January 24, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

There's a new study out (and my thanks to Ms. M.W. for sharing it with me) that challenges several significant assumptions of the current standard genetic model of human origins, and specifically, the "out-of-Africa" hypothesis:

Entire Neanderthal Genome Mapped with Amazing Results

Note that all human genetic haplogroups and races share various ratios of all three ancestors: Neanderthals, Denisovan, and homo sapiens, man. What appears to define such groups is, more or less, the relative ratios of the three types within modern human DNA.

But there's something here that intrigues me greatly, and I hope it does you too, and to illustrate what it is, we need to indulge in our usual high octane speculation concerning this statement from the article:

"The Denisovans share up to 8 percent of their genome with a “super achaic” and totally unknown species that dates back around 1 million years."(Emphasis added)
In other words, there's an "unknown something" or rather, and unknown "Adam" or species in the genus homo not previously guessed at or even known until genetics revealed it, and this human ancester is older than previous genetic models of "mitrochondrial Eve" or "y-chromosomal Adam" by an order of magnitude. The Denisovan man was located primarily in modern Siberia approximately 40,000 years ago, according to theory, yet, its DNA shows something unknown from at least a million years ago.
Such findings, loose as they are, conjure all sorts of images from mythology: the Norse and Scandinavian myths of human origins from Hyperborea and ultima Thule, "uttermost north," or the Vedic cosmology of intelligent habitation of the Earth millions of years ago, a fact discomfortingly documented(if one adheres to standard paleontological or evolutionary models) by the meticulous archaeological cataloguing of Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo in their Forbidden Archeology, a massive compendium of archeological artifacts, in some cases, millions of years old dating by stratigraphy, and clearly machined, and thus, the products of technology and intelligence.  Ancient myths, texts, archaeology, and genetics now appear to be coming together in an intriguing way.
But there's a  strong caution to be exercised here, and it concerns those who would seek, too early and without sufficient data, too detailed a reconstruction of the chronology suggested by ancient texts - a common failing of Sitchin and many others - anomalous artefacts on this and other planets, and so on.  And there's still that disturbing dichotomy of the data points suggested by astronomy's Exploded Planet Hypothesis, by Dr. Mark Carlotto's methods of dating the Martian anomalies, by the myths, texts and kings' lists, not to mention that "gap" of millions of years between Cremo's and Thompon's catalogue of archaeological anomalies of clearly machined and very ancient - "paleoancient" as I called it in my early books - artefacts, and the comparatively late rise of the ancient classical civilizations in Mesopotamia, the Indus, and Egypt.
To put it differently and more succinctly, alternative research, in its examination of ancient history and attempts to construct a comprehensive paradigm, from the efforts of nineteenth and twentieth century researchers to reconstruct that history and all the vast volumes that have been exercised thus far on the subject, is still prelude, not postlude.  We are at the beginning of a task, not the end of one.
This new finding is but a new piece of a vast and complex puzzle.
See you on the flip side.