We Are the Children of the Stars

by Otto O. Binder

  Hence, when Starman, without a penis bone, mated with early Hominid or Homo females on Earth, he genetically transmitted this same attribute to the hybrid human race that was to follow.

  But much more amazing is the second endowment featured by the human male – the largeness of his penis.

  It is well known to all anatomists and sexologists that the human male's penis in erection is larger, thicker, and longer than that of any other primate. And by far.

  As our authoritative zoologist puts it, the human organ “is not only long when fully erect but also very thick when compared with the penises of other species [of primates]. The chimpanzee's is a mere spike by comparison.”10

  There is a clue here to the great heights of orgasm attained by a woman during coitus, for, he continues:

  This broadening of the penis results in the female's external genitals being subjected to much more pushing and pulling during the performance of pelvic thrusts [by the male]. With each inward thrust of the penis, the clitoral region is pulled downward, and then, with each withdrawal, it moves up again. Add to this the rhythmic pressure being exerted on the clitoral region by the pubic region of the frontally copulating male, and you have a repeated massaging of the clitoris that – were she a male – would virtually be masturbatory.

  In short, the male's large penis in action not only performs the basic function of ejaculating its semen, but in the interim also “masturbates” the female and excites her sensitive clitoris so powerfully that she experiences tremendous surges of orgasmic pleasure. No wonder she “comes back for more,” so that this feature, too, enhanced the needed proliferation of the starmen, who aimed to fill the universe with their kind.

  The same author has another rather wry comment on what should be Man's most admired possession:

  “He [Man] is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates but attempts to conceal the fact [publicly, at any rate] that he also has the biggest penis, preferring to accord that honor falsely to the mighty gorilla.”11

  That huge beast, however, has a penis only half as long as a human male's during erection. Since the average for men is about six inches, that leaves the gorilla with a paltry three inches.

  This is immediately astonishing, for the male gorilla can stretch to ten feet in length and weigh nearly 500 pounds. One would automatically think such a giant creature would have proportionately larger genital organs than puny men.

  Since it is likely that all earthly Hominids and Homos (with no way for anthropologists to actually check via fossils) had small penises, this again is a telling point, indicating that the modern male's sexual apparatus was not acquired from any earthly “missing link” but from our absentee link among the stars – the starmen.

  As to why the starmen should have developed such a large sex organ, there is an interesting but complex explanation involving the relationship between the spacemen and their women in general. Only the starpeople, it seems, developed a pleasure-forpleasure's-sake attitude toward sex, aside from its reproductive function.

  This could only come from a superior brain that could reason and think and feel beyond the here-and-now and follow new lines of total body/intellect integration into areas of sensuality forever beyond animals.

  And by improving the relationship between Starman and wife – and later Man and wife – via heightened sexual enjoyment, the family-unit or stable-coupling concept greatly advanced civilization in ways too subtle to follow in this book.

  Man being proud of his brain but not (except in private, perhaps) his penis – that phrase may be the real keynote of it all in another way.

  If we assume that the starmen have brain-cases of 3,000 cubic centimeters or more (1,300 cubic centimeters for Earthmen), the heads of their babies would be inordinately large and require women, by Evolution, to develop larger vaginas.

  This would in turn spur the male to develop a larger penis. Certainly a small penis in an enlarged vagina would reduce the frictional factor during coitus and thus deprive the male, not to mention the female, of full orgasmic ecstasy. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly logical to surmise that natural selection among starmen favored men with larger and larger penises as vaginas enlarged. Through this, he would gain the favors of more women and have more children, among whom the male offspring would by inheritance also have larger sex organs, and so on.

  At any rate, this incongruous anatomical riddle of the 160-pound human male having a penis twice as big as the 500-pound gorilla, if it cannot be explained by the physiologists or evolutionists, could well be explained by Earthmen being Hybrids resulting from the union of starmen with oversized, and Hominids with undersized, sex organs.

  11

  Reproductive Clues

  ONE OTHER KEY anomaly in human women relates to the aftermath of sex intercourse – the reproductive cycle. In the conceiving of the human embryo, a really startling fact has baffled the physiologists.

  Among all animals on Earth, only the fertilized ovum of the human female burrows into the wall of the uterus, to remain securely anchored so that the budding embryo will not be dislodged and perhaps swept away as a discharge. This is a physiological procedure that no other primate follows.1

  Another reference2 points this out by saying, “It would appear that the smaller human ovum enters earlier and, unlike the monkey [and ape] ovum, soon becomes completely buried in the endometrium [outer wall of the uterus].” Further on, “Indeed, the [human] ovum behaves like an invading parasite.” Another work described it as a “savage invasion” of the uterus wall.

  All this is to emphasize that the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the human female's uterus is a much more rapid and penetrative process than in other primates. Man is again unique on Earth by his female producing an ovum that tenaciously burrows into the wall of the womb and remains far more firmly fixed than with any other animal known.

