Cover Image Are We Sons of God? “Divine” intervention? The Bible constantly reiterates that “divine” intervention lifted stumbling mankind into the light. Can it be that starmen have been the “angels” and emissaries of God, in an indirect way, with the mission of creating human life on Earth? Are we the “Sons of God” by virtue of colonization? Colonization by a people so highly advanced in morals, ethics, intelligence, and spiritual wisdom, that it is part of a Greater Plan than we know?

This groundbreaking book from the early 1970s presents scientific evidence to prove that mankind could not have possibly evolved naturally. Binder and Flindt explore the very real possibility that we are direct descendants of ancient starmen who came from other planets to Earth millions of years ago.

We Are the Children of the Stars reveals:

• Earth has been visited more than 5,000 times by creatures from other planets!
• Evidence that starmen deliberately hid any “Missing Link” human fossils in order to keep mankind from knowing it was a colony!
• Evidence that the starmen were the “Angels” of the Bible, carrying on a “Divine” mission to bring human life to Earth!

Space researcher Max H. Flindt was the first to scientifically document, from biological evidence, the possibility that mankind may be a hybrid from a prehistoric union of terrestrial humanoids and starmen.

Otto O. Binder was science fiction author who also worked on comic books including writing forsuch characters as Captain Venture, Golden Arrowand widely popular Captain Marvel. He was also aneditor at Space World. Binder died in 1974.

Max H. Flindt served as Senior Laboratory Technician under Nobelists Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. Glenn Scaborg, and Dr. Melvin Calvin at Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkely, California; and Laboratory Analyst in Research at Lockheed, where he engaged in highly classified space research.

To my wife, Elfriede, for her patience, and to George Higer, without whose intellectual aid this book would have been impossible. And to all others who encouraged me in presenting this new theory.

— MAX H. FLINDT

To my wife, Ione, for her many secretarial aids, and to my collaborator, Max Flindt, whose brilliant new concept of mankind’s origin inspired me in coauthoring this book.

— OTTO BINDER

What exactly is a scientist? A person who has run the course of a prescribed education and then belabors a certain discipline with scientific methods. The scientist becomes a specialist in his particular field when he engages in certain activities for several years, remains informed in his area of research, and, if possible, publishes something of his own in it.

The flow of information is so immense in the age of the media that every scientist is obliged to specialize. No one can any longer be sufficiently informed about everything. On the one hand, specialization leads to magnificent results, such as computer technology, landings on the moon, nuclear fusion. On the other hand, however, it harbors the danger of a simplistic perspective that, with the abundance of directed information, can lead to apparently well-founded yet erroneous conclusions.

Anthropology and prehistory are closely linked. The preparations for both branches of human knowledge run parallel up to the borderline that separates the specialists. The goals are well defined, the outcome predetermined by the training. The literature of predecessors to be consumed remains erratic while pointing the way to be taken. Where, then, is a well-ordered, concentric search for truth to be found?

Our historical past is composed of indirect knowledge. Discoveries of bones and tools, cave drawings, and so on, are incorporated into a research hypothesis. The jigsaw puzzle then becomes an impressive, interesting mosaic; but it is based on a preconceived notion into which all parts can be fitted – although the putty is at times all too clearly visible. Either, or … there is but one way. And that is it. But there we are; if one is willing to accept it, that is exactly the way it was supposed to be.

The scientific community is, in many respects, a secretive society. Its individual members “know” something, but they are not at all concerned about the fact that their one-sided information may merely give them the impression of being knowledgeable. And if their knowledge is ever attacked, familiar human defense reactions are set in motion: ridicule, arrogance, and the struggle for respect. After all, it is impossible that both parties could be right, assailant and assailed. And who wants to admit that he is wrong?

In this regard, the famous “scientific community” is actually a rather disjointed conspiracy. It has a restraining and destructive effect on new, possible truths. An unbiased attitude and objectivity are certainly promised but not practiced. Not one of us is ever completely objective, neither prosecutor nor defender. Specialization has made both camps far more subjective.

