Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Title Title Preface Preface Part I Part I Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Part II Part II Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Part III Part III Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 7 C Chapter 8hapter 8 Chapt Chapter 9er 9 Chapt Chapter 10er 10 Par Part IVt IV Chapt Chapter 1er 1 Chapt Chapter 2er 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Chapt Chapter 4er 4 Chapt Chapter 5er 5 Chapt Chapter 6er 6 Chapt Chapter 7er 7 EWhere do we come from
Where do we come from
The sensational findings of a Himalayan Expedit ion
by Dr. Ernst Muldashev
All rights to distribute, including by ra dio, television,
photomechanica l reproduction,
all sound recording media and reproduction in extracts reserved.
Copyright © 2012
Dr. Ernst Muldashev
Where Do We Come from? Where Do We Come from?
The Sensational Findings of a Himalayan Expedition [Unlocking the Secrets of the Himalayas]
by D r. Ernst M uldashev (Translated by Brian James Baer)
Preface Preface
I am a typical scientist and my entire professional life has been dedicated to the study of the structure and biochemistry of human tissues and their subsequent use as transp lant material for eyes and in p lastic surgery. I am not inclined to p hilosophize and have little patience for peop le who are drawn to ot herworldly p henomena, such as ESP, witchcraft, and ot her oddities. Every y ear I p erform 300-400 very complicated op erations and I’m trained to evaluate the results of scientific research according to clear and concrete p arameters: acuteness of vision, facial configuration, and so on. M oreover, I am t he product of a communist count ry and, like it or not ,
as raised with atheist propaganda and t he cult of Lenin—although I never truly believed in the ideals of communism—and I never st udied religion. And so I w ould never have thought t hat someday I would undertake the st udy, from a scientific persp ective, of such quest ions as th e creation of the w orld, the srcins of man, and the philosophical concept of religion.
It all began with what app ears to be a simple question: Why do we look one another in the ey es? The question interested me as an opthamologist and soon after I began my investigations, my research team created a comput er program capable of analyz ing the geometric parameters of the eye. We labeled this area of research
ophthalmo-geometry and were able to identify many valuable applications for this line of st udy in personal identification, ethnic identification, diagnosis of psy chological illnesses, etc. But the most int eresting finding was that, after p hotographing individuals of all the races of the world, we calculated the st
atistically-average ey es and they turned out to belong to the Tibetan race.
Then, t hrough the mathematical comparison of the ey es of ot her races w ith t hose of t he stat istical average, we were able to determine the paths of migration of mankind out of Tibet. Surprisingly, our findings corresponded wit h th e historical facts. We then learned that every t emple in Tibet and Nepal welcomes visitors with a representation of an enormous and unusual p air of eyes. Subjecting these representations to mathematical analy sis according to t he principles of op hthalmo-geometry,
e were able to determine the outward ap pearance of the being who p ossessed t hose eyes—and it t urned out t o be very strange indeed.
“Who was this?” I asked myself. I began to study Eastern literature and could find nothing like it. And so I couldn’t have predicted the p rofound impression our “p ortrait” of t his st range being, which I carried with me throughout India, Nepal and Tibet, w ould have on lamas and sw amis.
As soon as they saw the portrait, they cried out: “It’s him!” I had no idea at the time that this portrait would serve as a guiding thread to the hypothetical discovery of the greatest secret of mankind: the human gene pool.
I consider logic to be first among the sciences. Throughout my entire scientific career, I have applied logic in developing new operations and new transplants. In this instance, when we set off on our t rans-Himalayan scientific expedition w ith t he drawing of a strange being in our hands, I decided t o adopt my usual logical app roach. With the help of logic, we were able to construct a well-ordered chain out of the jumble of testimony we received from lamas, gurus, and swamis, and from literary and religious s ources as well. This chain increasingly led us to the realization t hat t here is a sy stem for ensuring the continuation of life on earth in the form of individuals of various races who have been “preserved” by means of samadhi and live deep below the surface of the earth—a human gene pool. We even managed to find one of their caves and to gather evidence from so-called special people, who visit the cave once a month.
How did our drawing help us? It turns out t hat sp ecial people have seen and continue to see below the earth’s surface individuals of unusual app earance. And among them is one wh o resembles t he individual in our drawing. T his is t he one they refer to reverentially as “He.” Who is this “ He”? I cannot say exactly, but I believe that “He” is the man of Shambhala.
Despite being a rational scientist and surgeon, I have now come to believe absolutely in the existence of a human gene pool. Logic and scientific fact led me to this conclusion. At the same time, I realized that our curiosity wasn’t worth much and that we had been led only to partially open the door to a great mystery; it was unlikely t hat w e would be able to t ouch or p hotograph t hese “p reserved” individuals in the near future. Who are we? We are still irrational children in comparison to the Lemurians, w ho founded t he greatest civilization on earth and established the gene pool. To be the guardians of the gene pool, the progenitors of humankind in t he event of a global catastrophe or the mutual annihilation of all the civilizations on earth, is too great a mission.
In addition to that, we were able to understand the meaning of the word “amen,” which we say at the end of every prayer. This word was produced by the so-called final message of “SoHm.” It became clear that our civilization—the fifth—is blocked from knowledge of the Other World, as a consequence of which we must develop on our ow n. Aft er that, I came to underst and the sources of know ledge of the Initiates, such as N ostradamus, M adam Blavatsky, and others, who have been able to transcend the p rinciple of “SoHm” and to enter the universal information field, that is, knowledge of t he Other World.
This book consists of four p arts. In part one I briefly establish the logic of our research, beginning with t he question, “Why do we look one another in the ey es?” and ending with analysis of t he human face depicted on Tibetan temples.
The second and third p arts of the book are dedicated to t he factual material gathered during our expedition from conversations with lamas, gurus, and swamis. In some chapters I digress t o analyze literary sources (Madam Blavatsky and others), as w ell as to answer such questions as “Who was Buddha?” and “What civilizations existed on earth before us?”
The fourt h chapt er of the book is the most complex, consisting of a philosop hical investigation of t he facts we gathered. In this p art of t he book the reader will find many curious ideas about the human gene pool, the mysteries of Shambhala and Agart, the increasing savagery of man, the negative aura over Russia, as well as the role of kindness, love, and evil in the life of man.
To be honest, I was myself surprised that I ended the book with analysis of what appears at first glance to be such simple and natural concepts, as kindness, love, and evil. But it was only after this analysis that I finally understood why all religions of the world without exception speak of the importance of kindness and love. It was only aft er this analysis t hat I began to truly respect religion and to sincerely believe in God.
I am p robably mistaken in some of t he things I’ve writt en—but in ot her things, I’m surely right. My friends and colleagues who accompanied me on the expedition
(Valerii Lobankov, Valentina Iakovleva, Sergei Seliverstov, Olga Ishmitova, Vener Gafarov) often disagreed with me, argued and corrected me. The foreign members of
our expedition—Sheskand Ariel, Kiram Buddhaacharai (Nepal), Dr. Pasricha (India)—were also of great help. They all contributed to our general project and I would like to thank th em. I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to M arat Fatkhlislamov and Anas Z aripov, who, during the writing of this book, p rovided me with the p ertinent literature and helped me analyze it.
I feel this is just the first of many books on this topic. The investigation continues.
