PDA

View Full Version : Aquatic Humanoids



Maggie
5th September 2018, 16:23
This is a "mockumentary" but it has some footage of actual fact such as human/dolphin cooperative fishing. It is interesting as fiction but I wonder what possible fact of mer-men and mer-maids?

/sQ2Wc71PGVI

this footage is interesting along with many comments

lNb0K_KVpJk

I also have been interested in the fact that humans have very little hair and some other indicators that we could become at home in a shallow sea condition?

https://theaquaticape.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/human_aquatic_adaptations.jpg

This is a discussion of the mockumentary and a possible cover-up of sonar weaponry.

Mermaids, Sound Weapons and Government Cover-Ups | Updated and Compelling Evidence (https://timenolonger.wordpress.com/tag/brian-mccormick/)

Maggie
5th September 2018, 23:11
Then in 2013


below is footage taken by Marine Biologist Dr. Torsten Schmidt and former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Biologist Dr. Paul Robertson confirmed that it was similar to a body that was found by himself and a team of scientists prior to this footage. This isn’t the only footage, apparently more footage was captured by the British coast guard which reveals a very similar looking aquatic humanoid type being

bSG3kPa-jOU

Paul Robertson is possibly a real scientist? The video in the OP has been said to be faked footage and a fictional piece but in the article I posted in the OP, it may have been the victim of a scuttle after the fact because of the info about ocean sound weaponry?


The show (posted in the OP) states that the film “is science fiction based on some real events and scientific theory, and amateur footage, including photos and videos shot by deep-sea fishermen that has never been seen the United States. It includes includes compelling, credible evidence.”

What about the ones involved within the film? One criticism of the film is that the people in the film aren’t really real, that they are actors. These theories have been flying around on websites, but nothing is mentioned by animal planet. Many websites claim that he (Dr. Paul Robertson, NOAA Scientist) is an actor named Andre Weideman. When you look at Andre’s pictures and compare them with Dr Paul Robertson, they actually look nothing alike, along with the other supposed actors in the film. But I am still open to the possibility, although it is hard to believe, especially after watching these interviews.

What lends further credence to the possibility that these people are who they say they are is this video below. Why would animal planet continue on with these interviews if it wasn’t real footage? Why would the program have an appearance by the Mayor of Kiryat, Yam in Israel? (makes an appearance at 9:42) It is indeed him, and the show presents him as him, along with other guests (like Dr. Paul Robertson). Why would this 40 minute dialogue be mixed with real political figures and fake Marine Biologists and Geologists?

There is also very compelling footage in this interview at approximately 13:40, when the freeze face looks very similar to the one that the geologists captured in the video above.

Another interesting note to mention is Dr. Paul Robertson’s twitter account. Which replies to questions of real and fake with responses such as “this is real.” Another comment that stood out to me was “Thanks to Animal Planet for making our story public. Don’t trust everything the government is telling you, hashtag “believeinmermaids.” (source) Why would he have a twitter account, continually supporting the film, the facts that mermaids are real and creating awareness about other atrocities that happen in the ocean. Why would he tweet something like this?

Please read this related article, another phenomenon that was exposed by this mermaid documentary, something that the US Navy has denied for years : The U.S Navy Killing Thousands (possibly millions) of Whales, Dolphins and other marine life with Sonar & Weapons Testing.

Discovery news also points out that “there were interviews with real NOAA scientists.” They also point out that “though the filmmakers acknowledged that the film is science fiction mixed with fiction, it makes a strong case for the existence of the mermaid.” (source) (https://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/05/26/did-marine-geologists-really-capture-this-video-footage-of-an-aquatic-humanoid-or-mermaid/)

BeastOfBologna
5th September 2018, 23:34
I had a college educated friend that could not distinguish between mockumentary and dockumentary. He asked me with complete sincerity if one such presentation was 'real'. I felt bad for him and so obviously didn't laugh out loud like I would on this board... <snicker>. I explained that it was possible but there were some serious scientific issues at play.

Dreamtimer
5th September 2018, 23:47
There are various mammals in the ocean. They have ancestors from the land.

Imagine if that came back around, and there were land dolphins in the future.

Fish people could be an evolution, an experiment that escaped a lab, or something else.

BeastOfBologna
5th September 2018, 23:54
well, to be honest. I've never watched any of it...In the back of my mind, I'm always thinking...maybe.

I think it was Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden' that lined out the phases of evolution demonstrating a parallel with the development of a fetus. I think since it has been debunked but it was striking. If it wasn't that one it was Broca's Brain. That one 'expounds' on the reptilian brain.

