The Horse-Gorilla

      To assert that a bunch of angels procreated new species by cross-breeding with humans and animals is an extraordinarily wild theory to say the least; and, as they say, extraordinary theories demand extraordinary evidence.

      The chalicotheres were horse-like creatures (i.e. - perissodactyls); however, unlike horses, they walked on their knuckles as gorillas do.  Also, unlike horses, but like apes, the front limbs of the Chalicotheres were significantly longer than their hind limbs.  Interestingly, they started walking on their knuckles about the same time that the first apes appear in the fossil record.  Yet chalicotheres and apes were apparently not related, because their recognized ancestors, the first perissodactyls and primates, arrived 30 million years earlier, about 55 million years ago.  One must consider the probability that knuckle walking evolved twice, and that it just happened to evolve at the same time in two unrelated lineages, which also just happened to have long front limbs.  The probabilities of this happening by natural means are rather small. 

      Therefore, we may postulate a more paranormal explanation, which involves the copying and pasting of genetic material from the apes into the chalicotheres. 

      In addition to walking on their knuckles, the chalicotheres had claws on their feet instead of hooves or toes.  This was unparalleled among the perissodactyls, and may suggest the chalicotheres shared DNA with carnivores or some other animal with claws.

      The chalicotheres are something of a head scratcher, because they were very large yet extremely picky about what they ate.  Their picky eating habits are known from their teeth, which show very little wear.  Like most large herbivores, they must have had to eat constantly.  Yet if they only chose the most tender vegetation, then they must have been rather inefficient and poorly adapted as an herbivore, for they would have been even more pressed for time to look for suitable food that did not wear down their teeth.  Their ability to escape from predators is also believed to have been poor, since knuckle-walking is necessarily slow.[1]  Apes get by with it because they can climb up into trees and thus escape predators.  But the chalicotheres were too big and clumsy for that.  They were sitting ducks. 

      One must ask, how could such an animal evolve by natural selection in the first place?  Perhaps they did not evolve by natural selection at all, but rather by paranormal selection, from angels who manipulated their DNA.

 

Frankenstein Has Flippers

      Whales and dolphins are generally believed to be the descendents of four-legged meat-eating terrestrial beasts of the Paleocene called mesonychids.  Unique triangular teeth and a long snout constitute shared characters among both mesonychids and primitive whales.  However, a number of other characters tie the earliest whales closer to the artiodactyls – a lineage including cows, deer, antelope, pigs, camels, etc.  The early whales shared similar ankles and long toe bones with the primitive artiodactyls, as well as several other characters.  In short, the early whales had a head like a mesonychid, but a foot like an artiodactyl.[2] 

      Molecular evidence demonstrates that whales are actually most closely related to the hippopotamus.[3] [4]  This is surprising because the hippopotamus does not even appear in the fossil record until 16 million year ago – about 40 million years after the first whales appeared.[5]  The only artiodactyls dating back to the times of the earliest whales bare more resemblance to the cattle-like and pig-like clans of the artiodactyls, not to the hippopotamus.  Thewissen et al concluded that whales are not closely related to hippos, nor to mesonychids, but rather are close kin to some other kind of ungulate within artiodactyla.[6] 

      Although it is well established that the whales came from some kind of primitive ungulate (hoofed mammal), the precise placement of whales within the ungulates continues to elude science.  Perhaps the best way to view the evidence is right under our nose:  Early whales were a combination of flesh-eating mesonychids, plant-eating primitive cattle, and the anachronistic hippopotamus.  They came not from one lineage, but rather from a mixture of three – one of which, the hippo, was not even on the planet until 40 million years after the fact!  In this case, not only was the cross-breeding a mystery, but also the appearance of mystery hippo DNA 40 million years before it came about.

      Could the earliest whales have been fossil frankensteins?  Did angels cut and paste DNA together from three different ungulate lineages?

 

Bambi Is Frankenstein in Disguise

      In the jungles of Asia there exists a deer called Muntiacus.  Muntiacus is a barking saber-toothed deer.  Like an ice-age prehistoric saber-toothed tiger, its canine teeth are very long.  Like a dog, it barks.  Yet it is a deer.  The Chinese Water Deer Hydropotes is another saber-toothed deer.[7]  Unlike most deer, these deer do not travel in herds or harems.  Rather, they are solitary.  This is akin to the social behavior, or rather anti-social behavior, of saber-toothed tigers and other cats. 

      These deer are not crypto-beasts like the Loch Ness monster.  On the contrary, my deer Watson, these deer are known to science.  The question is, why do these deer, these non-predators, bark and have saber-like teeth as predators do? 