Ernst Rifgatovich Muldashev is many things: a Doctor of M edical Science, a professor, the general director of t he All-Russian Eye and Plastic Surgery Center of t he Russian Federal Agency for Healthcare and Social Development, w hich is a Federal State Institut ion, an Honored Doctor of t he Russian Federation, the recipient of t he
M edal for Outst anding Service to the N ation’s Health, a first-rate surgeon, a Member of the American Academy of Op hthalmology, a certified opht halmologist in M exico, and a master of orienteering, a triple champion of the USSR.
Ernst M uldashev is one of t he most well-known Russian scientists around t he globe. He is the inventor of Alloplant biomaterials, which are the basis for a new direction in medicine called regenerative surgery, or surgery aimed at “growing” human tissues.
As a scientist, Dr. Muldashev has developed more than 130 new types of operations, invented more than 100 kinds of Alloplant, published over 500 scientific papers, and received 64 patent s in Russia and other countries around t he world. As a lecturer and surgeon, he has visited more than 50 countries of t he world. Every y ear he conducts 600-800 difficult operations.
Realizing that Alloplant, which is made from human t issue of cadavers, has enormous p otential for the regeneration of the human body, D r. M uldashev is in the process of researching these materials not only with scientist s of various disciplines, but also by delving into the foundations of ancient knowledge.
This is why he has conducted eight scientific expeditions to the Himalay as, Tibet, India, Sy ria, Lebanon, Egyp t, M ongolia, the Easter Islands, Crete and M alta, which have not only deepened his understanding of medicine but also allowed him to look at t he srcins of t he universe and of humankind in new ways.
Dr. Muldashev’s interest in the srcins of humankind is no coincidence. As a scientist with a broad worldview, he began to think about the medical problem of human energy in the p hilosophical and universal sense, and this eventually resulted in a scientific study of the my stery of the srcin of humankind. Moreover, this
philosophical and sensational treatise led to p ractical conclusions that resulted in fundamentally new treatment methods.
Dr. Muldashev has an srcinal mind and uses simple and accessible language to present complex scientific issues. This is why I suggest recommend Where Do We Come from?, which, although written in a rather literary sty le, is in fact a p rofoundly scientific work.
R. T. Nigmatullin,
Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation, Doctor of M edical Sciences, Professor
Part I Part I
Op hthalmo-geometry and the Origins of Man
Chapter 1
Chapter 1 - Why Do We Look One Another in the Eye?
Chapter 2 - “
Chapter 2 - “Statistically-average Eyes”: T he M igration Paths of Humankind t hroughout the World
Chapter 3 - Whose Eyes are on Tibetan Temples? Chapter 3 - Whose Eyes are on Tibetan Temples?
Dedicated to my parents.
Chapter 1 Chapter 1
Why Do We Look One Another in the Eye?
I have a friend, Yuri Lobanov, who is by nature shy, and so in conversation often lowers his eyes and looks at th e floor. Once I happ ened to witness a tense
conversation between him and his fiancée on the subject of marriage. Something his fiancée said caught my attention: “Yuri, look me in the eye! You’re looking down— are you hiding something?” I suddenly t hought, why is she asking Yuri to look her in t he eye? She must want t o read in his eyes what he’s not saying in words.
The Human Gaze
In my work as an ophthalmologist, I look people in the eye every day. And every time I do, I notice that people’s eyes are capable of providing us with additional information. In fact p eople often say that s omeone has love, fear, sadness or joy in his eyes. However, I could find no research on t he kind of information we are able to receive from people’s ey es. And so, in order to answ er this quest ion, I conducted the following two experiments.
I asked two highly educated people to sit across from one another and carry on a conversation without every taking their eyes off the other person’s feet. When the conversation involved dry analy sis wit h little emotional content, there was mut ual understanding, although both experienced discomfort from the desire to look their interlocutor in the eye. But as soon as I shifted the conversation onto an emotional topic, the test subjects found it unbearable to carry on the conversation while looking at each other’s feet. “I have to verify in his ey es the t ruth of what he’s saying,” one of the subjects explained.
When asked to carry on a conversation while looking each other in t he eye, bot h t est s ubjects remarked on t he comfortableness of t he conversation and on t he high degree of mutual understanding in conversations on emotional and unemotional topics alike. From this experiment, I concluded that the additional information we receive from the eyes of an interlocutor is rather significant.
For t he second experiment, I t ook p hotographs of famous actors, politicians, and scientists and cut them into t hree sections: the forehead, the area around the ey es and the area containing the nose and mouth. I used photographs of Alla Pugacheva, Mikhail Gorbachev, Oleg Dal, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Albert Einstein, Sofia Rotaru, Vladimir Vy sotsky, Leonid Brezhnev, and other famous people.
I then asked seven p eople separately to determine who’s wh o based on the forehead area alone. All the p articipants ap peared confused and in only one inst ance, thanks to a distinctive birthmark, were they able to guess that the forehead belonged to Mikhail Gorbachev. Th e part icipants experienced the same confusion when asked t o identify t he famous peop le based on t he nose and mouth area of their faces. Only one out of seven was able to identify t he mouth of Brezhnev, joking that he would always remember how Brezhnev kissed.
In most cases, however, the p articipants w ere able to successfully determine who’s who in the p hotos based on the area around the eyes, although not always right away. “That’s Brezhnev, that’s Vy sotsky, that’s Pugacheva,” they would say as they looked at t he eyes in the p hotographs. But for some reason all the participants experienced difficulty in determining the identity of the Ukrainian singer Sofia Rotaru.
From this experiment, I made the assumpt ion that it was t he area of the face containing the eyes t hat p rovided us with t he most information to determine an individual’s identity.
What kind of information do we receive from this part of the face? We know that the human gaze works like a scanning beam. When looking at something, the eyes perform tiny movements in order to t race the entire object. It is precisely this scanned information that allows us t o perceive an object’s volume, size and many ot her
details.
However, in scanning the eyeball itself, we don’t receive a lot of information because the eyeball as an anatomical organ has only four meaningful parameters that are visible: the whit e sclera, the round, transp arent cornea, th e pupil, and t he color of the iris. M oreover, these p arameters do not change in relation t o an individual’s phy sical or emotional state.
From t his, we came to the conclusion that when we look, w e are scanning information from the entire area around the ey es, including the eyelids, eyebrows, t he bridge of t he nose, and t he angles of the ey es. These p arameters create a complex geometric configuration around t he eyes t hat const antly changes according to t he phy sical and emotional state of the individual.
From t here, we concluded that we look one another in t he eye in order t o observe changes in th e geometric p arameters of the ocular port ion of t he face. This scanned ophthalmo-geometric information tr avels t hrough the eyes t o the centers of the brain where it is analy zed. The analysis of the scanned information is t hen sent t o the cerebral cortex in the form of images that allow us to evaluate our interlocutor.
Ophthalmo-geometric Parameters
What is the nature of these images? Mos t impor tantly, th ey allow us t o identify emotions (fear, joy, interest, indifference, etc.) in the ey es of an interlocutor. From someone’s eyes, we can also guess his or her ethnicity (Japanese, Russian, Mexican, etc.). We can also discern certain personality traits: willfulness, cowardice, goodness, meanness, etc. A nd finally, from this s canned op hthalmo-geometric information, doctors can determine the so-called habitus of the p atient, p roviding a general impression of the p atient’s p hy sical stat e or helping in the diagnosis of a disorder.
Diagnosing patients according to t heir habitus was esp ecially popular among country doctors in t he nineteenth century when there was no good diagnostic equipment in hosp itals. These doctors t rained their eye so that , just by looking at a p atient, they could render the correct diagnosis. “You, sir, have tuberculosis,” a country doctor might s ay, after looking at just the ey es of a p atient.