I've wanted to watch those 'mermaid' shows for a long time...just haven't gotten around to it. :)

Maggie
5th September 2018, 23:58
I had a college educated friend that could not distinguish between mockumentary and dockumentary. He asked me with complete sincerity if one such presentation was 'real'. I felt bad for him and so obviously didn't laugh out loud like I would on this board... <snicker>. I explained that it was possible but there were some serious scientific issues at play.

Yeah THIS one IS mock not doc but was fun. I think also there are serious science facts presented here such as the intelligence of dolphins and other cetaceans. More about the cooperation between fisher-men and fisher-fin


Fishing With Dolphins
An astonishing cooperative venture in which every species wins but the fish.
(http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/fishing_with_dolphins_symbiosis_between_humans_and _marine_mammals_to_catch.html)Cooperative fishing has been going on for at least 120 years—there’s reference to it in a 19th century letter—but no one knows how it started. Did a few dolphins curiously approach a couple of fishermen one day, flashing their dorsal fins or slapping their crescent-moon-shaped tails, and discover a new way to outsmart the speedy tainha? Since dolphins are considered net thieves in much of the world, did men try to chase them off at first? How did the dolphins convince the humans that they could be of service? Who trained whom, and when? One archeologist is looking among the sambaquis, or native middens, for evidence that the relationship between dolphins and humans may have existed even before the Azoreans arrived.

What’s in it for the dolphin? No one can say for sure. Paulo Simões-Lopes, a professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina who has been studying this population for more than 20 years, hypothesizes that the cooperative fishing disorients and isolates the fish. As the fishermen cast their nets, the school panics, and the dolphins exploit the chaos. They catch larger, quicker fish that would be difficult to capture in a straight-out chase.

Most of the dolphins in the region are residents. A few are vagabonds, traveling up and down the coastline. They have spread the cooperative tradition to a community about 150 miles to the south. Of the 55 resident dolphins identified in the area, 21 cooperate with fishermen; the rest generally don't. About 200 fishermen take their cues from the botos bons, or “good” dolphins. Those that keep to themselves are described as botos ruins, “bad” dolphins.

Maggie
6th September 2018, 22:54
This is all so interesting that I am posting a long segment. Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor? It makes perfect sense to me that "epigenetics" could create changes in a species in a relatively short span of time. OR perhaps we were originally sea creatures that moved to the land? Here is a comment from the article quoted below.


maybe it was not so much because of evolution: 1) The Bible says about creating Man in God's (the gods') resemblance. 2) A number of so-called "myths" and "legends", notably the one coming from the Dogon tribe in Mali, say about aquatic "gods", half human, half fish, living in water, coming out of water, returning to water. A very brave idea (and possibly to many people it couldn't be any crazier): could it be that we are an effect of genetic manipulations from "aquatic" "gods" such as the Nommo? OK, this is just an idea, perhaps it's rubbish but how would you check whether or not it is?


Mammals are not designed to walk vertically, because it is grossly inefficient. If the first apes attempted it, they would have been like year old babies: falling over all the time. Furthermore, the “missing link” would have lacked the locking mechanism of the knees that we have today. Imagine trying to stand with your knees bent for a few hours. Without a high priority reason to do so, the human predecessors would have simply given up. Evolution does not have an agenda. Animals cannot see into the future and aspire to being human, they can only respond to need. To gain a better view over the tall grass, a more obvious change, seeing as our ape relatives are good at jumping, would have been to jump higher.

The mammalian spine is designed like a clothes rack - things hang from it. It consists of a long, slightly arched rod supported by two sets of legs. The animal’s body weight is evenly distributed and the centre of gravity is low, making for a well-balanced individual. Using four legs has been shown, by the evolution of all the other species, to be best way of getting about. In rare cases like kangaroos and ostriches, you can see how evenly their weight is distributed. No other animal walks perpendicular like humans - it isn’t an efficient way of doing things. If you need more convincing, simply consider the terrible back problems the majority of us will suffer during our life time due to our ridiculous posture.

There is, however, one primate species that regularly walks on its hind legs, the proboscis monkeys of Borneo. They live in mangrove swamps and regularly drop down into the water below them. They are excellent swimmers, but if they are able to touch the bottom they elect to walk, just like humans. With the support of water around them, the instability and discomfort of terrestrial bipedalism disappears. With their heads held up high they are able to breathe easier than when swimming.

The plot thickens when we delve into he geological and climatic history of North East Africa, where the fossils of “Lucy” and other famous human ancestors have been dug up. Lucy’s scientific title is Australopithecus afarensis, because she was found in the region of Ethiopia known as Afar. From seven million to 70,000 years ago this area was an inland sea, sea water that flooded in and then got trapped, separated from the ocean proper. This is typical of the environment we would expect an Aquatic Ape to evolve in. Today it has all dried up, leaving a virtually impassable desert, with salt deposits thousands of feet deep.