      Deer like these are also known from the fossil record, including Aletomeryx, Tragulus, and Hypertragulus.  These were also saber-toothed deer.  Aletomeryx appears in the fossil record with small horn growths like those on a giraffe.  Tragulus is called the "mouse deer" because it is so small.

 

Humpback Horn Nose

      Long before there were deer and elk running around in the woods, there were protoceritidae.  These animals had horns on their heads like deer, and a mode of life similar to that of deer, but they were actually primitive camels.  In addition to two horns atop the head, as we are accustomed to see on deer and moose and elk, they also grew horns on their noses.  Some of these horns were quite long, and they were also forked in the middle, such that two branches of horn would sprout up right in front of the poor animal's two eyes. 

      What, pray tell, is the evolutionary advantage of such a contraption?  Didn't the horns on the nose block the animal's line of vision?  And, if they did use the horn for some violent or competitive purpose, wouldn't it have increased the incidence of bloody noses?  One might postulate that they used these horns as weapons, or for the males to butt heads with when competing for a mate.  But they already had horns on their head, so the horns on the nose were redundant and ill adapted.  Seeing no real evolutionary advantage to such an abnormality, we might propose that this poor beast was genetically engineered by the angels as a joke – and that they perpetuated the joke after the lineage became extinct by telling us stories about unicorns.

 

Mammal Lizard

      Peneteius was a lizard that lived toward the end of the reign of the dinosaurs.  It was different from all other lizards in that it had molars, much like the molars of a mammal.  Although there were other heterodont lizards, Peneteius was unique in some key ways.  Much like mammals, but unlike other heterodont reptiles, Peneteius' uppers and lowers did not grind on each other.  This made another unique feature possible – its teeth did not have to be constantly replaced.  This is dissimilar to dinosaurs and other reptiles which continuously replace their teeth as they wear out from grinding against each other.  Also, its uppers were different from its lowers, and the cusps of its molars are more mammal-like than any other reptile.[8]  Could it be that angels mixed lizard DNA with mammal DNA, thereby giving these lizards molar teeth?

 

 

Grave Robber

      Once upon a time there lived a certain mammal named Necrolestes.  Its name means "Stealing the Dead," and that's exactly what it seems to have done in order to build its body type.  It was an odd assortment of characteristics from various animals, including some taken from other animals that had been extinct for tens of millions of years even before it came about.  Is it possible that this strange animal resulted from DNA exchange between species?  According to Asher et al,

 

Necrolestes has posed an enigma for multiple generations of paleontologists.  Despite the high quality of its osteological remains, making sense of its relationships within the framework of modern mammal diversity has proven difficult. 

 

So difficult, in fact, that six entirely different groups of animals have been listed as possibilities for its classification.  Its cheek teeth look like those of Gondwanatheres, a primitive mammal from the K-T Boundary 65 million years ago.  Its digital flexor tendon looks like that of a marsupial mole, but its mandibular angle is not like that of a marsupial.  Its incisors and fibula look metatherian.  In short, Necrolestes is a puzzling mix of various characteristics of its contemporaries, combined with characteristics from species that went extinct 20 million years before its time.[9]  It's as if the angels, in order to invent this creature, mixed up DNA stir fry extracted from a bunch of different animals, and then threw in some 20 million year old DNA they had kept on ice.

 

Kelba

      About 22 to 12.5 million years ago lived another rather mysterious beast called Kelba.[10]  Kelba has been classified all over the map.  Savage, who first identified the genus in 1965, placed it among the Oxyclaeninae,[11] a misunderstood family of early Cenozoic mammals who were first thought to be early carnivores related to dogs, cats, bears, weasels, walruses, etc, but later were believed to be among the creodonts, an unrelated group of meat eaters and omnivores, but then they were reshuffled to the broad grouping condylartha, which were ancestral to a multitude of entirely dissimilar mammals.[12]  Yet McKenna and Bell still placed it among the carnivores, albeit too uncertain for placement in a specific family.[13]  Cote et al suggest that Kelba might be placed within Afrotheria, thus related to the elephants, sea cows, and aardvarks.[14]  Van Valen classified Kelba in a family of insect eaters called Pantolestidae,[15] which were five toed condylarths.  Morales et al classified Kelba as a relative of the vivets,[16] which are nocturnal solitary hunters of the rainforest having a mode of life similar to cats.          