As a doctor, I, t oo, was sur prised at how wit h a little practice it was p ossible to diagnose illness and evaluate the state of p atients quite accurately just by looking at them. To do t his, one looks, as a rule, at the p atient’s ey es without conducting a full examination.
These observations indicated that the scientific study of variability in the ocular portion of the face could be very valuable in a number of areas—from the diagnosis of mental illness to the objective testing of an individual’s suitability for certain professions. But how could one st udy this area of t he face?
I was able to interest a small group of scientific researchers in this idea and we initially conducted research on a large number of individuals—1,500. Working from the premise that th e human eye scans information from the ocular port ion of the face, we took high-quality photographs of this p ortion of the face and then attempt ed to
find p rinciples for a geometric analy sis of the p alpebral fissure, the eyelids, the ey ebrows, and t he bridge of t he nose. We had some success, but were unable to discover generalizable geometric parameters.
We then began to make slides and to project them onto the wall in the hope that increasing the size of the images would help. But again we met with failure, unable to find generalizable geometric p arameters. Later we p ut together a computer sys tem that allowed us to place images of t he ocular p ortion of the face onto a computer screen, and we began to analy ze these images with t he help of special programs. T his method turned out to be t he most convenient as it was p ossible to calculate with greater accuracy the geometric p arameters of the ocular p ortion of the face and t o save t hose calculations in t he computer ’s memory. Nonetheless, generalizable geometric parameters eluded us.
We even stopped working on the project for a while as the calculation of geometric figures was extremely tedious and we were able to compare them only in relative numbers which did not allow us to subject them to statist ical analy sis. We were app roaching the end of our research p roject.
But then I happ ened to notice an interesting thing, which, at first glance, seemed to have no direct relationship t o our ophthalmo-geometric research. I was examining a five-year old girl who was sitting on the lap of her 28-year old mother. The mother was leaning her head close to her daughter’s and whispering something in her daughter’s ear to help the doctor examine the little girl’s eyes. Tired from examining the girl’s eye fundus, I moved my head back and looked at the mother and daughter together. At that moment I not iced that the mother ’s and daughter ’s corneas were the same size, despite t he enormous difference in the size of their bodies. “Why,” I asked myself, “are their corneas the same? Logically, a small girl’s cornea should be smaller than her mother’s!”
Putt ing my curiosity aside, I completed my examination, made a diagnosis, wr ote down my conclusion, and scheduled an operation. M y next pat ient was already standing at the door of my office. “Is it pos sible that this adult patient’s cornea is the same size as that little girl’s?” I wondered as I examined his eyes.
The size of their cornea did indeed appear to be the same. At that point I was so intrigued that I asked my secretary to go through our clinic and gather about twenty individuals—both men and women—of various ages and heights. When they were all gathered, I took my ophthalmoscope and examined their eyes, comparing the individuals to one another. The hy pothesis t hat everyone has t he same-sized cornea, regardless of height, weight, and age, was confirmed.
“It ’s st range,” I mused, “to t hink that t he size of t he cornea is a constant in the human body—like some kind of absolute unit of measurement!” One of our surgeons, Venera Galimova, was sitting next to me. She is a tiny woman and I looked at her feet and asked: “Venera, what size is your foot?”
“Five. Why do you ask?”
We looked into t he mirror and saw t wo p airs of eyes w ith th e same-size corneas looking back at us.
“It ’s interesting,” I thought, “t hat in the human body, all sizes are relative. The size of p eople’s hands is different, so is the size of their feet, their faces, and their torsos. Some people have a big stomach and some have a flat one. Even the size of the brain and the internal organs—the liver, the stomach, the lungs, etc.—is different in different people. And yet the size of our corneas is the same! Is it possible that no scientist has ever noticed this before?”
I looked at the specialized literature but could find no mention of t his top ic. I then organized a mass measurement of the diameter of t he cornea with t he help of a special surgical compass under a surgical microscope, comparing the findings to measurements of the height and width of the subjects’ hands and feet. We established a table of variation and subjected the measurements to statist ical analy sis and found t hat t he diameter of the cornea, when compared with the size of the hands and feet,
as an almost absolute constant at 10 + 0.56 mm.
Ultrasound measurement has revealed that the size of t he eyeball (the longitudinal axis of the ey e), gradually increases from the moment of birth unt il 14-18 y ears of age, when it reaches its average size of 24 mm. The diameter of the cornea, however, grows only very little after birth until the age of four, at which point it remains constant. T hat is, t he growth of the ey eball outst rips the change in diameter of the cornea, which is why children’s ey es app ear larger than adults’.
Why is the diameter of t he cornea a constant? It is difficult for me to answer that question. But it s absolute size in t he human body can be used as a unit of measurement, particularly, in ophthalmo-geometric research.
The idea that the size of the cornea as a constant could be a crucial moment in determining generally applicable ophthalmo-geometric parameters sank in the moment I first r ealized that all corneas were the same size. But this idea was definitively confirmed only after we completed st atistical research and att empted t o elucidate
geometrical figures of the ocular portion of the face based on the cornea as constant.
At this time I was visited by the chief gynecologist of the city of Ufa. Tall, with a healthy stomach, a large oval face, a full beard, and a high forehead, he had an appearance of extreme solidity. At almost the exact same moment my surgical nurse, Lena Voronina, a small, att ractive woman, entered my office. Their faces were so different that I proposed that they participate as pre-test subjects for ophthalmo-geometric computer imaging. “If these faces are so different,” I thought, “how are their eyes different?”
We entered images of their faces into the computer along with the image of the face of a 14-year old boy, the son of our colleague Olga Ishmitova. After this we initiated an analys is of t he geometric figures created by drawing lines t hat touched t he upp er and lower curves of t heir ey elids. T wo four-sided shap es, or quadrilaterals, were produced—a large one formed by t he lines that t ouched the outer curve of the eyelids and a small one formed by the lines that touched the inner curve of the eyelids.
The size and shape of these two quadrilaterals for all three subjects were completely different, while their corneas located in these diagrams inside the large quadrilateral ere exactly the same. We then thought of using the diameter of the corneas as a unit of measurement in mathematical analysis of the large and small quadrilaterals, and of t heir relationship. T his allowed us, in the final analys is, to express t he mathematical characteristics of t hese quadrilaterals in t he form of an equation, t he solution of
hich produces a number that characterizes the unique opht halmo-geometry of a given research subject.
A comparison of the ophthalmo-geometric number for the chief gynecologist, Lena Voronina, and the 14-year old boy indicated significant differences among them. The
chief gy necologist had the number 3474, Lena Voronina, the number 2015, and the boy, 2776.
Was it possible to compare the individual characteristics of the large and small quadrilaterals with the facial characteristics of every individual? We outlined the face of
the chief gynecologist and represented it in the form of a combination of geometric shapes. We did the same for the faces of Lena Voronina and the boy. Then we tried
to find a mathematical relationship between the combination of geometric shapes, describing the features of the face, and the geometric characteristics of the two quadrilaterals. T hese relationships w ere quite sp ecifically expressed, w hich allowed us on t he basis of the chief gynecologist’s quadrilaterals to reconstruct t he basic
Basically, we understood that we had discovered in general terms the principle for facial reconstruction based on the geometric characteristics of the eyes. Later, based on data from 1,500 individuals, we refined the p rinciples for facial reconstruction based on t he geometric characteristics of t he tw o quadrilaterals, but were unable to achieve a high degree of accuracy. The reason is that we were able to elucidate only 22 ophthalmo-geometric characteristics, while the quadrilaterals we had produced represented only two of them. However, the simultaneous mathematical analysis of all 22 p arameters turned out to be t oo complicated for us to deal with.