A key problem cited by orthodox scientists, the lack of fossil evidence for the Aquatic Ape Theory, is ridiculous. None of the aquatic characteristics listed here can be deduced from fossils. So theoretically any ancient hominids may have had these features, we just can’t tell. For the same reason, scientists might guess at the skin or hair colour of fossils, but they cannot know.

Turns out that most African hominid fossils have been found in or near bodies of water. This is explained as “they were passing by, and stopped for a drink” or “heavy rains made the river overflow and they drowned”. The obvious explanation, that they lived in and beside the water (as most humans still do), is rarely considered.

There is considerable evidence to show that regions of Africa once had the same characteristics as the mangrove swamps of Borneo.

A press release from the University of Toronto, August 1999, states:

“The first humans may have been beach-dwellers foraging for shellfish, not grassland hunter-gatherers… ….evidence that the large brains of the earliest humans could only have evolved on the nutrient-rich diet provided by shellfish and other animal life found near shorelines. "You don't need a big brain to collect mussels and clams. But living on them gives you the excess energy and nutrients that can then be directed towards brain growth."

The popular image of the earliest humans living on the African savanna must be wrong, [Stephen] Cunnane says. His team has found that a specific fatty acid, DHA, necessary for human brain and eye development, is easily available in food near shore environments but not in the diet of savanna mammals. This suggests humans evolved near water before spreading inland, he says.

"We'd like to see early humans as hunters who took advantage of nature and grew a big brain in the process," he says. "But how could that hunting ability miraculously appear overnight? Well, it didn't. Instead, they evolved in a place where they didn't have to hunt."

Cunnane believes recent hominid finds in South Africa that show proto-human fossils in close association with the remains of aquatic creatures are more evidence for the theory, which he hopes to further test next year by isotopic analysis of early human fossils.”

Fat, Sweaty and Hairless
Charles Darwin once wrote:

“The loss of hair is an inconvenience and probably an injury to man , for he is thus exposed to the scorching of the sun and to sudden chills, especially due to wet weather. No one supposes that the nakedness of the skin is any direct advantage to man; his body therefore cannot have divested of hair through natural selection."[2]

The Savannah Theory fails in this regard. These areas of Africa can cool to 11ºC at night, and it would not be an advantage for humans to sleep there even on a dry night. It is normal for terrestrial animals to have fur or thick hair. Humans still have the capillary muscles which enable our hair to stand on end. If our hair were longer it would then trap a layer of air close to the body, creating a thermal blanket of sorts. Feathers work the same way. Most animals have the ability to adjust their exterior in accordance with changing air temperature, whereas us poor humans have to resort to clothing. Hair or fur is also very useful for protection against injury, something very important in the wild. Obviously we lost our hair, not because hairlessness was an advantage, but because at one time our habitat was such that having hair was a distinct disadvantage.

The easiest way to determine why humans are hairless is to study other mammals that have evolved into a similar situation. Charles Darwin commented thus:

“Whales and porpoises, dugongs and the hippopotamus are naked, and this may be advantageous to them for gliding through the water; nor would it be injurious to them from the loss of warmth, as the species which inhabit the colder regions are protected by a thick layer of blubber.”[3]

Elephants are virtually hairless and are capable of swimming many miles, their trunks perfectly suited to use as a snorkel. The tapir of Asia, Central and South America is like a mini elephant, with a small proboscis nose. It’s hair is very sparse and it loves to swim and dive. Pigs such as the babirusa are yet another mammalian species which have evolved to suit living in the water - losing hair and gaining blubber. (Mammals living in subterranean circumstances have also lost hair, and usually sight as well - this angle is best put aside for whoever invents The Mole Ape Theory,)

Pigs and hippopotami readily come to the minds of children when searching for animal personifications to bait their obese acquaintances with.

Compared to all the other primates, humans definitely deserve the “fatty” tag. A gorilla or chimpanzee kept in a cage might put on a fraction of extra weight, as might an old horse that can’t run about as much as it use to. But the only land mammals capable of doubling or trebling their natural weight, to have rolls of fat hanging from arms, legs, hips and bellies, to be unable to walk without breaking into a sweat, are humans.

This fattiness is normal. If a woman’s body is underweight it chooses not to conceive. A typical 16-year-old girl should have 27% of her body weight in fatty tissue. If it were to drop below 22%, her menstruation cycle will cease. The reason that we need to stitch up serious flesh wounds is because the layer of fat just below our skin tries to ooze out. The edges of the cut become separated and are unable to rejoin and heal - other mammals don’t have this problem, their skin sits on top of muscle, not fat.