  No prevailing scientific explanation is available for this distinct reproductive peculiarity of mankind. But on the assumption that Man is a Hybrid, it would be comparatively easy to explain this strange aspect of the human reproductive system as coming from our star-sires.

  We can even surmise why and how our outer-space ancestors acquired this characteristic, for an answer can be postulated that is quite compatible with what is known about Evolution and the reproductive system of man. Exploring a little of the latter will contribute to an understanding of the Hybrid Theory.

  Competent authorities have noted that Man's reproductive system is superior in a very real sense to that of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and other apes. This superiority results from the fewer spontaneous abortions or accidental miscarriages that human females have, on the average, over other members of the primate family. This is due to the fact previously noted: The “savage” burrowing of the human ovum into the wall of the uterus, where it cannot be easily jarred loose by violent physical exertion or by a sudden jolt, such as a fall or minor automobile collision.

  This is not true of the other primates. A fall to the ground, a fight, a life-or-death flight through the trees will often bring on miscarriage. Poof – another heir or heiress is lost forever to the family.

  Man stands out distinctly on this score from other primates. It permits a very reasonable explanation. We will assume that it was on some distant planet or planets where the valuable characteristic that all human females – earthly and otherwise – now possess was first evolved. The fertilized ovum came to use great speed and force to burrow into and to become a literal part of the wall of the womb, where it remained safe and sound.

  Now for our prime point.

  The self-attaching, tenacious ovum probably came about after starmen achieved space travel. It was either a natural adaptation that occurred through many thousands of years and many space trips for the race, or it was a deliberate gene-induced trait because of its importance.

  Why important? The well-protected ovum was then undisturbed by space flight with high-g take-off and landing due to jolting acce
leration and deceleration.

  In order to planet-hop, according to our basic picture of the starmen, our pregnant women forebears had to develop the superefficient ovum-burrowing technique so that they would not lose their babies when journeying to some other planet. It is conceivable that, through the millions of years Starman's forebears could “leisurely” develop and evolve, it was those families in which this ovum-burrowing ability was most advanced that were also the most prolific, because of fewer miscarriages. Such a physical development was necessary for their constant and somewhat rough space-travel technique.

  Yes, this theory would follow “classic Evolution” in the case of the starmen. We do not deny that its principles might have applied for our space ancestors, even if not for Earthmen.

  The key factor is that for them Evolution had time to operate for many millions of years.

  What we are saying is that mankind on Earth could not have evolved in so short a time as the anthropologists suppose, and that this time distortion badly undermines Darwin's theory.

  We think it is self-evident than any remarkable trait like the burrowing-ovum, if not shared by the other primates, means that such a trait had no time to develop in the great apes – nor in Man on Earth.

  Man only obtained this inherited blessing by the grace of his star-sires.

  We take up another matter now, going back to the peculiar linkage between the large human penis and the large human brain, which leads quite naturally into the subject of human babies, with heads at birth that are huge compared to any other primate. They have to be huge to contain the bulky human brain, literally gigantic in comparison to all other species.

  Medical men claim that the greatest single problem when the modern female is in childbirth is that of successfully passing the enormous head of the infant through the birth canal.3

  At the time of birth, the human brain comprises about 15 percent of the infant's weight, whereas in the adult the brain is only about 2.2 percent of the total body weight. The limiting factor in the increase in Man's cranial capacity is the ability of the human female to give birth successfully to larger and largerheaded infants.

  The limit in size that can occur through birth restrictions had, quite possibly, been reached among Earth people, and ample evidence is available to support this contention. The principal proof is Aurignacian (Cro-Magnon) Man's brain-case being larger than modern man's by about 100 cubic centimeters or more.4 Many primitive women must have died in childbirth while attempting to give birth to extraordinarily large-headed children.

  Today, when there is any question about the mother's ability to deliver a child successfully, the doctor simply orders a Caesarian section. This surgical practice opens the way for the evolutionary development of people on Earth who have larger and larger heads, with comparable intellects.

  In connection with the above, why should human women only, never animals, have birth pains? Is it because something is out of line and the baby brain is just too large for the birth canal? But Evolution would certainly not handicap any species this way, requiring the use of Caesarian section never known to nature.

  Isn't the answer boomingly clear here?

  That our big-brained star-sires, by injecting their cranial genes into the Hominids on Earth, thereby caused big-headed babies to be born, even though the Earth female's reproductive apparatus had not “caught up”? If not, what other answer is there for this anatomical discrepancy, which evolutionary laws would decisively say cannot exist?

