debris. There was in addition a presentation of investigations into recurrent phenomena that occur in the Hessdalen Valley in Norway.

A review panel was composed of nine scientists of diverse expertise and interests. The panel offered comments and criticisms concerning the investigations that were presented, and also prepared a summary of their overall response, with the following key elements:
Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations; there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations. However, to be credible, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses.

The best prospect for achieving a meaningful evaluation of relevant hypotheses is likely to come from the examination of physical evidence.

The chances of a significant advance are considered to be greater now than at the time of the Colorado Project that led to the Condon Report thirty years ago, because of advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the example of a modest but effective UFO research project provided by the French space agency CNES.

Stanford University News Service News Release, 6/22/98 -Scientific panel concludes some UFO evidence worthy of study.

In the first independent review of UFO phenomena since 1970, a panel of scientists has concluded that some sightings are accompanied by physical evidence that deserves scientific study. But the panel was not convinced that any of this evidence points to a violation of known natural laws or the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
The review was organized and directed by Dr. Peter Sturrock, professor of applied physics at Stanford University, and supported administratively by the Society for Scientific Exploration, which provides a forum for research into unexplained phenomena. The international review panel of nine physical scientists responded to presentations by eight investigators of UFO reports, who were asked to present their strongest data. 
Von R. Eshleman, professor emeritus of electrical engineering at Stanford, co-chaired the panel.

Although collected and categorized UFO reports date back 60 years, the information gathered does not prove that either unknown physical processes or alien technologies are implicated. But it does include a sufficient number of intriguing and inexplicable observations, the panel concluded. 

"It may be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports to extract information about unusual phenomena currently unknown to science." 

To be credible to the scientific community "such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses" that has so far been lacking, it added.

This conclusion differs from that reached by Dr. Edward U. Condon, director of the Colorado Project, in his 1968 UFO report. He concluded that "further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby. It is very similar, however, to the conclusion reached by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Kuettner Report issued two years later, which advocated "a continuing, moderate-level [research] effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means and on high-quality scientific analysis."

In the current study, the scientific panel focused on incidents involving some form of physical evidence, including photographic evidence, radar evidence, vehicle interference, interference with aircraft equipment, apparent gravitational or inertial effects, ground traces, injuries to vegetation, physiological effects on witnesses, and debris. Of particular concern are reports that UFO encounters may be hazardous to people’s health. Some witnesses have reportedly suffered radiation-type injuries. These reports led the panel to draw the attention of the medical community to the possible health risks involved.

The scientists found that some of the reported incidents may have been caused by rare natural phenomena, such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms or radar ducting (the trapping and conducting of radar waves by atmospheric channels). However, the panel found that some of the phenomena related to UFOs are not easy to explain in this fashion.
Further analysis of the evidence presented to the panel is unlikely to shed added light on the causes underlying the reports, the scientists said. Most current UFO investigations lack the level of rigor required by the scientific community, despite the initiative and dedication of the investigators involved. But new data, scientifically acquired and analyzed, could yield useful information and advance our understanding of the UFO problem, the panel said.
The reviewers also made the following observations:

The UFO problem is not a simple one, and it is unlikely that there is any simple, universal answer.

Whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying them.

Studies should concentrate on cases that include as much independent physical evidence as possible. Continuing contact between the UFO community and physical scientists could be productive. Institutional support for research in this area is desirable.

The review panel consisted of:

Von Eshleman;

Thomas Holzer, High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colo.

Randy Jokipii, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson;
Francois Louange, managing director of Fleximage, Paris, France; 

H. J. Melosh, professor of planetary science, University of Arizona, Tucson;

James J. Papike, professor of Earth and planetary sciences, U of NM, Albuquerque, NM

Guenther Reitz, German Aerospace Center, Institute for Aerospace Medicine, Cologne, Germany; 

Charles Tolbert, professor of astronomy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; 

Bernard Veyret, Bioelectromagnetics Laboratory, University of Bordeaux, France. 

Eshleman and Holzer served as co-chairs of the panel.

The UFO investigators who presented evidence were:

Richard Haines, Los Altos, Calif.;

Illobrand von Ludwiger, Germany; 

Mark Rodeghier, Center for UFO Studies, Chicago; 

John Schuessler, Houston; 

Erling Strand, Ostfold College, Skjeberg, Norway;

Michael Swords, professor of natural science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo; 

Jacques Vallee, San Francisco; 

Jean-Jacques Velasco, CNES, Toulouse, France.