The concept of sweating as a cooling device is ridiculous. This system, which is unique to humans (other mammals that sweat do it less profusely than us, and use a different type of gland) is flawed. It is prone to activating at the wrong time (in humid weather), is too slow to start and stop, provides far more than the thin layer of moisture required for cooling, and wastes salt. We are the only mammal that expels salt when we sweat. Even when a human is nearing total dehydration it will continue sweating in hot weather and even die. Our sweating system is yet another disadvantage of being human.

So why do we sweat? One possible reason is to expel salt. If and when they first took to the sea, our ancestors would have been eating seafood (which by definition is salty) and accidentally swallowing salt water. The overload on our kidneys would have created a need for a secondary system to evolve. Seabirds have special glands for removing salt from their body.

Humans cry, the function of which that has long baffled evolutionary scientists. It is also for the purpose of expelling salt. You may have noticed that if you cry too long, the saltiness will sting your eyes. Why this action is nowadays connected to our emotions is unknown. Have you heard of crocodile tears? Well it is true, crocodiles also cry as a means of expelling salt from their system (of course this is not case with freshwater crocs). Walruses cry. Elephants cry. Non-human primates do not cry. Although we obviously look like monkeys, in some ways we have close connections to water-loving mammals. Pigs love to “wallow”, and we use pigs as organ donors. Elephants are, when you think about it, smooth-skinned, swimming, crying, intelligent, overweight social animals - just like us. It appears that they evolved in the ocean as well, but chose to come back on land rather than becoming whales. Humans made a similar decision, whereas dolphins chose the sea.

Swimming & Diving

Swimmers and Divers require a large opening to enable the rapid inhalation and exhalation of air - and our mouths are large compared to the small opening of our nose and the noses of most other mammals. They also need to be able to close their air passages, making it harder for them to accidentally swallow water.

"Several unrelated aquatic species have evolved some kind of movable flap either instead of, or in addition to, valvular nostrils. The penguin has one, and the crocodile has one. Alone among the primates, humans have such a flap - that is, the back of the soft palate, known as the velum, which in our species can be raised and lowered to isolate the nasal passages from the mouth cavity. It could not opeate in this fashion if the larynx had not retreated out of its way to its present position below the back of the tongue.

"The only other mammals which are known to feature a descended larynx are diving mammmals - the sea lion and the dugong. These two species are about as unrelated to one another as they are to humans. The descended larynx must have evolved independently in each of them, after their respective land-dwelling ancestors entered an aquatic environment."[4]

While we were aquatic mammals, our descended larynx helped us with communication - as we began to speak we were capable of a wider range of sounds. The primary reason why apes such as the chimpanzee can not "speak" is not because of the limited range of sounds available to them - they can say "ah", "ee", "oo", and pronounce the letters k, p, h and m. These few sounds are ample to create a large number of words. They have proven to be capable of excellent communication using sign language, and they also understand verbal instructions, but they lack the capacity speak as we do. The reason is not intelligence, it is to do with breathing. Like most mammals, the breathing function in chimpanzees is not voluntary, it is as automatic as the heart. To some extent it is also involuntary in humans, like when we sneeze, hiccup or get a sudden fright. But the rest of the time we get to choose how we breathe - this is directly attributed to our aquatic past, when we had to hold our breath to dive below the surface.

Conscious control of breath is a characteristic that we share with all other diving mammals, and something that no other non-aquatic mammals have.

The Penis
The large comparative size of the penis in adult male humans (man 13cm vs gorilla 3cm) is not related to the frequency of deployment. It is a necessary consequence of the retraction and relative inaccessability of the vagina.

“An aquatic environment seems to have had a broadly similar effect on some other species - that is, relative retraction of the femal sex organ leading to a corresponding extension of that of the males. For example, most birds and reptiles do not possess a penis; the pressing together of the cloacal apertures seems to suffice for the transference of the sperm. But many species of aquatic reptiles (crocodiles and turtles) and aquatic birds (swans, ducks, geese) have found it necessary to evolve a penis as part of their adaption to a watery habitat.”[5]

Scent Signalling
“In mammals, oestrous status is communicated by scent signalling - a pheromonal message emitted by the female. Being airborne, it may be carried quite a long way - as evidenced by the distance a dog will travel to locate a bitch on heat. But in a wading or swimming ape the pheromones would be washed away almost as soon as they were scented.

