Help me collect videos
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Good question!
They're just malnourished genus Homo. They have the same interfertility and DNA barcode as Homo sapiens and should be counted as one kind with them except that von Linne was abused after his death. They went extinct just like other subspecies go extinct in favor of dominant versions. Happy to talk about it more.
There is no missing link between Pan and Homo or any other interfertile kinds. The entire fusion from the 48 of Pan is a completely undocumented narrative inference (imagination) based on evolutionary theory. The key to this is that since fine-tuning mathematically proves that the first abiogenesis is impossible in this universe, but it happened, then it's just as impossible for abiogenesis to have happened say 10,000 times, each for a different species. So both evolution and creation are equally impossible, or equally inexplicable. It's equally crazy for Homo to evolve from Pan as it is for Homo to arise from nonlife. But in creation we have a credible, coherent theory the universe is not just a closed system.
The classic link in the now-debunked 1965 "March of Progress" graphic was between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, a completely different link proposal than your site has, because scientists are constantly arguing with each other over it. All such links have been mathematically shown to involve absurd probabilities due both to the exacting science of DNA comparison and the physical features (notably the cranial size gap).
Now, as the moderator of c/Reptilians (quiet but at least u/LightBringerFlex cited your video), I'm taking your words cautiously because I see a possible path toward them; I'll need more time to be able to verbalize it in detail. But it's a basic inference to sentient cryptids in general and would require some refinement of theory to explain the human appearance and any phenomenon of glitching that is not an artifact of repeated digital compression.
Good! Working on it.
One thing to keep in mind is that much of the cultural data used to support reptilians are really just about dragons, which include fire-breathing tyrannosaurs, and herbivore apatosaurs, for the most significant. The modern Icke phenomenon ("MIB" being the distraction version), tying reptilians to human form, is really just "scalies in reverse" (subcategory of furries). So the reality behind this phenomenon has a lot of ground to cover and also wise distinction to be made.
I don't think you can label all the found skeletons under this, they have distinct features far from just mal-nourishment
I'm not sure about that, we have figures and small statues of reptilians from ancient civilizations
Explaining everything by "creation" is not what I'm looking for because it explains nothing: "God did it" and ultimately god also exist just like that, the most high being in this existence exist just like that without an explanation.
I've looked at quite a few skeleton schematics as a complete amateur, they all meet this criterion. Denisovans are interesting, like pygmies are interesting.
I'd love postings anywhere about ancient evidence of humanoid reptilians.
I've discovered that believing in divine creation means actually explaining nothing by divine creation. Rather, it means knowing that everything has an explanation, and receiving those explanations when needed, and knowing (unlike the scientists) that there is always more to the unexplained. Scientists who pretend to being close to explaining everything belie themselves about their theories always containing some unexplained element. So the theist who is frank about all science containing an unexplained element should not get heat for it. Especially when he is willing to say an explanation for anything can be found in time (which doesn't contradict there always being an unexplained remainder). Rather than guess which details you're referring to, I'll let you ask if there is something you think I'm leaving unexplained to you.
Looking forward to your thoughts, as I intended to supplement and not to oppose.
I don't mind opposing, as long as we share the same goal, looking for truth..
but the problem with folks like you is that you already found the truth, and i dont understand what are you doing here? teach us who are still lagging behind? at the end you will tell me the truth is jesus, come on..
with all due respect to your person but the idea of skeletons of other humanoids like neaderthals being mal-nutrioned is total bullshit, we have hundreds of skulls, they share destinct features, if you have a counter-argument then it better be well presented and researched.
Well said! Obviously I'm being nonspecific with evidence I've seen, and there are variations of explanation besides malnutrition, but if any humanoid skull had other than 46-chromosome DNA it'd be instant news.
I seek to be open-minded about Jesus. I'm pretty confident he's the Truth, but my knowledge is always growing and transforming, and if there is something more to Truth than my understanding of that man then I want and need to know it. I often agree with people who stop short of attributing the Truth they know to being Jesus, because Truth guides everyone to the same place eventually, and it's not up to me whether Truth hypothetically guides me away from Jesus. So if you prefer I don't lay Jesus on thick, I'm capable of doing that. I find that an anarchic situation like Conspiracies is one of the best places to challenge my views and refine those that are in fact mistaken.
Applying that to the subject, in the past month I've been exploring origin data that informs black holes and it actually connects to the idea of sentient cryptids in a way where I need to be more open to the subject. As I've said I've just entered the discovery phase of that idea and don't have significant thoughts about it, other than to shelve my prior reluctance to review the subject. So you've got me in a very receptive mood. Did you want to pick one or two primary lines of evidence of physical sentience beyond the 46-chromosome model, so that we could interact with them directly? Or did you want to focus on speciation within Homo that defies the genetic identity of interfertility?