The study was initiated by Laurance S. Rockefeller and supported financially by the LSR Fund. 

Review by David F. Salisbury , e-mail: david.salisbury@stanford.ed Related material and the full report can found at the Journal for Scientific Exploration website. 

The Argument against ‘Aliens” and ‘Extraterrestrials’ – a decidedly different view

So far, I have taken ‘head on’ some of the most ‘sacred cows’ in Physics, Historical Sciences, Evolution, Paleontology, Archaeology, Theology, and Religion; so, I might as well take on the Woo-Woo fringe, tin foil hat crowd as well. The fact is, I am not selling anything to anybody. This book is free, and have no other agenda than the truth as I perceive it to be. So here goes…
Throughout recorded history, and in our ancient past there are witnessed, photographed, documented or bone fragment-fossil remains from at least 23 distinctly different hominid-hominin body types. There also exist thousands of drawings, paintings, cave art, artifacts, weaving, figurines, frescoes and pottery depicting so-called ‘astronaut’ images and some form of ‘saucer like’ or other aerial or ‘flying’ craft. 

Myths and legends abound from nearly all cultures around the world of ‘visitors’ that arrived ‘from the sky’ in some kind of aerial vehicle-craft, where they then proceeded to develop and teach agriculture, water management and other civilizing technologies to the locals, following which they abruptly departed in their ‘aerial’ vehicles, promising to return at some future or later date.

In the 1950’s, Immanuel Velikovsky, Charles Hapgood, and others began to propose a chaotic, cataclysmic Earth, with short duration stable periods, followed by Near Extinction Level (ELE) catastrophic events which ‘wiped out’ or nearly destroyed the biological envelope of the earth. Shortly after that period, Zachariah Sitchin and Erich von Däniken grouped some of the various theories into an “Ancient Astronaut” theory.

In the last several years, certain protagonists , and particularly Von Däniken’s hirsute assistant, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos have developed a collected hypothesis based on much of the above artifacts and associated myths and legends that meld the sightings, representations and artifacts depicting ‘crafts’ and ‘occupants’ into a polyglot ‘ANCIENT ALIEN’ theory. In addition, super-imposed over the “Alien” theory is an enormous umbrella ‘conspiracy theory’ that the Government “knows all about it, and is in fact “covering everything up. 

What makes the ‘Ancient Alien theory so scary, is that like any faith based ‘religion’, it is predicated on a stunning lack of evidence (hard artifacts) of either hominin or craft, let alone the first shred of proof of exactly where in the Galaxy, Universe or Multi-Verse these so-called ‘Aliens’ came from. 

Whatever, or whoever “They” are, like every other species on Earth, “They” are more likely rather than less likely to be part of the fabric of all carbon based life forms indigenous to this planet. It's a little audacious, and not very scientific to single out one species and assign it a potential or possible non-terrestrial origin. Because, from what we know currently, the Starchild skull and the elongated skulls are more likely, rather than less likely to share some part of their DNA with other hominids and other carbon based life forms on the planet. 

That makes it very likely “They” are FROM this planet, and not from somewhere else out there in the Galaxy or Universe. Every single piece of information associated with “Their” various body types can be explained in terms of being an Original Terrestrial life form, easier than saying “They” are from somewhere 'out there'. Please note that I never allude to the fact that 'they' might have gone out there somewhere, and then returned here to Earth (their home planet), or that some may still be “out there.” All those scenarios are possible, but not necessarily probable. Previous populations on this planet of all kinds of families of carbon based life forms have produced divergent and splendid panoply of variation in their family linage during particular short, shorter, and longer 'Epochs'. (Or periods between ‘catastrophes’).

The point was, and is....that some Earth based hominin group in one of the Epochs in the not so distant past had the capabilities of space travel. At least historical references seems to attest to that as a fact, as well as very clear reference to space travel in the Book of Enoch, The Sanskrit Epics, (Mahabharata and Ramayana) and the many other depictions of craft and occupants throughout history also attest to that fact. Because those 'testaments' exist, does not mean necessarily that either the craft or occupants are originally "FROM" out there somewhere else in the galaxy or universe. It was and is much more realistic to refer to unknown ‘Other Terrestrials’ as ‘Ancient Astronauts” than it is to call them “Aliens” or “Extraterrestrials.”