“...But in humans the ability to receive and interpret scent signals is very low. The olfactory lobe in our brains is proportionately smaller than in the brains of apes. (This is a common feature in aquatic mammals. In whales and seals the olfactory lobe has diminished almost to vanishing point.) So one reason for the ending of the oestrus could be that it ceased to work properly. As a result of the pheronomal secretions being washed away, plus diminished scent perception, the signal was simply not getting across.”[6]

The Missionary Position
As humans we have a common sexual position that is quite different to that of other land-based mammals – front to front. The usual explanation is that we wish to kiss...

“Ventro-ventral copulation, very rare in land mammals, is the commonest mode in aquatic mammals except for those that go ashore to breed. Whales and dolphins, dugongs and manatees, beavers, and sea otters are among the numerous aquatic species which mate face to face. Swimming promotes this method of copulation in the same way that bipedalism does, because in both cases the spine and the hind limbs are realigned, forming a continuous straight line instead of the 90-degree angle found in most quadrapreds.”[7]http://survive2012.com/aquatic_ape_theory.php?comment_id=aquatic_ape_theo ry.php&comment_page=show_all

Aragorn
6th September 2018, 23:58
Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor?

Actually, the claim that humans would have evolved from apes (or monkeys) has always been nothing but a very tenacious urban legend, because that is not what scientific research has shown. According to scientific findings, humans and apes evolved as separate species from — indeed — a common ancestor, which itself would have been a primate. ;)

BeastOfBologna
7th September 2018, 00:35
This is all so interesting that I am posting a long segment. Personally it makes little sense that we would "evolve from apes" but perhaps there is a common ancestor? It makes perfect sense to me that "epigenetics" could create changes in a species in a relatively short span of time. OR perhaps we were originally sea creatures that moved to the land? Here is a comment from the article quoted below.

If you wanna see something REALLY fascinating watch: "Humanzee"

Maggie
7th September 2018, 03:38
If you wanna see something REALLY fascinating watch: "Humanzee"

To me, the story is fraught with pathos.

jBPtxcyMvuA

BeastOfBologna
8th September 2018, 00:06
To me, the story is fraught with pathos.

jBPtxcyMvuA

It was weird...but why pathos...maybe I remember but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Maggie
8th September 2018, 03:39
It was weird...but why pathos...maybe I remember but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.


there have been multiple, documented attempts to breed humans with chimpanzees, who, along with bonobos, are our closest relatives. For example, in the 1920’s, Soviet scientist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov wanted to make a “chuman” by impregnating women with chimp sperm while pretending to conduct a medical exam, according to New Scientist. The experiments were to take place in Guinea, which was a French colony at the time. The French governor forbade it, and although Ivanov later found willing volunteers in the Soviet Union, his sperm-donor chimp died before he could proceed.

The Chicago Tribune reported in 1981 that a scientist had claimed to have successfully impregnated a chimp with human sperm in 1967. But the experiment was interrupted when the laboratory was smashed by authorities under the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the chimp reportedly died from neglect.https://www.newsweek.com/could-chimp-humans-mate-tales-humanzee-hybrids-murky-likely-impossible-796646

I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.

Aragorn
8th September 2018, 03:55
I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.



https://i.giphy.com/media/srg19CG0cKMuI/200.gif

Dumpster Diver
8th September 2018, 10:57
There are so many pointers that in fact tend towards our having been constructed rather than having evolved.

The keeping of pets simply adds to our karmic load, we trap, eat, domesticate, breed, etc these poor critters, so little wonder more evolved critters are allowed to do the same to us.

BeastOfBologna
8th September 2018, 11:59
I feel horror in the callous science that might attempt hybridization between species with no regard to the beings created.
I feel horror that property and commodity are the values of human kind that drives action.
I feel grief that racism and the idea one person might have the right of ownership over other humans still exists.
I feel nausea in the implications of cruel disrespect of thinking others are "just animals".
I feel frustrated that I believe all living beings are of equal value and deserve to experience their lives.
I feel fear that humans are the most dangerous beings on the planet because we imagine our superiority and rulership.
I feel some sense of hopelessness about the future without wisdom of what is important.

Animals that we think we have superiority over don't pollute their nests or destroy habitats in the name of progress.
I know that I don't know much but I THINK leaving behind a world for all the generations of beings to live on would be a guideline of basic sanity. I think human kind is basically insane.

What has "humanity" done REALLY to indicate that we deserve to continue to proliferate?
The story evokes pathos because it reminds me that I am less and less sure we deserve to continue as a species.