      Despite being preserved as several fossils, Kelba is a subject of perplexity.  Perhaps the beast's similarity to a variety of forms could be understandable if it were among the earliest mammals, before they diverged.  However, Kelba is too recent to be a primitive mammal.  Kelba lived in the range of 22 to 12.5 million years ago.  By then, the condylarths had already undergone their major adaptive radiations some 30-40 million years earlier.  Like Necrolestes, Kelba is a mystery animal, seemingly related to many species.

 

 

Fishy Mammal Reptiles

      The ichthyosaurs were a distinct lineage of marine reptiles from the time of the dinosaurs.  Superficially, they looked like a cross between a dolphin and a fish.  They were reptiles, yet their propulsion mechanisms superficially resembled fish in terms of fins and tails.  They also resembled mammals in that they gave birth to live young instead of laying eggs like other reptiles.  We can see this from fossils which sometimes capture the fully formed skeleton of a juvenile inside its mother.  This aspect of their nature is known from the mid Triassic forward,[17] which is a likely indicator that ichthyosaurs possessed this trait from the beginnings of their origins, since they don't go back much further than the mid Triassic.  Another clade of marine reptiles, the nothosaurs, might have also given birth rather than laying eggs.[18] 

      The threefold mixture of fish anatomy, reptile ancestry, and a mammal-like reproductive system may indicate that the genome of the ichthyosaurs was comprised of a successful splicing and dicing of fish and mammal DNA with reptilian DNA.  The fact that ichthyosaurs suddenly emerged without any known ancestors makes the notion of a frankenstein fish all the more likely.

 

Frankenstein Sharks

      Sharks have changed little since they first became widespread in the Devonian, yet their origins prior to the Devonian are still shrouded in mystery.  Shark scales can be found as early as the the Ordovician[19] and early Silurian.[20]  This is problematic for two reasons.  First, this extends the sharks at least 30 million years back in time before they became common; and second, sharks have jaws and teeth, which apparently did not evolve until later. 

      A less problematic date for the arrival of sharks is the late Silurian about 418 million years ago, since that is the date of the oldest dental laminate.[21]  The first fish with jaws and teeth, the acanthodians, emerged about that time.[22] [23]  As such, the acanthodians are the presumed ancestor of all fish with jaws.  This includes sharks. 

      The question is, how can we explain early Silurian and Ordovician reports of shark scales, when they predate the arrival of the sharks presumed ancestors, the acanthodians?  If sharks came from acanthodians, and the acanthodians did not arrive until 418 million years ago, then how do we explain shark scales from more than 440 million years ago?  One possibility is that the scales belonged to various jawless fish or conodonts.  Certain jawless fish and conodonts had scales that were very similar to shark scales.[24] 

      Is it therefore possible that the sharks evolved from jawless fish and conodonts, not from acanthodians?  If yes, then we must consider the likelihood that jaws evolved twice among fish, once among the acanthodians and again among sharks.  And how likely is it that these parallel evolutionary events would have happened to coincide in the late Silurian?  If such a coincidence is considered improbable, then we must maintain the conventional view that the sharks evolved from the acanthodians.  Yet if we maintain this view, then how is it that shark scales resemble the scales of certain jawless fish and conodonts? 

      One solution to this dilemma is the possibility that the early sharks were frankensteins.  Angels combined the tooth and jaw DNA of the acanthodians with the scale DNA of the jawless fish and conodonts, thereby creating the sharks as hybrids. 

 

Five Eyed Frankenstein

      Opabinia was a Cambrian animal with five eyes.  Apart from the obvious, what makes five eyes so strange is that it violates the principle of bilateral symmetry – something which characterizes all animal life from worms to insects to humans, ever since we split with jellyfish and sponges.  Opabinia also had a long nose.  On the end of its nose was a gripper.  The gripper was comprised of spines that functioned sort of like fingers or pinchers.[25]  Opabinia's body was segmented into parts.  In this manner, it was like an arthropod, only without antennae,[26] and arthropods are part of the larger group bilateria.  Since it lacks bilateral symmetry with regard to its eyes yet otherwise seems to be a bilaterian, it remains something of an anomaly.

      Another Cambrian creature that also may have had more than two eyes was Myoscolex.  It is notoriously hard to categorize this creature.  Myoscolex had a muscular trunk like an arthropod, which would make it family with lobsters and insects, but it lacked head appendages.  It had dorso-ventral differentiation and gonads, like the primitive chordates humans later came from.  Yet unlike chordates, it had legs coming out of its belly.  In this, it was like the polychaete worms, which were not related to chordates or arthropods.  Its body wall and intestines resembled that of still another group, the nemathelmintha, which are entirely unrelated to chordates.  Dzik concludes Myoscolex was an early annelid worm at the base of the split between arthropods and chordate-like forms.[27]  If true, this would mean that Myoscolex is not so much a fossil frankenstein as it is a witness to just how fast evolution can happen.  If a creature like this retained so many characters of so many different phyla as late as the Cambrian, it means it is near the base of the divergence of the phyla, and is therefore a testimony to the fact that the split between the major phyla happened not much earlier than the Cambrian – thus confirming the reality of rapid evolution during the Cambrian Explosion.