M oreover, all 22 of t hese parameters are constantly changing in relation to a v ariety of p hy sical, emotional, and ot her factors. Imagine the comput ational power necessary for the subcortical ganglia of the human brain in to process this ophthalmo-geometric information! The ganglia are capable of processing this complex information instantaneously and of sending it to the cerebral cortex in the form of images, sensations, and other emotions, although the size of these ganglia— app roximately one centimeter—cannot be compared with t he size of an actual comput er. How great is God who created the p erfect computer of t he human brain!
However, we were able to analy ze only two of the 22 parameters known t o exist. But even this modest mathematical achievement allowed us to say with sufficient certainty that the opht halmo-geometric p arameters for every individual are unique—something like a birt hmark. This ophthalmo-geometric “birthmark,” which is constantly changing in relation to our emotions and other related factors, nevertheless generally retains its inherent individuality.
At the same time these individual ophthalmo-geometric parameters were combined with the geometric characteristics of the facial features, which made it possible to reconstruct t he human face in orientation to the geometric characteristics of the ocular area of t he face. This is p recisely why, wh en we look someone in the ey e, we are able to evaluate more than just t he eyes.
Finally, when p lacing the diameter of the cornea as the on ly const ant of the human body within op hthalmo-geometric schemas suggested t hat it might serve as a unit of measure in ophthalmo-geometry.
The ey es reflect almost everyt hing that takes p lace in the human body and the brain, and all this can be seen in the measurements of t he sp ecified 22 (and, perhaps, even more) p arameters of t he ocular area of the face. In t he future, when op hthalmo-geometry has been further researched, it will help to solve many problems in t he
fields of medicine and psychology. Nature itself is pushing us t oward that.
Op hthalmo-geometry can be described as the mathematical representation of emotions and sensations. The gaze works like a scanning beam, photographing
information from the ocular area of the face, which reflect our emotions and sensations, as well as the uniqueness of every individual through the smallest movements of t he eyelids, eyebrows, eyeballs, and skin. When we look one another in t he eye, we receive from their eyes (or rather, from t he ocular area of the face) additional information about a person’s individuality and the w ay it changes as in relation to certain emotions and sensations.
Ophthalmo-geometry and Its Applications
When we look each ot her in the ey e we may also receive information of a t elepathic nature. But even if t his isn’t so, w e cannot rule out t he transfer of geometric information from the ocular area of the face.
We can identify s everal p ractical app lications for ophtalmo-geometry in such fields as personal identification, human facial reconstruction, determination of p ersonality traits, objective analys is of emotions and sensations, diagnosis of ps y chiatric and somatic illnesses, ethnic identification, and even the s tudy of human srcins.
1. In terms of personal identification, w e have already obtained convincing evidence that even two out of 22 oph thalmo-geometric p arameters are sufficient to describe personality with a specific number that is uniquely characteristic of a given individual. Statist ical analysis revealed that this unique number recurs at rather precise
intervals w hen repeated computer scanning is done, i.e., it is characteristic for t his individual. I believe that t he accuracy of this “unique op hthalmo-geometric number” ill increase when more ophthalmo-geometric parameters are considered.
When opht halmologic comput er scanning is ap plied for t he purp ose of p ersonal identification, it is very important to ensure t hat the t est subject is calm and stable in order to eliminate the influence of emotional factors as much as possible.
There are two ty pes of p ersonal identification w e know of about: facial photographs and fingerprinting. Ophthalmo-geometric p ersonal identification can be used as an additional method and may p rove helpful in situations when a p erson alters his app earance and mutilates his fingers. It is likely t hat in the fut ure opht halmo-geometric personal identification will be utilized by p olice, military services, banks, and other similar instit utions.
2. We have attempted human facial reconstruction based on ophthalmo-geometric research only a few times. However, the principles of facial reconstruction have been identified rather precisely, and approximate similarity of the reconstructed face to the studied face has been achieved.
Why didn’t we continue this line of research? It so happened that after we reconstructed the face of the person whose eyes were depicted on the walls of Tibetan temples, t he image produced was so interesting that we switched all our efforts to t he study of human srcins. But more about t hat later.
3. T he ophthalmo-geometric determination of an individual’s p ersonality traits may pr ove expedient, for example, in p roviding objective p rofessional testing of pilots, cosmonauts, surgeons, etc. Such testing exists, but it is s ubjective because the results dep end on t he individual conducting the test .
To examine this problem, we selected people with the following clearly manifested qualities: strong will, cowardice, kindness, and meanness. Each group consisted of six people. For example, we knew very well that p eople who were included in the “ strong-willed” group did indeed p ossess this quality. The same was t rue of the “cowardly,” “kind,” and “mean” groups. The ophthalmo-geometric assessment was based on the large and small quadrilaterals.
We discovered that the large and small quadrilaterals of strong-willed people were isosceles and had very similar angular measurements, and the small quadrilaterals fit rather evenly into the large one. In t he “cowardly” group, the large quadrilateral approached the shape of a triangle with t he base on t he bott om; the small one also app roached the sh ape of a t riangle, but with the base on t op. The difference between the tw o groups was so dramatic, it required no statist ical confirmation.
In the “kind” group, the large quadrilateral looked like a rhombus placed on an angle. The small quadrilateral also looked like a rhombus on an angle and fit fairly evenly into the large one. We observed in the “mean” group that the large quadrilateral was moderately flattened and comparatively narrow, and the small one acquired the features of a triangle with the base on t op. The difference between the “kind” and “mean” groups was also very striking.
even these results are very interesting for a number of reasons. First, it app ears that strong-willed peop le are usually kind. Second, cowards tend to be mean (they have the same small quadrilateral), and vice versa: mean people are often cowards.
Obviously, there are many hybrid forms of st rong will, cowardice, kindness, and meanness t hat can be measured by ophthalmo-geometry. O ther p ersonality traits can also be measured.
4. Our objective analysis of human emotions and sensations has so far only skimmed the surface. But even our initial data appears very interesting. What are emotions? There is love, indignation, anger, satisfaction, and on and on. Poets and writers describe human emotions, but doctors rarely p ay any attention t o them when t hey are treating a patient—although an emotional element is always present when an individual is suffering. There is a popular saying in Russian that a mother can cure a child
ith her love.
Is it truly possible for op hthalmo-geometry to measure, for example, the level of love or indignation felt by an individual? I believe this will soon be p ossible by including in our computer analysis a greater number of op hthalmo-geometric p arameters. In t he meantime, while we are able to subject only two out of 22 parameters to analysis, such research is marred by a high degree of inaccuracy.
Sensations, such as pain, discomfort, and heightened energy, can be measured more accurately, even on the basis of the two specified parameters. However, we haven’t had the time to conduct actual research with statistical analysis. After all, we work at a surgical clinic and most of our energy goes into designing and performing operations.
Nevertheless, I would say that op hthalmo-geometric analysis of emotions and sensations can open up new directions not only in medicine, but in other scientific fields as well. It may be of p articular use in ps ychology. I’m sure that in the fut ure ps ychology will utilize mathematical, opht halmo-geometric methods.
5. We conducted diagnostic t esting for p sy chological illness on several patients who had already been diagnosed as schizophrenic. We discovered no p atterns with respect to the large quadrilaterals, but the small quadrilaterals in all the schizop hrenics studied app roached t he form of a t riangle with t he base at t he top .