That pretty much covers it... :)

I understand that, and I think that is what I found so fascinating when watching this...because one of the premises was that it had happened in 'nature'. If you watched it until the end you might have seen that the 'Humanzee' was a 'mutation' of some kind. It had not a strictly chimp genomic makeup but something different but obviously not human.

Shadowself
8th September 2018, 13:31
I have often thought there is a species of human that lives in the waters. I have a good reason to believe this as well.

I had a congenital defect as a child and it was pronounced when I was a teenager....the usual age this particular congenital defect presents itself.

It's called a Branchial cleft cyst

How is started for me was a lump in my neck on the right side. Then it got so big it started to press on the artery going to my brain and started to give me headaches. My mother took me to a doctor that worked with my father in Chicago and he knew right away what it was.

He first put this huge needle in my neck a drained the fluid out. It took two of those big needles to drain it. Then he said it would require some surgery to repair.

When asked what it was he explained exactly what it was:

It was most basically from the embryonic stage we have what are exactly like gills... that function just like a fish. During that stage they close up at a certain point. Sometimes they do not completely dissolve and close. That is what happened to me. It only closed on the outer skin but remained open inside my neck.

So they did the surgery and closed the area up.

I'm very convinced that during our human development that there is a species in the water somewhere that is of a human evolution and developed with this kind of congenital effect that I experienced. I see no reason they did not develop. In that development they also most likely developed differently than we did outside the water with fins and fish like appearance with some human like attributes as well.

Here is what I was describing...and I will quote the part that explains that it is indeed from a gill like development during the embryonic stage that does not complete it's dissolvement.


Pathophysiology

The pharyngeal arches as seen during embryonic development
Branchial cleft cysts are remnants of embryonic development and result from a failure of obliteration of one of the branchial clefts, which are homologous to the structures in fish that develop into gills.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchial_cleft_cyst



Background
Branchial cleft cysts are congenital epithelial cysts, which arise on the lateral part of the neck from a failure of obliteration of the second branchial cleft in embryonic development. [1]

Phylogenetically, the branchial apparatus is related to gill slits. In fish and amphibians, these structures are responsible for the development of the gills, hence the name branchial (branchia is Greek for gills)

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1110351-overview

BeastOfBologna
8th September 2018, 16:06
Hi Maggie,

I just noticed when the diagram mentioned 'recent brain shrinkage', the human images seemed to change racial characteristics. Did you notice that?

Maggie
9th September 2018, 04:43
I have often thought there is a species of human that lives in the waters. I have a good reason to believe this as well.

I had a congenital defect as a child and it was pronounced when I was a teenager....the usual age this particular congenital defect presents itself.

It's called a Branchial cleft cyst

How is started for me was a lump in my neck on the right side. Then it got so big it started to press on the artery going to my brain and started to give me headaches. My mother took me to a doctor that worked with my father in Chicago and he knew right away what it was.

He first put this huge needle in my neck a drained the fluid out. It took two of those big needles to drain it. Then he said it would require some surgery to repair.

When asked what it was he explained exactly what it was:

It was most basically from the embryonic stage we have what are exactly like gills... that function just like a fish. During that stage they close up at a certain point. Sometimes they do not completely dissolve and close. That is what happened to me. It only closed on the outer skin but remained open inside my neck.

So they did the surgery and closed the area up.

I'm very convinced that during our human development that there is a species in the water somewhere that is of a human evolution and developed with this kind of congenital effect that I experienced. I see no reason they did not develop. In that development they also most likely developed differently than we did outside the water with fins and fish like appearance with some human like attributes as well.

Here is what I was describing...and I will quote the part that explains that it is indeed from a gill like development during the embryonic stage that does not complete it's dissolvement.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branchial_cleft_cyst

Thanks so much for your fascinating post.

I have been a student of epigenetics and think that if DNA is a driver of form, there is also some intelligent blue print that iMO is uncovered by conditions outside. The skin is a membrane. We encounter an environment and maybe more quickly than we understand, different expressions are elicited?

There are still indigenous people very at home in the water. maybe sometimes someone with your kind of genetic expression could quickly sprout gills in a generation if called on? I don't really care if this is a simulation but there is an earth science of the Gaian ecology and IMO we live in a sentient one which changes and moves. I think life uses every opportunity to thrive in the living web of earth.

I composed a short story this evening.

Sometimes it is just what we fear that shows where we will be heading for the highest and best good of all.

the Agarthans feared the end of all that had been created by their world. They chose the best and brightest and they set up a deep and well designed underworld. They had done what we have not, learned how God created hurricanes and they drilled cities and all the light that shone was because they knew how god created light and copied god to the letter.

It was meant to be temporary but it was so indicative of what was valued most that the Agarthans were content to be passive themselves but act on others. They were sent to their underworld to wait out a storm but changed their minds as to their future.

