We Are the Children of the Stars (16 page)

It is sufficient for this book's theory, to speculate that our outer-space ancestors concluded that those cultures that went
bareheaded
were the ones that evolved most rapidly toward the ultimate in civilization.

No, we are not violating the scientific procedure and fitting a fictional fact to our theory. There is a
real reason
for bareheadedness being conducive to mental progress, because during cold weather the unprotected head needs an
additional supply of blood
in order to maintain a normal temperature. This increased bloodsupply is then accompanied by nourishment that produces an increase in mental and creative activity.
⁷

And so, long long ago, Starman progressed, did research, and invented. He toiled toward ever more shining goals, and he did it all bareheaded, whether knowingly or not.

The hair may also have become lengthy because there was a long period of time on Starman's original home-world – perhaps a stretch, say, of a million years – in which the head was the only unclothed part of the body in fair weather or foul. Nature gradually evolved hair follicles on the head that would grow long, luxuriant hair.

Thus, we can see how our own earthly topknot of hair, possessed by no other primate, is no mystery at all if it came as a direct hand-me-down from our outer-space ancestors. It is one more physiological piece of evidence that we humans may indeed be hybrid creations of starmen by odds, perhaps, of, in our estimation, ten to one.

No
hair over our bodies, unlike the primates, yet
flowing
hair atop our heads, again unlike the anthropoids. Evolution could never have pulled that double trick, which is totally against the principles of natural selection.

One more point, based on sound scientific fact, adds to the “hair clue” for Man's hybrid status.

In the womb, a human fetus is endowed with hair all over – which is
lost
a month or two before birth. Dwell on that a moment.

As is well known, the human fetus goes through all the rudimentary stages of total Evolution, from a fishlike and amphibian form to the mammalian, finally. But if all other primates and animals produce fetuses that remain hairy at birth, why should
Man alone come out naked?

We are apes
only
up to the prenatal moment when we become Man.

That magic moment, in the womb, brings forth a touch that can perhaps be called divine, for the starmen too are the creatures of God. At that magic moment when we lose our hair as an unborn child, we are forever human . . . nonearthly . . . exalted above all lesser animals. We are also consigned to being alone on this planet, estranged and separated by a vast gulf from our animal companions, who are at best distant half-cousins to us. We are demigods among common creatures.

And this, you see, goes into the mystic reaches of religion itself, an attribute of Man's mental and spiritual life unknown to animals that very likely was also brought to us by the starmen.

And still we are not done with this “hairy” anthropological problem of Man with his naked skin.

Note this quotation from a book referred to before:

In order to clear up a strange feature of our [slight] body-hair tracts. Close examination reveals that on our backs the directions of our tiny remnant hairs differ strikingly from those of the apes. In us they point diagonally backwards and inwards toward the spine.

This follows the direction of flow of water passing over a swimming body and indicates that, if the coat of hair was modified before it was lost, then it was modified in exactly the right way to reduce resistance when swimming.
⁸

From this, the author mentions how certain anthropologists drew the daring thought that before he [Man] became a hunting
ape, the original ground ape that had left the forests went through a long phase as an
aquatic ape
[italics mine]. . . . He is envisaged as moving to the tropical sea-shores in search of food (and) during this process, it is argued, he will have lost his hair like other mammals that have returned to the sea [dolphin and whale, for instance].

This rather farfetched theory does seem to explain one thing: why humans are so agile in water while our closest living primate relative, the chimpanzee, is so helpless he quickly drowns.

However, the fossil evidence for
Homo aquatis
is absolutely nil (at least so far), and thus the above hypothesis perforce becomes null and void at the start.

Still, how can this “patterned hair” be accounted for, if not by earthly Evolution?

Explanation.

Again, we can fit it into our theory of Man's extraterrestrial-in-part origin, along with certain assumptions.

Let us assume that after the “space age” began for the starmen, they thereafter indulged in a tremendous amount of space travel. This would include perhaps
lifelong
trips to faraway colony worlds, or even
generations
of travel with periods of high-g acceleration and deceleration.

Now, as NASA has pointed out, the easiest way to survive high-g forces with aplomb is to be
immersed in water
. Most of the shock and strain of accelerative forces are canceled out by the cushioning liquid medium in which the crew is submerged.

If we postulate millions of years of space travel by the colonizing stem of the Starman race, we see that evolutionary forces would have time to work and
streamline
their body hair for swimming. For it would be deadly dull to merely float for years in a tub of water aboard the spaceship. A bit of ingenuity would devise huge tanks in which the crew members – including women and children on colonizing trips – would swim and enjoy aquatic sports.

Or we might make the alternative assumption that during their planet-hopping activities the starmen settled at times on
“water worlds” consisting of vast oceans and little land. Quite logically, they might gradually switch to an underwater life; evolutionary and mutational strains might have been produced that became perfectly adapted to a “swimming life.” In due time, this would genetically cause the hair on their backs to become streamlined for swimming, and this trait would be pooled into their racial genes.