Of course, w e cannot make a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on variations in t he shape of the small quadrilateral. It is necessary t o st udy more opht halmo-geometric parameters in which, even during an app roximate examination, a number of specific changes is observed—which then require complicated mathematical analysis.
The p rosp ects of using opht halmo-geometry in the diagnosis of mental illness are, in my view, great, given the fact that p sy chiatrists today use p rofoundly s ubjective diagnostic methods based on a doctor ’s subjective evaluation of t he answers given t o his or her diagnostic questions. Subjectivity in this field has generated susp icion throughout t he world as to the p resence of p sy chological illness (as during the Stalinist repressions and in many criminal cases). The introduction of ophthalmo-geometric methods would give doctors additional, objective information that is helpful in the diagnosis of psychological illnesses.
6. We diagnosed somatic (bodily) illnesses by means of ophthalmo-geometry in four p atients wit h cirrhosis of t he liver and in four patients wit h st age one cancer. We ere unable to discover any sp ecific variations in t he shapes of t he large and small quadrilaterals of t he cancer patients. And so w e cannot y et sp eak of diagnosing cancer, much less in its early stages.
However, among the patients with cirrhosis of the liver, we were able to discover a change in the shape of the small quadrilateral into that of a triangle with the base at the t op. Is t his a diagnostic sy mpt om of cirrhosis of the liver? Of course not. We observed the same variation in the shap e of the small quadrilateral in patients with schizophrenia, in individuals with a malicious p ersonality (remember the “mean” group) and in cowards (t he “cowardly” group). So let’s think about t his. In general these individuals are experiencing negativity: a somatic disease (cirrhosis of the liver), a mental illness (schizophrenia) or negative personality traits (meanness, cowardice). From this we can presume that the small quadrilateral is an indicator of negative psychic energy.
As I was researching this, I did not know t hat t he basis of ancient Eastern methods of healing (the t reatment of “internal energy”) lay in ridding the body of negative psy chic energy. At t hat time I couldn’t even imagine that love and symp athy as proselytized in the East are an antidote not only for meanness and cowardice, but for
illness at well. And of course, at that time I could not in my wildest dreams have imagined that ridding the body of negative p sy chic energy could produce t he miracle of samadhi—the preservation of a h uman body in a living state for thousands, even millions, of years.
As for t he diagnosis of somatic illnesses by means of ophthalmo-geometry, I don’t have an answer yet . We must continue our research.
7. The identification of an individual’s ethnicity through the app lication of op hthalmo-geometry has shown that t hese criteria are rather sp ecific. It is p ossible not only to distinguish a Chinese person from a Caucasian, or an African from an Indonesian, according to the shape of the large and small quadrilaterals, but also to isolate more subtle ethnic traits.
We studied t his question in det ail by analyzing individuals of various races. During that analysis it became necessary to study the srcins of man on earth from t he point of view of opht halmo-geometry, but we will discuss that in detail in the next chapt er.
In concluding this chapter on ophthalmo-geometry, I would like to reiterate that we look one another in the ey e not out of simple curiosity, but because we receive from the ey es of our interlocutors information about their emotions and sensations, w hich is reflected in the ocular area of the face in the form of variations in a complex configuration of geometric parameters. Subconsciously, we are able to analyze these geometric figures and to form an impression of the thoughts, heal th, emotions and sensations of those individuals, regardless of what they say. Therefore, if you would like to be an open person without secret thoughts, then always look y our interlocutor in the ey e and don’t w ear sunglasses. You will create the impression of a strong and honest p erson.
Chapter 2 Chapter 2
“Statistically-average Eyes”:
The M igration Paths of Humankind throughout t he World
I ended the last chapter with the idea that ophthalmo-geometry could contribute to the study of races. The question of when human races first appeared is an extremely interesting one. And, in fact, why are peop le who live in different p arts of the w orld different from one another? Are t here laws governing the differences in outward app earance in relation to what part of t he world we inhabit? Where did humankind srcinate? Who are our ancestors?
M any researchers have tried to answ er these quest ions. Some have argued for t he divine origin of man (idealists), while others have p roposed the descent of man from the monkey (Darwinian materialists). A mong researchers in t he latter group are t hose who maintain that the different races of man descended from different sp ecies of apes.
There are many different classifications of the various races. The French scientist Cuvier delineated three races—white, black, and yellow. Diniker (1902) maintained there were 29 different races on earth. T he Encyclopedia Britannica of 1986 listed 16 races, but the most complete and basic classification was, in my opinion, proposed by t he Soviet scientist A rkadii Iarkho (1935, 1936). He described 35 races and accompanied his work with w onderful photographs and drawings of
representatives of those races.
When we began to investigate the races, we made high-quality photocop ies of the photographs and drawings of the representatives of all 35 races from Iarkho’s book and then cut out the ocular area of the face. Next, w ith th e help of a scanner we entered these representations into the comput er and conducted opht halmo-geometric analysis. The ophthalmo-geometric differences among the races turned out to be quite clear, but was it possible to find some mathematical logic in these differences?
Statistically-average Eyes
In att empting to answer th is question, we calculated the statist ically-average eyes from among representatives of all the races. Luckily, the cornea as a const ant allowed us to determine their op hthalmo-geometric p arameters in absolute numbers.
right?!” I exclaimed.
I’d revered Nicholas Roerich as a god of Russian science since childhood. Between 1925 and 1935 he completed several expeditions to Tibet and the Himalayas and the results of those expeditions led him to conjecture that mankind had srcinated in Tibet and from there had sp read throughout the world. Roerich supp orted t his
conjecture by analyzing historical and religious facts.
Our mathematical analy sis of the ey es of various races p roduced statist ically-average ophthalmo-geometric indicators t hat also p ointed to the Tibetan peop le, or race. Was this a coincidence or was there some direct connection here?
While discussing this question, we at tempt ed distribute t he eyes of the various races according to their mathematical proximity to the st atistically-average eyes. A t first w e were unable to do t his as t he op hthalmo-geometric p arameters of t he various races could not be arranged in a st raight line. We were successful only when we began to distribute the eyes of t he various races along four branches leading away from the stat istically-average eyes of the Tibetan race.
In ot her words, four races had app roximately the same degree of mathematical proximity to the ey es of t he Tibetan race. Those four races w ere the Paleo-Siberian, South Asian, Pamir, and the Armenoid.
Unlike the other t hree races, the A rmenoid had a lesser degree of mathematical proximity to the Tibetan race, but without putt ing it n ext t o th e Tibetan race, we were unable to create a sy stem for t he distribution of races according to their mathematical proximity to the st atistically-average eyes.
And so, having isolated four branches, we were able to distribute the various races along them according to their mathematical proximity to the statistically-average eyes, forming a well-ordered sy stem.
We then p laced the p hotographs of the various races on a map of the w orld in precisely thos e places historically inhabited by t hem and then connected th em with lines in relation to the mathematical proximity of t heir eyes along the four above-mentioned branches. T his p roduced an ophthalmo-geometric mapp ing of the migration of humankind across t he earth.
Paths of Human Migration across the Earth
In t his way, based on op hthalmo-geometric data p roduced through dry mathematical analy sis of the various races, we determined that humankind srcinated in Tibet and then spread throughout the world along four basic paths:
• Migration path A: Siberia – America – New Zealand • M igration pat h B: Thailand – Indonesia – Aust ralia • M igration pat h C: Pamir – Africa
In each of these migration p aths from Tibet, t here was a clear dy namic of change in the op hthalmo-geometric p arameters of t he eyes of the various races, determined by the degree of mathematical proximity of t hese parameters to those of the st atistically-average eyes of the Tibetan race. That is, in each of these migration p aths representatives of the various races were placed so t hat t wo neighboring races had the highest possible degree of mathematical proximity to on e another, while the degree of mathematical proximity to the eyes of the Tibetan race decreased the further a race was from Tibet.