      This is also exemplified in the primitive chordate Nectocaris.  Simonetta believed Nectocaris was a chordate.[28]  But it had a segmented body, crustacean-like eyes, appendages from the head, and a carapace-like shield on the head – traits more akin with arthropods than chordates.[29]  Thus, either Nectocaris is a fossil frankenstein, or else it is an intermediate form so close to the base of the divergence of arthropods and chordates that it confirms the reality of rapid evolution in the Cambrian Explosion. 

      These Cambrian animals, which exemplify traits of multiple phyla, even to the extent that they cannot be classified, are a testimony to the extraordinarily rapid, diverse, and in some cases frankensteinish pattern of evolutionary activity during the Cambrian Explosion. 

 

Tully Monster

      Another bizarre creature with some weird appendage growing out of its nose is the 300 million year old Tully Monster.  No, it’ snot the toilet monster.  It's Tully Monster.  Tully Monster crawled around in the shallow oceans, with a claw dangling from its long nose.  Apparently, it had a soft body like a chordate, but its body was also segmented like the hard bodied arthropods, and so paleontologists debate which of the two groups it was related to.  According to Wicander and Monroe, "there presently is no consensus as to what phylum the Tully Monster belongs or to what animals it might be related."[30]  Perhaps angelic cross-breeding caused it to be related to more than one group, and for this reason it is difficult to classify.  One thing is for sure – Tully Monster was long after the Cambrian Explosion, and so if it is a mix of chordate and arthropod, this indicates splicing and dicing of DNA, not retention of diverse traits. 

 

Wiwaxia

      One of the freaks to come out of the Cambrian Explosion was a spiny little animal that was every bit as weird as its unique name – Wiwaxia.  The list of candidates for what this thing might be runs the gamut from slug to worm to mollusk.  Wiwaxia's appearance was that of an underwater porcupine.  It had spines around the upper side of its body.  Morris proposed that Wiwaxia was slug-like.[31]  Gould, for his part, believed Wiwaxia was most closely affiliated with mollusks.[32]  Morris asserted that it bore resemblance to a slug named Halkieriid, but Gould questioned him based on the absence of legs on Wiwaxia and on Halkieriid's armored plates.[33]  Butterfield asserted that the 520 million year old creature was a worm of sorts, but more like an earthworm, because its sclerites were of a similar nature to the hair-like quills of earthworms.[34]  But the presence of sclerites might also indicate its kinship with Chancelloria, another scleritome organism which sat on the bottom of the sea something like a mollusk.[35]  Wiwaxia also resembles the polychaetes, which are segmented marine worms with appendages on each segment sort of like centipedes except the appendages are more like clumps of stiff hair than like legs. 

      Perhaps the reason why Wiwaxia is so hard to classify is because it takes its DNA from all of the above.  Maybe some heavenly entities were cutting and splicing DNA from slugs, worms, mollusks, and polychaetes – resulting in the frankenstein fossil Wiwaxia.  Angels might have done this for a joke, to laugh at the monsters that resulted from their lust.  As Martin said, "Wiwaxia, Opabinia, and Amiskwia look like concoctions made for a children's cartoon series."[36] 

 

Haplophrentis

      Another oddball to come out of the Cambrian Explosion is the strange conical mollusk-type creature Haplophrentis.  This animal was a shelled bottom dweller without legs, much like mollusks, but what made it unusual was its two appendages coming from the anterior, called "helens."  These appendages evidently functioned like oars, rowing the animal along in the mud.[37]  Appendages from the head were common among Cambrian arthropods, such as trilobites and the various arachnomorphs, but were atypical of bottom dwelling shelled fauna.  This crossover trait is plausible evidence for angelic interference, insofar as an unknown intelligence may have copied from arthropods the DNA sequence for head appendages and pasted it into the genome of the otherwise mollusk-like Haplophrentis. 

 

Uncertain Placement

      A large number of species discovered by paleontologists are classified "incertae sedis," which is Latin for "uncertain placement."  In other words, the ancestry and categorization of a particular life form is not known.  Perhaps many of these are difficult to categorize for this reason:  paranormal forces manipulated the path of evolution at such a speed, and with such splicing and dicing, that their affinities cannot be ascertained.