“They” have significant DNA matches to other living organisms on Earth, which logically means “They” are more likely to be FROM here, than they are to be FROM somewhere ‘out there’. If there were a single piece of hard evidence of any kind, that could ONLY have come from some other environment than our Solar System and/or Earth, then I might listen to an argument that accounted for that particular piece of evidence, and then I would still argue that it is just as likely that the OT's (Other Terrestrials) traveled OUT to that location, got the artifact and then returned. 

This Earth is just as likely to be their home base, with bases on the Moon, and Mars as any other scenario. The idea that 'They' had more time to evolve somewhere out there in space doesn’t meet the facts of our own growth as a civilization. Where is any proof of how long it takes a cultural group to attain space flight? We are the only example there is, (that we know about) and we went from burning people at the stake for their religious beliefs, to putting men on the Moon and then bringing them back safely is something around 250 years. It just didn't take us very long to go from making fire with a couple of sticks to listening to Peter Jennings on the Evening News. 

''Why'' any other Hominin group or culture couldn't do it is just rhetoric. It is a proven fact that it can be done, (because WE have done it,) so it is more likely, rather than less likely that BECAUSE it has been done is our recent past it most certainly could have been done in some pre-cataclysmic ancient past.

The deepest natural resource (oil exploration) core drills go down about 55,000 feet. They all demonstrate layers that have random and often alternate patterns of material. Sandstone for several feet, then slate, or limestone, then sandstone, then silicate, then sandstone, then limestone, etc. Most layers average about 14 foot deep, or geologically speaking, give, or take, about 7,000 years. 

One is nearly 250 foot deep (red sandstone) representing nearly 120,000 years, though many are 2-5 feet deep. For the global surface to change from limestone (ocean bottom) to sandstone (land) requires a catastrophic event that often was probably very close to an extinction level event. A good example is the Mt. Tubo event about 74K to 76K years ago. Molecular Biologists agree that the Human Genome Pool was narrowed down to about 5,000 breeding pairs of Homo sapiens at that time. What that evidence suggests is that every hominin culture that has grown into a full civilization has done so in one of the periods between cataclysms. And like us, in a fairly short period of time.

If one of those cultures obtained interstellar space flight, as we are on the edge of doing, putting contingents of the culture into space to avoid a coming catastrophic event is not only logical but almost certainly true. Once living off planet for any length of time, one to two thousand years, their morphology would change to something different (in a weightless environment), and if the catastrophic event changed the electrostatic field of earth enough that it caused super giant plant and land animals to go extinct, then the OT's probably stayed out there (Moon, Mars or other Space Base) for a very long time after the deluge. 
And they probably haven't completely adjusted to the current electrostatic field density (the current construct of 'gravity') on this, their home planet.

And last, the OT's do in fact share some DNA with other carbon based life forms on Earth. We have good DNA samples from both the Starchild and the Elongated Skulls. They both share some common DNA with other hominids as well as most other life forms. Note I said some. I am not advocating they are any closer to 'Human' than they are to a sea cucumber. They share some of the same DNA. That is what makes them more likely, rather than less likely to be part of the biological fabric of this planet.

Hominids are a very tiny percent of the carbon based life forms on earth. The OT's (based on the Starchild and Paracas Skulls DNA) share a significant portion of their DNA with ALL other life forms on this planet, which means it is more likely, rather than less likely that 'they' are an intrinsic part of the fabric of that biology. It is much more 'fantastical' to postulate “They” came from somewhere far-far away to Earth just to find they are a near perfect match to terrestrial DNA", than it is to recognize “They” are much more likely to be an intrinsic part of the fabric of carbon based life forms of this planet, than any other postulate.
To clarify my thoughts on the machine code nature of terrestrial DNA; There are two parts to DNA. One is what used to be termed 'junk' DNA which is understood as NOT having strings of 'active' or 'functioning' code, which now are understood as possibly being the 'instruction set', that when activated, defines the 'blueprint design' of the 'replicate shell'' or body, or chromosome structure) and produces (outputs) the code as a physical form, The DNA of that body contains the 'instructions' to replicate itself in its original environment, and that is the DNA that we can copy, duplicate, 'read' and analyze. The DNA at that level is environmentally specific, and so would vary widely from one biological environment to another. (As it does here on Earth).