So now let’s look as each of these migration paths in greater detail and compare them with some historical facts.
In addition to the Tibetan race, we situated the following races along this longest migration path (Siberia – America – New Zealand): Paleo-Siberian, Ural-Altaic, Laponoid, Baltic, South-Siberian, Central Asian, Eskimo, Manchuran-Korean, Atlantic, South-American, Paleo-American, Patagonian, Pacific, Mesoamerican, and Polynesian.
There are several offshoots from the major branch of ocular variation. According to the degree of ocular variation, we determined that the Laponoid race developed from the U ral-Altaic race and then t he Baltic race developed from t he Laponoid; the Central Asian, Eskimo, and Manchurian-Korean races developed separately from the
South-Siberian race; and the Pacific race developed from the Patagonian race.
I am not a hist orian and so it is difficult for me to evaluate which contemporary nations and ethnic groups belong to which race. I’m just a p rofessor of ey e surgery and it was only scientific logic that led me to touch up on a field that I know only vaguely. Nevertheless, I w ill briefly describe this and ot her migration p aths from Tibet that we determined by oph thalmo-geometric means. I hope that historians won’t consider the inaccuracies I may introduce to be unforgivable.
According to migration p ath A, humankind migrated north from Tibet. N ew living conditions left their mark on t he outw ard app earance of these p eople and, specifically, on the ocular area of the face (Paleo-Siberian race). The Ural-Altaic race, represented today, I believe, by the Altaians and Bashkirs, broke off from the Paleo-Siberian race.
The U ral-Altaic race gave birth t o a non-p roductive western branch that includes t he Laponoid (Lopars) and Baltic races. I believe the Finns t o be representatives of the latter race. Moreover, I do not rule out the possibility that the Baltic race—perhaps, together with the Laponoid—were the ancestors of present-day Tatars, whose eyes I have studied. The Estonians and Hungarians may also belong to t his non-p roductive branch.
The next st age in the p rocess of ocular variation is rep resented by the South-Siberian race, which sp read broadly across the t erritories of Siberia and Kazakhst an. In my opinion, the present-day Kazakhs and many of the peoples of the North (Nentsy, Iakuts, Chukchi, and others) belong to this race. The South-Siberian race produced three independent, non-p roductive branches: the Central Asian, Manchurian-Korean, and Eskimo races. P resent-day Mongols are clearly representatives of the Central
Asian race, while the Nort h Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans evolved from the M anchurian-Korean race. The non-p roductive branch of Eskimos settled t hroughout the territory of Chukotka, A laska, and the nort hern coasts of Canada and Greenland.
The South-Siberian race settled, among other places, on the American continent where it gradually evolved into the Atlantic race (North American Indians). As humans sp read from North to South across t he American continent, t he South American race evolved from the A tlantic race, according to our oph thalmo-geometric data. In my view, the South American race developed somewhere in North America but then, without significant changes, moved to the southern continent. The Paleoamerican race developed from the South American race, and the Patagonian race developed from the Paleoamerican. The Patagonian race then developed from the Paleoamerican and produced the Pacific race, a non-productive branch. The Patagonian race also gave birth, according to our op hthalmo-geometric data, to the Mesoamerican race, which, I believe, moved from South America to t he region of Central America and is represented today by t he Mexicans (May ans, Azt ecs).
According to our sy stem of progressive ocular variation, t he Poly nesian race emerged from the M esoamerican. T he Poly nesians learned to build sailing vessels t hat allowed th em to cross the Pacific Ocean and reach New Zealand. Remember that T hor Hey erdahl proved it was p ossible to cross the Pacific Ocean in a reed boat, the Ra. And so, the absrcines of N ew Zealand arrived—as demonstrated by means of oph thalmo-geometry —not from near-by Aus tralia, but from far-off South America. I also read that the Lo-lo tribe of New Zealand traveled to Tibet, closing the circle of migration.
Does our ophthalmo-geometric scheme align with the historical facts? Historians, as a rule, evaluate nations and ethnic groups according to peculiarities of language and culture. But, it seems to me, this is not sufficient. A language can be borrowed during close contact with another people. For example, Russian became the dominant—if not the only—language for many of the smaller peoples of Russia. Today one may encounter representatives of the Chuvash, Mordva, Komi, and other peoples, who sp eak only Russian and consider Russian t heir native language. The culture of a p eople also changes when it is in close contact with another p eople. The quest ion of race and ethnicity is extremely complicated and muddled. Nevertheless, we will attempt to draw several parallels.
In M oscow I came across a F inn and a Japanese man and invited them both t o p articipate in a discussion about the srcin of p eoples. The t all, blond Finn and the short, dark-haired Japanese man sat down and looked at each other with interest, undoubt edly t hinking about where they came from.
“Well,” I said, beginning the conversation, “Through a detailed mathematical study of the eyes of various races, we’ve been able to conclude that you, a Finn and a Japanese man, have the same evolutionary srcin. Please, look at one another and try to find something in common.”
The F inn and the J apanese man stared at one anot her, clearly try ing to find some common traits unt il finally, they broke into friendly laughter. “T here’s not hing in common between us,” said the Jap anese man, “except maybe that we’re both p eople.”
“Don ’t rush,” I continued. “There were four branches of development for the various races,” I explained, “You bot h belong to the s ame original branch. Look at this ophthalmo-geometric map of t he migration of humans from Tibet. T he first branch has several migratory offshoot s. One of t hose offshoot s ends w ith y ou, the F inns— members of t he Baltic race—and another with y ou, t he Japanese—members of t he Manchurian-Korean race. But y ou come from the same srcinal branch. Just look! And so y ou should be able to find some common traits—although they may be hidden for they ’re very ancient. List some simple, everyd ay w ords—like fire, water, sky, earth, home, woman, etc.—you may find some similarities or common root s. A long the same lines, try to f ind some parallels in t he ancient—very ancient— customs of the Japanese and Finns.”
The Finn and t he Japanese man then launched into a fascinating conversation in broken Russian that lasted about tw o hours. I tried at first to w rite down t he Finnish and Japanese words with common roots and to make sense of the similarities between their ancient customs, but I had to give up. T he two men were so carried away they didn’t pay much attention to me and rarely paused when I asked them to write down a word, and so it is difficult for me, after many years, to re-construct this conversation.
“Look at that,” said the livelier Japanese man, “We actually have things in common. We are ancient blood relations.”
“You know what else?” said the Finn, “you need to spread the word about your research. It will help the cause of world peace. Everyone thinks that the Aryan race is sup reme, but this J apanese man and I found similarities in our languages and even in our cust oms. I now look at t his man as my blood relation, although we don’t look anything alike.”
“Tell me, do y ou t hink it’s pos sible to find similarities between me and an African?” asked the Japanese man. “Probably not , but it’s pos sible to find similarities between an African and a Pamirian.” I replied.
Of course, I can’t vouch for the scientific nature of t he conversation between the F inn and the Japanese man. However, the fact t hat they actually discovered many things in common is very interesting. Unfort unately, I was unable to conduct any controlled st udies of p eople from different developmental branches, for example, an African and a Japanese person.
