The Gold of the Gods (6 page)

I myself would never risk introducing such an audacious theory into the discussion. But I have come to the conclusion that the kind of speculative ideas for which I am attacked can be found by anyone who is prepared to do a little diligent reading in existing scientific literature. Comforting for me, discomforting for my critics.

For example, and this is important for my theory of war in the universe, I meet with scepticism if I try to use reproductions of cave drawings to prove that the recognizable accessories of space travel (spacesuits, antennae, supply systems, etc.) point to visits by intelligences from other stars. Nonsense, I am told. If equipment like that used today could be confirmed in such early times, the alien intelligences must have developed quite differently from ourselves. I never hear precise arguments, but—what must not be cannot be. Amid the vast sea of speculations there are some logical conclusions that give quite solid support for my theory that alien intelligences must have been the same as
homo sapiens
, or very like him.

Professor Roland Puccetti, a contributor to such well-known periodicals as
The Philosophical Quarterly
and
Analysis
, writes in his book
Extraterrestrial Intelligences
from the Philosophical and Religious Point of View
that he made his study “because after all the amateurish conclusions I felt it was high time to investigate the latest scientific findings in this field quite impartially, from the point of view of a philosophical and religious scholar.” Puccetti shares his opinion that intelligent beings throughout the universe must be more or less like
homo sapiens
with other eminent natural scientists. As early as 1964, the well-known biologist Dr. Robert Bieri published the same conviction in “Humanoids on Other Planets,” a contribution to the
American Scientist
. After 15 years of research into enzymes, Dr. Joseph Kraut, a biochemist at California University, came to the same conclusion.

But how can it be “proved” that intelligent extraterrestrial life developed similarly to man? The “proof “ can only be a logical sequence of conclusions based on demonstrable facts.

Professor Puccetti starts from the premise that similar external conditions lead to the formation of similar forms and organs in genetically different beings. This tendency exists on all earth-like planets where suitable conditions for complex forms of life occur. Therefore the differences in the evolution of beings that originated on our or any other planet should be minimal. For in all cases life began with the chemical transformation of the surface of the planet—“with the appearance of organic matter from inanimate matter on the basis or carbon compounds in a water medium.” It has been proved that herbivores and carnivores became differentiated in their oceanic environment and developed special forms “before they conquered
terra firma
.” Fossils have not only been found in rock with an age of 60,000,000 years, but also in slate a billion years old. The development of new kinds of bodies by formerly amphibious creatures was not a chance one. They needed different limbs in order to move about quickly on
terra firma
. Nature developed walking, which is the only sensible form of locomotion, because it is possible on any surface. Whereas amphibious creatures still had small brains, land creatures needed a larger thinking apparatus, because the dangers from their environment multiplied. But the larger brain was easier to carry and supply with blood in a walking position. What was the number of legs necessary for the new position, asks Puccetti? One leg would not be enough, because the animal would not be able to stand up again if it fell over. Uneven numbers would not have been practical, because balance would have been difficult. Yet several pairs would also  have been unsuitable, because they would only have permitted slow crawling. Actually, fossil finds are clear proof that in the course of millions of years evolution steadily allowed the number of legs to atrophy, until finally two pairs proved to be the most suitable. “Now two legs seem to be the ideal prerequisite for the development of a large brain, and with two pairs the necessary transformation of one pair into arms for the change over to life in the trees is made possible and the use of tools in the initial stage made easier.” It is illuminating that the transition from amphibious to terrestrial Life necessitated such an alteration of the “chassis.” If it was so with us, it was the same elsewhere in the universe. There is no longer any doubt that all life is of oceanic origin—on that point there should be general agreement. But still further modifications in the construction of the “chassis” proved to be necessary. With the beginning of an active way of life as beasts of prey with two-sided symmetrical figures, the muzzle was placed at the front and the backside at the rear of the body. These two locations proved to be the most suitable for feeding and excreting in the case of hunting animals (and not only in their case!). In all beasts of prey the most important sensory organs and prehensile limbs are at the foremost part of the body near the muzzle. So it is no wonder that the brain, the biggest bundle of nerves, is also located there, for then orders from the brain can travel to the prehensile organs by the quickest route. Growing up on
terra firma
initiated a refinement of the nervous system that gradually produced the ability to formulate ideas. It is well known that dolphins “have a sizeable brain, although they live in water. But the ability to formulate ideas seems only to emerge in connection with life in a  community, with language and the use of tools.” As the use of even the simplest tools under water is extremely difficult, it is “unlikely that a brain capable of conceptual thought could develop under these conditions, for the process requires a social environment and a certain form of objective speech.” Professor Puccetti also excludes the possibility that intelligent beings elsewhere could be bird-like, because flying creatures must be light, whereas a large brain is heavy and needs a copious supply of blood. He mentions these variant forms of life to lead fantastic speculations about evolution back to more realistic lines of thought.

Another of the inevitable features of evolution is the similarity of the formation of the eye in widely different species of the animal world. They all have a perfect camera-like eye, with lens, retina, eye muscles, transparent cornea, etc. The number of eyes and their location are also identical. They are always in the head near the brain, just as the two ears are always in the most suitable place, at the highest part of the body. The senses of taste and smell developed with mouth and nose in the immediate vicinity of the nervous center.

Professor Puccetti produces his proof, summarized briefly here, in order to refute the claim of biologists that technically intelligent life could have developed in an unlimited number of directions. For the claim that there are many different and controversial evolutionary possibilities denies that life
must
have developed into intelligent forms in certain earth-like conditions on planets outside the solar system.