  The experts have this to say:

  It was these twin needs [intellectual capacity and childhood learning] that together were responsible for perhaps the most extraordinary of all the changes which have marked man's evolutionary history. A little reflection will show that, as the human brain grew larger, human females were faced with a peculiarly difficult situation. An infant's skull had to be big enough to house the enlarged human brain. At the same time, it also had to be small enough to emerge through the mother's birth canal. The obvious solution, one might suppose, would have been for females to acquire a larger birth canal. But they couldn't.5

  Why not? Why couldn't Evolution match those two conditions?

  The experts give a significant answer: “The characteristics needed for bipedal walking made the enlargement of the birth canal a physical impossibility beyond a certain limit.”

  Why is that an impossibility? They really should have explained further. The authors have never yet heard a good explanation for this claim (and would deeply appreciate, as a matter of fact, hearing from any authority who can decisively clear up the point).

  As an engineer, one of the authors, Max H. Flindt, can conjecture as to why the female pelvis cannot accommodate a larger birth canal for our too-large-headed babies. Going purely by mechanistic principles, he surmises that as the pelvis would widen, the underneath leg support would be inadequate. But the human female's legs could not become sturdy enough without a radical change in bone structure. The only alternative for nature would be to add pelvic support in the form of internal “padding” or “webbing.” But this would simply defeat its purpose by again restricting the enlargement of the birth canal.

  Hence, in pure engineering terms, it seems that natural selection simply could not produce a female with a larger birth canal without practically changing her into a horse in build. But that would change the species too much in the “wrong” direction and natural selection would call a halt.

  This probably means, then, that even the starmen's females have always had birth canals too small for big-headed babies, which strongly suggests the possibility that they deliberately used gene techniques to increase brain size, at the same time accepting the penalty of the inadequate birth canal that nothing could correct.

  All such rarefied speculation aside, the too-small birth canal of human women remains as a complete puzzle to biologists, gynecologists, anatomists, and all others concerned – especially the evolutionists.

  Any tentative explanations we have seen are purely argumentative, obfuscating the issue. We feel it is much less in the nature of obfuscation for us to intimate that this out-of-phase aspect of the big-headed child and too-small birth canal is the result of tampering with normal Evolution.

  Tampering with a purpose, done by the starmen.

  And in their vast, complex, and difficult program to introduce super-Evolution and produce big-brained humans in record time, they were unable to take care of all contingent factors, particularly enlargement of the female birth canal.

  No other animal has this big-headed birth problem. Only Man. Evolution, which is supposed to be “fair” and “impartial” with all species, must obviously be zeroed out as an explanation in relation to this badly askew birth anomaly among humans.

  After birth comes the growing child. And again we come up against something that sets Man's offspring entirely apart from those of apes or any lower animal. For the human child goes through an extraordinarily long childhood unmatched by any anthropoid youngling.

  First of all, the human baby is utterly helpless at birth and must depend solely on its mother or its parent to survive. A newborn monkey or ape, on the other hand, can cling to its mother's fur from birth onward, already gaining a degree of independent action.6

  The human child continues to remain comparatively helpless much longer than any primate offspring. Human babies don't learn to walk until they are about fifteen months of age (average), while primate young are able to scamper around within a month.

  Primates are all “adults” at the age of one to three years and become independent of their mothers.7 Humans are still adolescent into the teen years before they become relatively self-sufficient.

  In fact, for one-fourth or one-fifth of our lives we are “growing up,” physically and mentally.

  In the mental arena, this does not mean a slower rate of learning than primates but an immensely greater amount of learning to be absorbed. Where the anthropoid's learning processes stop with the simple fundam
entals of life and survival, human learning goes on into motor skills, speech, writing, schooling, and thoughtdevelopment, all of these forever beyond the reach of apes.

  One completely unbridgeable chasm separates ape children from human children the ability to learn to speak. All progress in the ape stops short of this tremendous new step. For the human child, it is the mere beginning of his fully rounded mental capabilities.

  But now comes the enigma – just when and why did the human ape turn from brief child-rearing to the lengthy upbringing allowing great mental growth?

  Again there is a jump here, a gap, that the Theory of Evolution cannot bridge except by very shaky premises. Human behavior in the child-rearing area is far too different from all other earthly species, primate or otherwise, to be simply a process of “natural selection.”

  Natural selection of what?

  Because it cannot be named or defined, it blocks every attempt at evolutionary explanation. Man's long childhood simply could not have “followed” in orderly progression from the rapid ape-childhood that ends so soon, not when the two are in the fantastic ratio of five to one.

  We must postulate again that only the nonearthly portion of our ancestry seems to fill out the true picture.

  In their own life on their home-world (or worlds) the starpeople had long evolutionary periods in which to slowly develop longer and longer periods of childhood, instead of it all being incredibly telescoped into a short million or two years, as on Earth.

  There is another possible angle to this – that our outerspace ancestors had lives spanning hundreds of years (perhaps achieved through very advanced medical research). Then their children would quite naturally require a long childhood-development, and we inherited that trait, though our life spans on Earth are only three score and ten.