This book provides detailed evidence for the fact that Homo sapiens is not the product of natural evolution, and that human intelligence is not the result of a spontaneous mutation. Traditions, religions, and myths do, in fact, enable us to deduce that unknown beings – gods – created man “in their image.” Gilgamesh, in the Sumeric epic, is two-thirds human, one-third god. Noah, the biblical survivor of the Deluge, was, according to the Lamech scroll found near the Dead Sea, “the Guardian of Heaven (of the Skies).” The patriarch Enoch, who lived before the Deluge, unmistakably establishes this relationship between gods and men (Book of Enoch, Chapter 15):

Say unto the Guardians of Heaven … why have you forsaken the high, holy heaven above, lain with women, soiled yourselves with the daughters of man, taken wives as did the sons of the earth and sired giants? … You have … lusted for the blood of man and brought forth flesh and blood as do those who are mortal and perishable.

Can one, objectively speaking, overlook such crystal-clear passages? And around the globe, mythologies are filled with similar evidence.

I am one of those who must daily face arguments denying a visit by gods from our galaxy. The attacks are formulated in a “particularly reasonable” fashion, and behind them lurks knowledge as profound as gaping gullets. For scientific depth is onedimensional. Its counterarguments are rooted in previous (literally, up-till-now) learning, previous translations, previous archeology, previous paleontological findings, previous dating methods, previous space travel. Interrelationships between all fields of knowledge and the easily anticipated technological future are never established.

In my correspondence, and in public, | debate with scientists. Our verbal battles are fair and honest. Yet they are not objective. Paleontologists generally know too little of man’s record. And what they have never heard of they are not interested in. Myths and old books are rejected as fairy tales. They are terribly sure of themselves.

Can we, from an objective standpoint, simply ignore the old scriptures? Science should always get as close as possible to the truth. In the case here presented, the discovery of truth is rendered impossible by the mania for specialization. Thus, scientists can be accused of holding a channeled view – vide their lack of knowledge in mythology.

And should someone raise the objection that our primitive ancestors saw God in nature – in clouds, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, the sun, the stars, and natural catastrophes – this comfortable view in no way rhymes with the cave paintings that make no gods of natural events. And how dare chroniclers assure us that the gods created man “in their image”? If God was believed to be a natural event, the most stupid of our ancestors could not have thought of himself as “God’s image.” And those who thousands of years ago mastered the art of writing were not of the dumbest kind.

May the debates evoked by this book make tumultuous waves. I know of no work since Darwin’s that deserves as much attention regarding the evolution of man.

Translated by Dr. Conrad Borovski

A Step Into the Future This book is concerned with the strong possibility – almost a probability, in our measured opinions – that mankind on Earth may have had superintelligent ancestors from outer space. Man may therefore be a hybrid, partly of terrestrial origin, partly extraterrestrial. There exist an incredible number of amazingly persuasive “proofs” in support of this nets: which are duly presented in the pages ahead.

We sincerely feel we have dramatic evidence – very nearly proof – that will hopefully make a never-to-be-forgotten impact on the mind of the reader. An impact that will even affect scientific opinion, eventually.

Those proofs or evidence of the theory’s validity will be found virtually everywhere around us – in our bodies, our brains and minds, our histories, our archeological and anthropological pursuits, and in many other unexpected areas of the humanities and sciences.

This book might very well be titled On Tiptoe Beyond Darwin, for we have in reality “extended” Evolution beyond the limited scope of natural selection on Earth, to an expanded concept that might be called Astro Evolution, or Evolution from the stars.

We wish to state at the outset, however, that we do not condemn or recommend casting aside the great Theory of Evolution. We believe, along with any biologist or scientist, that its basic premise apparently explains the whole progression of life on Earth, from its earliest beginnings in primeval times to the amazing proliferation of creatures today – with one notable exception.

That exception, that one damning exception, is the creature called Man.

He, alone of all species, plagues the Theory of Evolution and, in fact, shakes its foundations. For by no stretch of available facts (or even imagination) can human beings be products solely of orthodox Evolution and its classic rules.

Starting with Alfred Wallace, codiscoverer of Evolution with Darwin, many anthropologists, naturalists, and biologists frankly admit that mankind is an anomaly, a maddening “misfit,” in the grand sweep of survival of the fittest. His physiological body might have evolved from lower forms of animals, but his amazing brain – never.