The master instruction set (to build or blueprint the specific chromosomes design) would be universal, but the result would be specific to a particular environment. So, if that scenario is true, I see no logical reason to assume any replicant carbon based life form (body) from any other system in the Galaxy or Universe to have any similarities at all to those from our planet. 

Only by some astronomically rare set of circumstances would the two even be remotely related. The only scenario I could even imagine is if the x-planet was "exactly" like Earth in all aspects, meaning Lithosphere, Biosphere, Density, G force, etc. Any change in 'G' force, with a change in the chemistry would radically alter life forms in ways we can hardly imagine. 

There is a distinct relationship between all carbon based life form's DNA on this planet, where the similarities in both design and structure as well as what appears to be identical strings of DNA suggest a direct link between humans, hominids, hominins and the entire panoply of flora and fauna, both past and present.

We share somewhere around 97% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, 94% with great apes, and well over 50% with a sea cucumber. We share less with the DNA of the Starchild. But that is for another argument. Why 'interventionists' insist of calling hominins 'extraterrestrial' when every sighting every recorded shows creatures and their craft as being 'here' (on Earth, the Moon and probably Mars) That could, or might make them 'Other Terrestrials'. 

They are here as evidenced by tens of thousands of eye witnesses, tens of thousands of photographs, drawings, depictions, representations of craft and occupants. The “Other Terrestrials” or “OT’s” have 5-6 generally different body or exoskeleton shapes and sizes, they travel in craft that have 3-4 general shapes, and exhibit 3-4 specific non-gravitational characteristics including various degrees of transparency, including instantaneous visibility and invisibility. Craft also travel at incredible speeds, make right angle or reverse direction hi speed turns and appear and disappear on radar and other tracking devices instantaneously. 

They reportedly have been observed in some limited form on or near the moon, but that fact does not make them any more 'extraterrestrial' than a moon rover, other than the significant similarities.

To speculate on where “They” are from is as meaningless as attributing any “purpose or meaning” to their observed behavior. At best we can document and categorize what is observed. The preponderance of evidence will eventually lead to some general conclusions, the most obvious being that craft behavior suggests some form of anti-gravity control, likely to be artifacts of an electrostatic field 'envelope', (actually, Los Alamos NL Scientists know that to a degree of near certainty).

The above demonstrates that observed phenomenon of “Other Terrestrials” are in fact elements of actual dimensional craft and occupants, that they have been here as long as recorded history exists, and likely far into the pre-historic past. That, however does NOT support that “They” are “Extraterrestrial” or from somewhere else in the galaxy or universe. 
Without speculation or guesswork, “They” are “Other” and/or possibly “Unknown” terrestrials. If “They” share DNA with ALL of Earth's flora and fauna, then “They” ARE from here. This is the most logical conclusion, based on the known facts. And it is the fundamental reason I don't think so called 'Aliens' ever existed 'Out There' somewhere else first. 

The odds are astronomical against a biological envelope existing out there on some other planet in this or some other Galaxy, that matches exactly our environment, and THEN that environment producing a near identical body replicant of an Earth Hominid with DNA that matches ours, at least close enough to hybridize both. It is completely outside my realm of reference to even contemplate. 

Not only do I not think it happened, I don't even think it possible. That statement however, does NOT suggest that I do not think other Carbon Based Life Forms exist out there somewhere in the multiverse. It is highly probable and almost statistically certain that they do. Because life as we know it is based primarily on the number one and number three most prevalent atoms in the known Universe, which are Hydrogen and Oxygen. And those are, as any 6th Grade science student knows, the atoms that when combined, make up a molecule of Water. It follows that if Carbon Based Life Forms are made up primarily from Hydrogen and Oxygen (Water) and those are in the top three of the most prevalent atoms in the Universe, then it is almost a statistical certainty that those atoms have formed molecules of water throughout the universe in every imaginable or conceivable environment. 

If carbon based life forms are a statistical certainty based on their universal water base nature, that does NOT mean they necessarily are composed of similar DNA strings as earth based carbon based life forms as the building blocks of their life form, nor does it mean they would necessarily have any resemblance in any way to carbon based life forms here on earth. That being said, NOTHING is impossible, but some things are closer to impossible than just being improbable. The concept of extraterrestrial hominins is about as impossible as anything that is simply improbable can be.

John M Jensen Jr.