Cerebral and wise. They had systems homo sapians would see as magic. One thought along certain lines and what one thought was what one had. the Agarthans knew all about the etheric. They knew all about the planes and the lanes of time lines. They know how god kept everything from happening at once.

They never died.
How they did that you will not yet understand but perhaps you will?

Did you know that sometimes the old ones come to the surface and look around. Sometimes they wonder how long it will take to see the surface cleansed of its evil spirits that drive away the ability to feel the presence of god. they are prepared to wait. These horrible monsters of thought form that infect the surface dwellers cannot touch those with their light body and rainbows. It's really pleasant in Agartha. Everyone shines because they know their souls. The people up top cannot feel the nubs of their own glory.

The Agarthans are vastly advanced in their souls but they know about the Universal law and that law is on our side because life loves evolution. There is either an elegant transformation of change that satisfies the laws of life or if not Entropy whisks all traces away..... It's simple.

The Agarthans are waiting until they like what they see about the further development of the human soul and then they will visit the surface and by then some homo luminous will be the ones who know they have a soul. They are having such a delightful beingness in the physical. The earth is no longer a place for demonic thoughts to dwell. All the evil thoughts just die off when no one thinks them.

Shadowself
10th September 2018, 18:52
Very cool Story Maggie.

Thought I'd share this video. All you need to do is watch the first part where the guy shows the exact make of of the gills on a fish to the branchial clefts in a human embryo to see the same overall makeup. While the Pharyngeal Arches do indeed develop into different functions in the human body than gills they are made up of the same thing. It's quite interesting indeed.

I don't know anything about Agarthans or their history but I liked the story and I honestly do believe that if we as humans do decided to destroy this planet's ecosystem that we could indeed develop into an aquatic species until the wrongs we do right themselves. It as simple as "Selective pressure" in evolution.



Selective pressure is any phenomena which alters the behavior and fitness of living organisms within a given environment. It is the driving force of evolution and natural selection, and it can be divided into two types of pressure: biotic or abiotic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure

Anyway here is the video that shows the same general make up between gills of a fish and branchial clefts/Pharyngeal Arches.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r18fexJ-UnE

Aragorn
10th September 2018, 19:21
[...] I honestly do believe that if we as humans do decided to destroy this planet's ecosystem that we could indeed develop into an aquatic species until the wrongs we do right themselves. It as simple as "Selective pressure" in evolution.

Yes, but there's one little thing that doesn't add up there. ;) Why would humans, if they were to develop into an aquatic species, develop gills, when cetaceans have also evolved from land-dwelling species and have retained their lungs — likewise for seals and manatees? ;)

Dreamtimer
10th September 2018, 19:38
The atmosphere would have to be really bad. Such that maybe a supplemental system would work. They retain lungs but have partial gill function. I'm not sure that would even work biologically.

Shadowself
10th September 2018, 19:41
Yes, but there's one little thing that doesn't add up there. ;) Why would humans, if they were to develop into an aquatic species, develop gills, when cetaceans have also evolved from land-dwelling species and have retained their lungs — likewise for seals and manatees? ;)

Good question...but if the genetic material and overall embryonic state in the slits are made of the same material... why wouldn't it be a possibility?

The slit pockets are there....how they develop would be up to the genetic structure and development. We can't say either way what would be possible. It could even be possible that both kinds of species would develop.


The atmosphere would have to be really bad. Such that maybe a supplemental system would work. They retain lungs but have partial gill function. I'm not sure that would even work biologically.

I would imagine the oxygen would be that that is available in the H2O.

But again like I just said to Aragorn...we have no idea how selective pressure would affect us genetically.

I'll just add...I don't see why it's not a possibility. The overall genetic material is there for it. It would certainly change the human genetics if it did happen.

Dreamtimer
10th September 2018, 19:48
Another divergence. Then we'd be the 'missing link'.

Maggie
11th September 2018, 02:14
laird scranton introduced me to the Dogons and the Nommo.

1GJfjnw70T8

https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Nommo-Archetype.jpg

ARvZK5rgKy0

Credo Mutwa Speaks On Nommo Aliens
eJq2qVpI6BU

Shadowself
11th September 2018, 13:32
From the OP "mocumentary" as it's called now...which I saw several years ago and rewatched last night I remembered the cave of swimmers from the video.


At that time I remember how interesting it was that back then that long ago they provided a human like species with fins and arms and hands. It's being of course thought to be perhaps some kind of religion...or perhaps their imagination. But seriously what a strange thing to imagine. Did they really understand evolution to the extent that they knew we originally came from the water?