Just how large a stumbling block this is to Darwin’s theory will be fully explained and explored in this book, resulting in our boldly advancing a new theory – the concept of Hybrid Man and the Earth Colony.

Yet, we reiterate that Darwin’s theory seems to cover adequately all other animate life on Earth. It only fails, and fails dismally, in explaining you and me.

We wish to take up another subject that may bother the reader from the start. How do two nonprofessionals in the field dare to assail Evolution? How can two “amateurs” so crassly defy the welltrained anthropologists, biologists, paleontologists, archeologists, and all the other types of scientists concerned with Man’s origin?

In answer to that, let us quote from a recent book titled Darwin Retried,¹ in which the following words appear (with our italics):

Darwin was an amateur. He did not teach in a university or work in a laboratory. He ‘did’ science in his own house with no trained staff and very little [fossil] equipment.²

Thus, we see that all the later adherents of Evolution, most of them very eminent scientists, were in truth only following the theory of an amateur, an unskilled (in academic terms) nonprofessional with an “untrained” mind in comparison with the later experts and authorities who took up his tremendous basic idea with the fervor of zealots.

We are amateurs and Darwin was an amateur.

That, in a sense, “equates” us as having the same full right as nonprofessional Darwin to exercise our studied viewpoints on Evolution. And to present – as Darwinlike amateurs, if you wish – a wholly new theory as to the origin of Man.

We are not, however, equating ourselves or our concept with Darwin, but simply pointing out that our “amateurism” should not in any sense be allowed to stand in the way when our theory is being evaluated. We only ask that authorities in Evolution give our theory the same due respect and on-merit-only analysis as all the world’s authorities have for a century accorded to the theory of that great amateur – Charles Darwin.

Along with this goes a final thought: a female professor of philosophy at the State University of New York writes:³

Science today, is divided neatly into compartments and niches (specialties) quite unlike the real world. The true universe, is fused in oneness and cannot be successfully analyzed or treated in fragmentary form.

If each science specialty, restricts itself to its own selected subject matter, with no serious regard for the relevance of other specialties and with no real effort toward synthesis, what chance is there for any “coherent and integrated master theory” ever emerging?

The key word is synthesis, and her plea is for an interdisciplinary approach to all major theorizing. And this is precisely what that controversial figure, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, has done

with his small-theory-shattering concepts in order to bring forth a “unified” theory crossing all scientific lines and binding them into a whole that reflects the true oneness of the universe and its phenomena.

Though utterly and savagely refuted, even castigated, by the scientific fraternity in 1950, when his first book came out, Velikovsky today has been vindicated over and over by new scientific discoveries he predicted through his Catastrophism Theory. Notably, he predicted the planet Venus to be unbearably hot and was subsequently, and astonishingly, proved right by the Venus space-probes of NASA.

Velikovsky had this to say about the Theory of Evolution:⁴

Most controversial is the evolutionary question. I have done a ereat deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.

It is documented that, to date, Velikovsky’s scientific predictions have never once been proved wrong. Thus, his disparaging viewpoint on Evolution must be taken seriously. He might also, be it noted, blast our theory in this book, if he saw it, but at least we do not have to make a sacred cow out of Darwin’s theory as if fully “established.”

Velikovsky had a telling answer for his success, to the scientific fraternity,⁵ that when one looks at all the evidence, without restricting oneself to the limited number of so-called “facts” usually considered so by one group of specialists, it becomes possible to make a strong case for catastrophism. Or any other revolutionary concept.

And we think this would indeed apply to our Hybrid Man theory also, for we have examined a wide range of evidence involving many science disciplines – anthropology, paleontology, biology, genetics, archeology, astronomy, anatomy, physiology (the full list is even longer) – and believe we have found a miraculous “common denominator” in all their phenomena of anomalies. We are thus using the above-recommended “interdisciplinary” system, with the aim of presenting a “coherent” theory that will stand the tests of concerted research by others, and thereby let science take one more step forward – as it always must.

The “oneness” of the universe, and of life everywhere – that is what we have striven to bring to light by our new theory of Hybrid Mankind being part of a colony largely established by extraterrestrial beings of a humanoid type. Perhaps a truly shocking theory, as shocking as when Copernicus wrenched Earth out of the center of the universe.

But has truth, through the ages, ever been less than shocking?