The hy pothesis as to t he Asiatic srcins of A merican Indians and t he American srcins of t he absrcines of New Zealand, as w ell as t he close contacts between the indigenous p eoples of Chukot ka and Alaska, may p roduce other historical parallels t hat would confirm the p ath of human migration we p roposed.
Naturally, the object of our study, with its roots in t he very distant p ast, is debatable. Here, more than in any other field, it is difficult to find direct evidence. But despit e that, I will continue to elaborate other p aths of human migration as suggested by ophthalmo-geometric research.
We discovered that the following races developed along the South-Eastern path of migration in the following sequence: South-Asian, Papuan, Melanesian,
Veddo-Indonesian, and Australian. One off-shoot occurred from t his basic line of ocular variation: the Asian-Pygmy race developed from t he Papuan race and in t urn t he Dravidian and A inu races d eveloped from the Asian-Py gmy race.
Migration Path B
According to our proposed migration path B, human beings migrated in the very distant p ast from Tibet to the South East. T he natural living conditions influenced the outer appearance of these people and as a result the South-A sian race app eared. I believe that race is represented t oday by Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and the South Chinese.
Sett lement on southern islands—i.e., the Phillipines and Indonesia—led to t he app earance of the P apuan race, which then p roduced the Asian-Py gmy race also in Indonesia.
The way we understand it, the Pap uans and Py gmies represented the height of human savagery. I was in Indonesia but never had any contact wit h p ure-blooded Py gmies or Papuans, so I cannot judge their intellectual capabilities. No one know s wh at t he Py gmies and P apuans w ere like in ancient t imes. Perhaps, t hey were fully developed for that time, and the regression and increased savagery of t hese people occurred later.
According to our op hthalmo-geometric data, the A sian-Pygmy race generated two independent off-shoot s—the D ravidian and the A inu races. T he Dravidian race is represented t oday, in my est imation, by the p eople of Southern India. When I was in India, I noticed that the inhabitants of Southern India look noticeably different from the inhabitants of the North. They are darker-skinned, their hair is curly and their eyes are completely different. It appears to me that the Tibetans are the ancestors of the N orthern Indians, while the Dravidians are the ancestors of the Southern Indians.
Migration Path B
At a conference I was att ending in India, I asked a doctor w ho had all the t raits of t he Dravidian race: “Do y ou know where the t ribes of Southern India came from?” “They say that my ancestors came to India from the Polynesian Islands,” he answered. “That fits,” I remarked.
At the same conference I met an Indian doctor w ho had all the traits of t he Tibetan race. “Excuse me,” I said, “I noticed that the Nort hern Indians look different from the Southern Indians. What do y ou think—did the p eople of Southern India come to India or did th ey always live here?”
“I cannot say for sure,” he replied, “but the Southern Indians, it seems, came to India from somewhere else a long, long time ago.” “But you,” I continued, “look like a native of Northern India. Did y our ancestors also come to India from somewhere else?” “We always lived here,” he answered.
He’s actually right, I t hought. Tibet and Northern India border one another.
According to our ophthalmo-geometric data, the Asian-Py gmy t ribe, mentioned above, also p roduced the Ainu race. The Ainu t oday inhabit t he north of Japan and look st rikingly different from other J apanese. When I was in J apan, I managed t o find a native Jap anese Ainu and talk to him.
“Are you Ainu,” I asked. “No, I’m Japanese.”
“Yes.”
“Do you remember what your people say about the srcins of the Ainu? Where did they come from?”
s
“My people—and there aren’t many of us left—say that our ancestors built ships and sailed here from far-off Polynesia,” answered the Ainu, whose appearance was so different from that of the ethnic Japanese.
Again I cannot answer for t he scientific rigor of my conversation with the A inu, just as I can’t for my conversations with t he Southern and Northern Indians. The evidence I gathered from individuals is not scientific truth . It must be confirmed. The last w ord must be left to the hist orians. But even t hese individual coincidences are interesting insofar as t hey relate t o our ophthalmo-geometric migration p attern out of Tibet.
M igration path B ends in Aus tralia. The ey es of t he Aust ralian Absrcines look very different from those of the indigenous p eople of New Z ealand, but, based on t he patterns of op hthalmo-geometric variation, they bot h clearly belong to M igration path B as independent end points . Therefore, if we believe our ophthalmo-geometric
mapp ing, t he Aust ralian Absrcines arrived in Australia from the Poly nesia Islands, but were unable to sail across the bay and reach New Zealand. T he ancestors of New Zealand’s indigenous peop le, on the other hand, succeeded in crossing the Pacific Ocean but were also unable to cross the bay and so did not sett le in Australia.
Aust ralia is a very ancient continent. Some scientists believe that A ustralia is what remains of t he legendary At lantis and that its unique flora and fauna remain unchanged from the t ime of Atlantis. T here are many indigenous t ribes in Aust ralia. It is p ossible that s ome of them came to Aust ralia from Polyn esia (according to our ophthalmo-geometric mapp ing), but that ot hers remain from the t ime of the ancient continent of At lantis. But more about t hat later.
Migration Path C Migration Path C
According to the degree of mathematical proximity of their eyes, the following races developed along migration path C: Pamirians, Ethiopians, Africans, African Py gmies, and t he Bushmen. The Pamirian race produced a single off-shoot , th e North Caucasoids.
This is the darkest skinned branch of human migration from Tibet. We determined t hat t he Pamirian races, which t oday is represented, in my view, by the Tadjiks and other p eoples of Pamir, p roduced the black-skinned races (Ethiop ians, Africans, African-Pygmies, and Bushmen). T he Pamirian races also generated t he Nort h Caucasoids who are represented now by the many different peoples of the Caucasus.
Why did this migration path produce black-skinned people? We cannot exclude the influence of climatic factor in altering skin color. For example, in migration path B skin color changed from yellow (Tibetan race) to brown (Australian race), and in an off-shoot of the Papuan race, skin color became almost black (Dravidian race). However, the dark skin of the inhabitants of t he African continent may have a different srcin, put forward in the hy pot hesis that humankind developed in parallel in Africa, where people were always dark-skinned. It is p ossible that t here was a mingling of t he Tibetan and A frican sources of man.
M oreover, several literary sources t estify to t he fact t hat t he previous civilization of At lantis was divided between y ellow and black-skinned p eople. Are Africans the descendants of the once powerful black Atlanteans? It is difficult for us to answer this question, but in the following chapters, when I discuss the mysterious civilization of At lantis in greater detail, the reader will be provided with many interesting ideas and facts on the subject.
Migration Path D
Along this migration p ath, according to our op hthalmo-geometric data, t he following races developed: A rmenoid, Dinaric, which produced an off-shoot , t he Alp ine race, and the Nort h Armenoid, which produced an off-shoot, the M editerranean race.
However, according to t he mathematical proximity of t he eyes, t he Tibetan race along this migration p ath is furt her from the A rmenoid race that it is from any of races closest to it in the t hree previous migration paths, t he Paleo-Siberian, South-Asian, and Pamirian. And so, w e assumed that t here must be another race between the Tibetan and A rmenoid races that was not included in Iarkho’s classification. But what w as this race?
I have been to Iran several times and was amazed at t he fundamentalist Islamic customs, carried t o t he point of absurdity : someone can be arrested during Ramadan for eating before sunset and women walk around in 100 degree heat wearing double-layered hijaps, which cover everything but their eyes. The Iranians with their dark hair and rather dark skin resemble Azerbaidjanis more than anyone else. But from time to time you’ll come across a rather light-skinned blond or red head.
“Who are these fair-haired people,” I once asked an Iranian ophthalmologist. “T hey’re Persians,” he replied.