There are many things in that video that while being mocked up and untrue speaks many truths. The cave of swimmers is one of them.

2243


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFfY6sABCk8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-WIjhTXMRs&t=3698s

This film is a chronicle of a three week deep desert expedition by a multi-national group of scientists into the remote and hyper-arid Gilf Kebir region. No script is followed; events unfold as they set on their quest to conserve this unique wilderness after declaring the region an Egyptian National Park.

~

Seven thousand year-old rock paintings in the Sahara desert have, somewhat serendipitously, helped uncover evidence of ancient lake beds.

Researchers discovered the mineral remnants of the lake while studying a region well-known for its rock art. The most famous example is the Cave of the Swimmers, which provided a setting in the movie "The English Patient." The drawings in the cave depict humans that appear to be swimming, floating and diving. And yet this area in southwestern Egypt is one of the driest in the world.

The generally-accepted explanation is that the climate was much wetter in the past, supporting not only the possibility of a swimming hole, but also abundant animal life, such as cows, giraffes and ostriches, which were also drawn or carved into the region's rocks.

Scientists have previously found support for this local change in climate in ancient lake beds and other geologic data, but most of these lakes pre-date the rock art by many thousands of years. Until now, no one had identified any evidence of a relatively recent, semi-permanent lake that could have served as a swimming hole for the local rock artists.

"Indeed, we found that there were lakes not far from the Cave of the Swimmers," says Chris McKay from the NASA Ames Research Center.

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-art-scientists-ancient-lakes.html


This whole area is a mecca of ancient artifacts buried in the sand that tell quite a story. The most important being that this area was indeed a waters edge which they hunted, lived, and dreamed. Were those dreams of aquatic humans they drew on those cave walls? Or something more? I tend to think something more.

palooka's revenge
12th September 2018, 14:04
This whole area is a mecca of ancient artifacts buried in the sand that tell quite a story. The most important being that this area was indeed a waters edge which they hunted, lived, and dreamed. Were those dreams of aquatic humans they drew on those cave walls? Or something more? I tend to think something more.

memories... reflections of the lost ability to form change?

Dreamtimer
13th September 2018, 16:43
I haven't listened to this yet, but it's on topic (I hope)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsftPlN9nHU

Thanks to Kathy, saw it posted over at eye-rise (http://eye-rise.com/forum/showthread.php?8968-Clif-High-Human-Origins-and-our-Aquatic-Creators-Woo-Woo&p=18779&viewfull=1#post18779).

Dreamtimer
13th September 2018, 17:42
At 22 minutes Cliff discusses gut health as part of the discussion of our biology.

At 32 min. Cliff discusses the idea that the jewish people were not 'chosen' but rather they chose which of the Annunaki gods to follow. This is something I've also heard discussed by Mauro Biglino. Both Cliff and Mauro are going back to the original and looking at the translations. (Mauro is doing them)

modwiz
13th September 2018, 18:54
At 32 min. Cliff discusses the idea that the jewish people were not 'chosen' but rather they chose which of the Annunaki gods to follow. This is something I've also heard discussed by Mauro Biglino. Both Cliff and Mauro are going back to the original and looking at the translations. (Mauro is doing them)

I have heard/watched the same translation correction. The Hebrews chose and were not chosen. Gnostic intel on this subject goes deep. Nag Hammadi texts are not gnostic but, have gnostic content interwoven with Abrahamic mysticism. A real mess of conflicting ideas trying to resolve themselves. There are passages in the Nag Hammadi texts that do get into this 'choosing' and the terrible idea it was for the human species and peace.

Dreamtimer
13th September 2018, 19:42
Thank you, Modwiz.

palooka's revenge
13th September 2018, 20:14
Thank you, Modwiz.

ditto

Fred Steeves
13th September 2018, 22:26
They were not chosen, they chose.

You know every now and then something blindsides me right upside the old noggen that I should have seen coming, but didn't. For Crissake I pretty much have a background program of philosophical questioning and pondering operating a majority of waking moments, but that possibility has thus far eluded radar, and it makes one hell of a lot of sense.

Wonderful, more pondering fodder!

As an aside, I'm still not sold on any one of these creation theories/legends, but here's my base line overview on that entire topic from cruising altitude. Let's just take Sitchen's Annunaki interpretation/channeling of the Sumerian tablets an an example:

IMO even if it were mostly true it was most certainly not a Creation, it was not even so much a creation, as it would have been more of a continuation of something initiated much further back into the mists of time than merely a few thousand, or even several hundred thousand years ago.

I think we're just scratching the surface with this shit.

Cycles.