Speculative as this may sound, it is no more speculative than the “missing
marine
link,” whose fossils have never been, and perhaps never will be found on Earth at the seashores. And most disastrous of all to such a theory is the implication that our Hominid ancestors first lived on the land, then took to the sea for an age, and once again returned to the land. But why haven't the whale, dolphin, or seal likewise
returned
to the land from the sea? This triple switchabout never occurred with any other creature and becomes highly untenable when applied to humanity.

Evolution is here standing on sand – wet sand. If it has no better way for explaining mankind's patterned hair, displayed by no other earthly primate, then we think that this hair anomaly comes from the superadvanced “primates” of space who fashioned Hybrid Man.

8

W
E WILL NOW take up further key physiological clues that point to Man being a star-bred Hybrid and not a product of purely earthly Evolution. The points below are all human peculiarities that anthropologists, anatomists, and physiologists have been unable to fit into what Man should be, according to evolutionary rules.

We will then show how these arresting details of Man's makeup can only be successfully attributed to inheritance from nonearth beings.

1.
Man alone sheds copious and “special” tears
.

The shedding of tears – from dust in the eyes, an irritation, or when crying from emotion – is a commonplace we take for granted. But it becomes a truly singular ability when you suddenly realize that no other primate, or any animal, can shed tears as we do.
¹

Yes, many animals can shed tears too. But of a
limited
quantity, with a vast difference in both degree and kind.

The tear-making ability is obviously for the protection of the eye, mostly to “wash” it. But where it takes heavy dust, severe irritations, and painful injuries to make an animal's tear-ducts work, Man's eyes water at the wispiest kind of dust of the finest particles, and Man will even find his eyes watering in a strong wind or from the sting of coldness. Animals display no such sensitivity to outside conditions.

But one factor is not duplicated at all by animals – the fact that humans shed “psychic” tears. By that we do not mean anything connected with the paranormal, simply connected to his
psyche
.

For instance, no animal sheds tears of grief or joy, nor any other emotion, as does Man. No animal can match the feat of actors who can upon demand produce tears when so required by the role they are playing. And humans shed tears far more
copiously
than animals.

It is this “psychic” tear-making ability that sets Man apart from the lower creatures by a margin far too wide to be accounted for by natural selection. In that case, chimps and other primates should shed
emotional
tears but never do.

Another curious sidelight to this matter arises. It is possible that early men were like the animals and could only shed basic, nonpsychic tears. Unfortunately, skeletal remains cannot tell the anthropologist whether or not the specimen under consideration had the ability possessed by modern Man to shed emotional tears.
²

It seems quite likely that, before the advent of
Homo sapiens
(Cro-Magnon Man) some 35,000 years ago, all prior species of submen lacked the necessary highly developed nervous system that allowed for tears of grief, joy, frustration, anger, and all the other powerful emotions to activate the tear ducts.

Homo erectus
probably only watered his eyes when volcanic dust or the smoke of raging forest fires blew fiercely into his face, or when he was suffering from the agonies of a mortal wound. He looked upon the death of others stoically, without being moved to tears. We can assume that other, finer emotions were either absent or rudimentary.

At any rate, no adequate explanation for this singular ability of a modern human to shed tears copiously, not only for the eye's protection but from an overwhelming emotional bout within himself, has ever been advanced by the evolutionists. They leave the subject strictly alone.

In our considered opinion, it seems quite likely that on Earth, Man alone acquired the large-capacity tear ducts that could supply endless quantities of tears.

And the moment it is assumed that Man is a Hybrid, a possible explanation exists of
how
Man acquired the ability to shed tears. It could simply be an ability that came from Man's interstellar ancestors, who brought it with them across the vast cold of space, and that they, in turn, inherited from their forebears.

This, of course, does not explain why and how our
ancestors
acquired this peculiar ability. An interesting line of reasoning can be used, however, to solve the mystery.

Explanation
.

Previously, we have postulated that planet after planet was colonized, then discarded in due course of time as its atmosphere drifted away. It is well known that planets have a fairly well-defined life course: They grow green, they gradually decline, and they fade away.
³
This life cycle is intimately bound up with several variable factors, but it is sufficient to comment here that planets like Mars, Venus, and Earth probably have somewhat similar life cycles, and, of course, this would include countless worlds in outer space.

It is reasonable to suppose that once a colony was established on a planet, it tended to attempt to continue exercising tenure upon that planet. It would seem to follow that as moisture drifted away from a planet, as it has on Mars, the colony would try, perhaps by canal systems and other irrigation projects, to make up for the extremely dry conditions that were gradually overtaking the planet. Great dust storms would then be commonplace on those planets nearing the end of their human-habitable cycle.

Our ancestors have presumably lived through dozens of those terminal struggles for existence on dying worlds. It thus seems logical to suppose that over the millions of years of time, the planet-hopping starmen evolved a supersystem of washing away from their eyes the continuous irritating clouds of dust that were their lot.