“But aren’t Persians dark-haired and dark-skinned?”
“In Iran,” he explained, “about 40% of t he population is made up of Azerbaidjanis. There’s also a large percentage of Kurds, Baluchis, and other ethnic p eoples. But the indigenous Persians are light-skinned. True, many have intermarried with other ethnic groups, but the t rue Persians look different from the ot her p eoples of Iran.” I remember reading somewhere—I don’t remember where—that Hitler considered the Persians to be closely related by blood to the Aryan race (meaning the German people) and in order to re-invigorate German blood, he organized marriages between Persians and Germans. Could it be that Hitler was right and the Germans and
Persians belonged to the same developmental branch?
While in Iran examining patients, I met with a red-headed Persian, the mother of a child I was t reating. “Are y ou one hundred p ercent Persian?” I asked. “Yes. Why do you ask?”
“We, Persians, like other ethnic groups, t ry to p reserve our ethnicity.” “Would you allow me to photograph your eyes?”
“Why would you need to do that?”
“In or der to see if there’s any relationship t o y our son’s eyes,” I lied, knowing that in an Islamic country the act of p hotographing someone’s ey es might be t aken the rong way.
I p hotographed her eyes and w hen I returned to Russia I subjected them to op hthalmo-geometric analy sis. These ey es had app roximately the op hthalmo-geometric parameters that would p lace them, according to t heir degree of mathematical proximity, between the Tibetan and Armenoid races.
The ey es of t his randomly encountered woman cannot be compared to t he ph otographs of ty pical representatives of t he various races in Iarkho’s classification. Nevertheless, they allow us t o sup pose that there once existed and still exists a Persian race, which produced—according to our opht halmo-geometric mapping—the
Armenoid race. If such a sup position is true, migration
path D p roceeds in a precise line according to t he mathematical proximity of the eyes of th e various races.
According to our op hthalmo-geometric map of human migration, the P ersians belong to migration p ath D, while the other p eoples of Iran belong to migration p ath C. That is, they belong to different branches of development, which is evidently reflected in differences in t heir app earance.
And s o, according to our data, the P ersians p roduced the Armenoid race (Armenians), which in turn p roduced the Dinaric race, in which scholars p lace the South Slavs
(Ukrainians, Yugoslavs, and others). In addition, the Armenoid race produced a non-productive off-shoot, the Mediterranean race, which includes, I believe, Italians,
Greeks, Spaniards, Rumanians, Georgians, Jews, Arabs and, in p art, Turks.
The Dinaric race produced the Alpine race (French, in part, Spaniards, and Italians) and the Nordic race (Germans, English, Dutch, Norwegians, Icelanders, and Swedes). This migration path passed through Tian-Shan, the Caucasus, Europe, and the Mediterranean, and ended, evidently, in Iceland, where the Vikings of Nordic Europe settled. Religions ap peared much later, which is w hy within a single race there may be many religions. The count less wars in t his region led to t he periodic domination of some languages and the disappearance of others, as a result of which language has to a great extent lost its significance as a marker of race. So different in appearance are present-day Armenians from other European peoples, it is probably strange for many to think that, according to our
ophthalmo-geometric data, the Armenoid race generated so many of the peoples of Europe. But there is a belief among Armenians that in ancient times Armenians were fair-haired and blue-ey ed; the present-day app earance of Armenians came about as a result of int ermarriage with ot her peop les of the Caucasus.
In addition t o t he Europeans (Dinaric, Nord ic, and Alpine races), the Armenoid race, according to our ophthalmo-geometric mapp ing, also p roduced the M editerranean race, which sett led around the M editerranean sea and generated, what seem to me to be the most varied p eoples, including the Italians and Arabs—two peop les that app ear to be very different. T hey have different languages and different religions, but their eyes are related. I cannot confirm this, but I believe they are biologically the same. Linguistic and religious differentiation occurred later.
Incidentally, Northern Italians look different from Southern Italians due to the fact t hat, in my estimation, Southern It alians are pure representatives of the M editerranean race, while Northern Italians are the p roduct of intermarriage among the Mediterranean, Northern, and Alpine races.
The D inaric race, which also came out of t he Armenoid race, is represented t oday in the op inion of scholars by the Southern Slavs (U krainians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, and ot hers). However, the largest Slavic people—the Russians—differ in app earance from the t yp ical representatives of the Dinaric race, such as t he Serbs and Croats.
Who are the Russians? I have studied the eyes of Russians and, based on their op hthalmo-geometric characteristics, I can say t hat Russians are most p robably t he product of intermarriage of the Dinaric with t he Lapenoid and Baltic races (Tatars, Komi, Finns, Estonians, etc.), that is, with races from an entirely different branch of
development—migration p ath A .
The D inaric races p roduced, according to our mapp ing, t he Alpine race (French, Nort hern Spaniards, etc.) and t he Nordic race (Germans, English, Swedes, and ot hers). Therefore, the closest “ blood relations” t o t he French, Germans, and English, are in fact the Slavs. This p roves Hitler was wrong, as he thought t he Slavs represented an inferior branch in human evolution, subject to extermination, while the Persians were blood relations. But the Slavs and the Persians belong to the same line of development—migration p ath D .
The Jewish P henomenon
The J ews, with their roots in the Sinai peninsula (the promised land), belong to the M editerranean race. Therefore, their closest blood relations are Arabs, Greeks, Southern It alians, and Spaniards.
However, this people exhibits extreme variation in p hys ical app earance, ranging from blond-haired European Jews t o dark-skinned Ethiopian Jews. Why is this so? The J ewish people lost its land relatively recently and as a consequence Jews sett led all over the w orld, preserving their ethnic identity by means of a religious prohibition on inter-marriage. This prohibition, of course, was not respected one hundred percent of the time; nevertheless we cannot deny its effect. And so it is baffling that, in the face of the successful preservation of the Jewish people and their part icular traditions, there should be such wide variation in the app earance of
Jews who have been geographically dispersed. Burkharian Jews look like Uzbeks, Jews from the Caucasus look like the p eoples of the Caucasus, German Jews look like Germans, Moroccan Jews, like Moroccans, Ethiopian Jews, like Ethiopians, and so on. Intermarriage, which did to some extent occur, cannot have had a very great influence on the app earance of the Jews. If it had, the J ewish people would have been assimilated.
The answer t o t his question, as I see it, lies in bio-field contact among people of different ethnicities, which exerted a mutual influence on the out ward traits of t he ethnic groups in question. T his idea first occurred to me when I read the works of Dr. A. V. Tszian of Khabarovsk, who studied the bio-fields of the living embryos of animals, birds, and seeds. By exposing the egg of a chicken to the bio-fields of a duck, Dr. Tszian was able to create a chicken with the webbed feet of a duck. In the same way, he was able to p roduce a cucumber-squash, an app le-pear, and ot her similarly genetically hy brid sp ecies.
From that , we can assume, for example, that Bukharian Jews slowly acquired the p hy sical traits of the Uz beks due not only t o the occasional intermarriage, but t o the bio-field influence of the Uzbeks on the Jews, and vice versa, during the embryonic stage of development. According to this principle, the dark-skinned Ethiopians,
fair-haired Germans and olive-skinned Caucasians probably exerted an influence on the appearance of the Jews.
Naturally, the bio-field transfer of genetic information does not involve all areas of the human body, such as the functioning of the brain, heart, liver, etc., but it can exert a real influence on external traits. T his hy pothesis, of course, requires experimental confirmation, but in the fut ure when science has studied the effects of bio-fields