 

Frankenstein at the United Nations

      The headquarters of the United Nations sits in the center of Manhattan, just outside New York City.  On the ground floor, there is a small dark room called "The Meditation Room," so named because it serves as the spiritual sanctuary of the UN, where people are supposed to go and contemplate the meaning of light shining on a large block of iron situated in the room.  The room is in the shape of a truncated pyramid, like the pyramid on the back of the one dollar bill, and there are 11 benches inside the room on which people may sit and meditate.  It is 18 feet wide, 33 feet long, and the block of iron weighs 13,000 pounds.  In numerology, 11 is the number of the New Age of Aquarius, 18 is 6+6+6, 33 is the number of Freemasonry, and 13 is the number of witchcraft.[38]

      Just outside The Meditation Room, there is a large stained glass window.  Pictured in the glass there is a creature with the head of a woman, the front paw of an elephant, and the hind hoof of a cow.  Below her, a snake is coiled in an "S," perhaps for Satan.  The stained glass also pictures men with heads like donkeys, a woman with wings like a bird, and in the upper right corner there is a man in the crucifix position whose face has been blotted out such that his identity is indistinguishable. 

      What is the meaning of this stained glass window?  And why is it situated just outside the spiritual center of the United Nations?  It has the general appearance of a stained glass window one might find inside a church.  The very center of the stained glass window deliberately pictures a human woman who has the legs of elephants and cattle.  This must have some meaning.  Perhaps the cosmocrators have made contact with the elohim, and have come to understand that the elohim genetically bastardized the creatures of earth into frankensteins – mixing their DNA with that of cows, elephants, donkeys, and birds.

 

Frankenstein Demons

      As we have discussed, the ancient literature implies that the angels tinkered with the genome of their victims, apparently cutting and pasting together the DNA of various humans, angels, and animals.  In his bestseller, The 12^th Planet, Zecharia Sitchin pointed to ancient Mesopotamian records that contained etchings of beast-men, and asserted that space aliens had created humans by means of trial and error – mostly error.  They spliced and diced DNA from lower hominids, and created freakish humans who quickly died from mass mutation, until finally they chanced upon the design for Homo sapiens.  Sitchin also describes depictions of men with wings, others with legs and horns like goats, bull-men, lion-men, men with horse hooves, and a single human with two heads – one male, one female.  Horses also were in the mix.  Some had the head of a dog or the tail of a fish.[39]  This is at least circumstantial evidence to support the theory of angelic manipulation of DNA, yet for the record, I do not subscribe to all of Sitchen's ideas. 

      The Gilgamesh epic includes an account of the conception and birth of the large hairy animal-man Enkidu, who became the friend of Gilgamesh. 

 

There were stars in the heavens.  One fell down toward me, as if it were among the heavenly host…[40]  Gilgamesh, someone like you has indeed been born in the wild grasslands…[41]  A god-like peer has arrived for Gilgamesh."[42]

 

As in Enoch, the falling of a star symbolizes the descent of a heavenly being such as an angel or god.  It is the harbinger to procreation between humans and angels.   

      Enkidu appears to have been a frankenstein monster of sorts, patched together from animal DNA and human DNA.  The epic recounts that Enkidu's "whole body is covered with hair," and "he eats grass with the antelope."[43]  Like the celebrated Roman demi-gods Romulus and Remus, Enkidu "sucked the milk of wild animals."[44]  The text asks Enkidu,

 

Enkidu, you are like a god.  Why do you wander with the animals, grazing in the wild grasslands?[45]

 

      It is further outlined in The Testament of Solomon, an apocryphal Jewish text, that these angel-animal-human hybrids become demons in the afterlife.  The principle Zoroastrian demon Akkoman, who is called Asmodeus in the Judea-Christian tradition, is recorded to have told King Solomon, "Although I was born from a human mother, I am the son of an angel."[46]  Another demon is said to have the chest and stomach of a beautiful woman, but the legs of a jackass.  She reports, "I have a many-sided character."  Solomon asked her where she came from, to which she replied that she traced her origin to a place called "the black heaven."[47]  Another demon attests, "I am the ghost of a giant who died."[48]  The story describes several other demons who show signs of being the disembodied spirits of hybrid species.  Among them are humans, cows, and reptiles, which have faces like birds, the sphinx, and other beasts.  When Solomon asked them who they were, they replied, "We are 36 heavenly entities – the rulers of the darkness of this world."[49]  The number 36 is significant, because when all the numbers from 1 to 36 are added together, the total is 666.[50] 

      To hell with demons.  Let's talk about angels.