Puccetti establishes—and this is the thesis I have always upheld—that under extraterrestrial conditions similar to those on earth living beings must have originated from the liquid medium, water, and that they must inevitably have developed according to the same patterns as on our earth, as soon as they went on to dry land “where it is possible for them to develop a language, use tools and make the transition to social forms of communal life.” This evolutionary path must have been prescribed for intelligent life on all the other planets. Moreover these developments in the universe have been so numerous, says Puccetti, that attempts to contact intelligent extra-terrestrial beings and communicate with them “would not be doomed to failure.” He continues: “My conclusion is quite simply this—that
intelligent extra-terrestrial beings throughout the cosmos must, by and large, be similar to homo sapiens
.”

The circle closes. Lord Kelvin suspected that the first form of life on our planet “drifted over” from  the universe! Puccetti adduces from established knowledge about the origin of all life that the laws of evolution were and are the same everywhere. Joseph Kraut is convinced that nature on other earth-like planets must have solved its problems in the same way as it did in our case. And Albert Einstein said that he wondered if nature did not always play the same game.

If one can (or ought to) assume that intelligent life exists on millions of other planets, the idea that this life was (and is) older and therefore more advanced in every way than terrestrial life is admittedly a speculation, but not one to be rejected out of hand. Can’t we bury the old Adam as “Lord of Creation” once and for all? Of course, I cannot “prove” my theory, but no one has produced arguments to convince me of the contrary. So I am going to follow it through to the bitter end.

The rival parties in the cosmos had the same mathematical knowledge, the same standard of experience and shared a common stage of technological development. The defeated party, having escaped from the battle in a spaceship, had to make for a planet similar to their home, land there and organize a civilization (in the absence of an existing one). They knew how great the danger of being located from the cosmos was and that the victors would use every kind of technical aid to seek them out. A game of hide-and-seek began, but a game in which their survival was at stake. The newly landed astronauts went underground. They dug themselves in, created subterranean communication routes over great distances and built strong points deep under the earth that afforded them safety, although they could emerge from them to cultivate areas of their new homeland and include them in the plans for a carefully thought out infrastructure.

I can refute the objection that the tunnel-builders must have “betrayed” themselves by the enormous quantities of debris excavated while making the runnels. As I credit them with an advanced technology, they were presumably equipped with a
thermal drill
of the kind described in
Der Spiegel
for April 3, 1972, which reported it as the latest discovery.

The scientists of the U.S. Laboratory for Atomic Research at Los Alamos spent a year and a half developing the thermal drill. It has nothing in common with ordinary drills. The tip of the drill is made of wolfram and heated by a graphite heating element. There is no longer any waste material from the hole being drilled. The thermal drill melts the rock through which it bores and presses it against the walls, where it cools down. As
Der Spiegel
related, the first test-model bored almost soundlessly through blocks of stone 12 feet thick. At Los Alamos they are now planning the construction of a thermal drill that is powered by a mini atomic reactor and eats into the earth like a mole, in the form of an armored vehicle. This drill is intended to pierce the earth’s crust, which is about 25 miles thick, and take samples of the molten magma that lies underneath it.

Ideas are duty-free, so I think it conceivable that the refugee astronauts were also able to use electron rays to build their tunnels. They had electrons “vaporized” by a very hot cathode and then accelerated them in the electrical field between cathode and anode. They clustered the electron rays by means of a focusing electrode, i.e. all the “vaporized” electrons were formed into a single ray. The American firm of Westinghouse has developed an electron ray generator for welding experiments in space. The electron ray is especially suitable for blasting rock, because the hardness of the rock is no obstacle to it. If an electron ray meets rock, it rips the thickest blocks apart by thermal tensions.

Did the tunnel makers possess a combination of thermal drills and electron ray guns?
It is perfectly possible.
If the drill came up against some exceptionally hard geological strata, these could be blasted by a few well-aimed shots with the gun. Then the armored thermal drill would attack the resulting blocks and heat the mass of debris to the liquid state. As soon as the liquid rock cooled down, it would form a diamond-hard glaze. The tunnel system would be safe against infiltration by water, and supports for the chambers would be superfluous.

I was stimulated to make these speculations by the tunnel system in Ecuador. Juan Moricz thinks that the long straight galleries in particular have glazed walls and that the large rooms were made by blasting. Neatly blasted layers of rock are clearly recognizable at the tunnel entrance, as is the right-angled door blown out of the rock face. The stratification of the stone slabs and the stones assembled in the normal way for building houses cannot have been introduced into the construction naturally, for example by an inrush of water. The technical care with which the tunnel system was planned is proved by the ventilation shafts that recur at regular intervals. These shafts are all accurately worked and on an average are between 5 feet 10 inches and 10 feet long and 2 feet 7 inches wide. Swarms of buzzard-like birds leave the dark labyrinth through these shafts, coming and going all day long, and finally returning to die in the dungeon.

It was here, in the impenetrable depths, that the “gods” decided to create men “in their image,” many years later, when they were no longer afraid of being discovered.

The
Popol Vuh
, the sacred scriptures of the Quiche Indians, a branch of the great Maya family that lived in Central America, tells us about this “creation”:

“But the name of the place to which Balam Quitze, Balam Acab and Iqui Balam came was the caves of Tula, seven caves, seven gorges. The Tamub and Ilocab came there, too. This was the name of the town where they received their gods . . . In turn they left the gods behind and Hacavitz was the first . . . Mahucutah also left his god behind. But Hacavitz was not hidden in the forest—Hacavitz disappeared into a bare mountain . . .”

And now comes the passage from the
Popol Vuh
already quoted. I cannot resist quoting it again in this connection, because of its astonishing contents: