Infertility in America; what races have the most of it, and why?

So maybe you've been inspired by my last few posts on children and are thinking down the lines of your fertility. . .
Seeing in "Are childless and/or non breastfeeding woman with children selfish for their choice?" that there is every reason in the world to get pregnant and have kids. And in my post: "Kids don't need a manual, they need an "attached", bonded mother!" you might be realizing that they aren't as tricky to raise (at least at first) as books and the old generation would lead you to think.
So now you may want to be pregnant, but sadly, you may find yourself a statistic who can't get pregnant. Statistics say that 12 percent of couples struggle with infertility in this country.
That said, the stats would actually be much higher taking a few things into account. . .for instance, if you are under 35, (the perfect age for bearing children) you are considered normal to have to try for a whole year before seeking help for infertility!

Let's presume in that time you might be having some miscarriages, or you would be pregnant everytime you  ovulated, like other mammals.  I got to thinking about this from an evolutionary perspective the other day; why, of all the animals in the world, do (seemingly) only humans have fertility issues? Hybrid animals also have infertility issues mind you. (And of course, if we have the blood of the aliens (O-) and animals (A and/or B and +) in our veins, we would be considered a hybrid. As I discussed quite a bit in the early posts of my series on the aliens, the original gods, and those of their bloodline seemed to have unnatural conceptions, (i.e. Jesus) or issues with fertility (the Jewish patriarch's wives all needed help from "God" to conceive).

 If a person isn't aware of their fertility signs though, their body may be unknowingly both ovulating and naturally aborting half of their offsprings -due to a recessive RH- in their blood, which no one tests for. And if you are the blood of the aliens, and religiously believe their "spirit" is in you, that could be a big deal, depending on when you believe the spirit goes into the baby. It has been a big deal to me in the past as a Christian believing that "the breath of life"/ being the Spirit, begins at conception. I go with a different theory now though. That the light at the end of the tunnel is actually your re-birth. Jesus spoke of the process of being born again, and I think this may be what he was in reference to. As a Spirit's host body of flesh dies, they go into the body of another host as they are being born. Thus being born again!

Anyhow, back to this theory of the white bloodline being hybrids. . .this could be evidenced by a considerably higher rate of infertility in whites then other minorities. Although color does not necessarily show bloodtype or if you are a hybrid of the god's creation anymore because of the mixing of races these days, if there was a high level of infertility in whites over other minorities, it would certainly be cause to suspect the theory is right. . .

In America the statistics would be confusing with the slight mixing of say blacks and whites, not always being obvious, as well as the diet and consequently obesity levels of the poorer minorities leading to hormonal and health issues that effect fertility. But putting that aside for now, one study of infertile couples showed that out of 756 patients, 85.2% were white, 10.2% were black, and 4.4% were other. (And that was 12 years ago when the obesity levels were lower, and the food was better!)

 Another key issue in messing up the stats in America some say could be that the minorities that may be seeking help from expensive fertility doctors are either on a state medical insurance, (that is more likely to encourage sterilization then seeking help for infertility if you are poor) or may not be able to afford the suggested help, so are unlikely to go in for treatment. (The exceptions would be the middle class or rich minorities. These are the non typical, that don't fit in with the minority stereotypes at all. My guess is that like Obama, they are a mixed breed, with RH- or O blood in their family tree.)

So I would suggest we go deeper, say, back to the less mixed Africans in Africa, to find out what true infertility rates actually are.

Some differentiate between preventable and health related infertility as "secondary infertility", while the genetic or unexplained infertility is deemed "primary infertility".  According to the World Health Organization taskforce that conducted a study of 8504 couples in 33 countries in Africa:

"While primary infertility is [much] higher in other regions of the world, secondary infertility is more common in Africa". Even without a previous history of pelvic inflammatory disease or STDs many of these woman had tubal diseases and infections. "African infections are common due to inadequate health services, improper use of antibiotics, and penicillin-resistant strains of gonorrhea." (Not to mention unsanitary conditions, Aids, sleeping around without access to protection, etc. . .)

Source

 True "primary infertility", where treatment is actually being sought out, is very uncommon for developing nations, (that have little to no mixing from the alien bloodline) from what I have read. So while different risk factors like STD's, poor diets and unsanitary conditions for some "races" has seemingly made the stats closer to even, (especially in this mixed up country) the truly unexplained cases of infertility seem to be predominantly for the whites. This certainly seems to answer the question of which race has infertility the most, and probably even why. . .but I feel like I need to bring out a few other points.

So, is it just me, or are the even semi healthy eating, middle class and/or functioning minority families over run with kids!? Maybe there's a reason that with their added fertility the minorities are even with many large families, and high rates of twins, they are having the most abortions and their kids are ending up in the foster system in droves. . .Is it really just about money? It would seem to me that large functioning families that want kids would make due with small spaces and being on wic, foodstamps, etc, and make a way in this affluent country where handouts are easy to find.

 Tax breaks, public schools, libraries to homeschool, government housing, heating/cooling help, and food programs, as well as community/church clothing and food pantries also all make having more kids really very, very cheap, and even a benefit these days! 

Unless you are stressing over money for private school, college, music lessons or the like, (which is almost unheard of in poor neighborhoods where hordes of kids run wild in the streets) then there should be no reason why a responsible and healthy mother in a stable relationship should be needing regular abortions, at the expense of the tax payer. . .and yet, according to stats, blacks and Hispanics are having a lot! While whites are doing most of the adopting and fostering of their children. Why would the minorities be seeking to ditch their hordes on anyone else? Maybe partially because they have what is considered by white society, "too many kids", and they feel that they are just using up resources!

Hey, I'm not personally saying any number is too many, (if you have the patience, support, time and the money to care for them) as I have 4 and am pregnant with number 5 myself. . . "I wouldn't have a leg to stand on" if I started to "cast stones" at large, responsible families. Unfortunately, I see a lot of abuse in childraising these days. Is some of it stemming from the younger age of puberty because of the hormones in foods in this country? While that may play a part I'm sure, but it seems to me that a lot of the abuse and  abortions stem from the mothers abusive upbringing in a poor, dysfunctional family.

 Minorities also just naturally have earlier puberty, one of the many differences I believe I discussed in my popular post: The difference in our blood, and what it means. Part 3, with minorities hitting puberty younger then whites by at least a year or two, sometimes up to 4, this lends itself to problems. . .

While adoption or fostering may be an option to these young girls finding themselves pregnant out of wedlock, often those who grew up in the system themselves, (only to be abused) feel that an abortion would have been a better end for them. So not wanting to send their own children to that fate, and going by the golden rule, when they find themselves pregnant, (at sometimes as young as 10) they feel they are ill prepared to either emotionally or physically deal with the pregnancy or the birth. Usually on top of that, they are scared of what it would mean for their school work, chance of a job, having life goals, etc.  Raising the child without a supportive family, (which is often rare) they know would be impossible, so having no hope of keeping the pregnancy, much less the child afterwards, they choose the best of two evils.

 I think unreadiness to take on a family, dysfunctional and abusive families, and the high fertility rate associated with young minority girls are all good reasons for the high abortion rate in minorities. All in all, in this country it seems that they (mostly single woman) are less able to handle the large families, or any kids at all! Mind you, much of that can be blamed on their expectations of fitting in with this white culture, something that they did not evolve to do, nor should they want to do. 

Also, the dehumanizing of black males, (as passed down from father to son by example from their slavery days) no doubt played a major part that led to a breakdown of the family unit. (I'm not just generalizing or judging them, but their divorce rate in this country is horrible, even considering that half of them never officially marry!) If they got back to their roots, and how their culture and families looked like in Africa, they would do fine I'm sure with large families though. 

In the mean time, those who desperately want kids, are mature enough, have enough money, would make great parents, etc, struggle with having kids. While those who don't want them, and are too young, have neither education, money, or support for them, are over run by them. Is it fair? Well, I had to learn this bitter truth in my own struggles with infertility: "life isn't fair", but for your own sanity, you've just got to believe, that it will all turn out in the end for the best. . .or as the Christians like to say, "All things work together for good. . ."

Kids don't need a manual, they need an "attached", bonded mother!

I love to research and plan, so it might not shock you to hear that when I was expecting my first baby, (and found that I had a rare and unusual issue called an irritable uterus, making me practically bedridden a lot of the pregnancy) I used every spare moment to read all the baby books I could get my hands on. I lived in close proximity to a library in the first half of my pregnancy, and when I moved mid pregnancy, I made good use of two large ones near my new house too.

 Sadly, after reading about all the silly things I should avoid, (hot baths, too much salt, high reaching, getting up too fast. . .) as well as every possible pregnancy symptom, birth complication, pain drug and hospital routine I would be subjected to at birth (in the hospital that I was unfortunately forced to give birth in), I anticipated a really horrible time.

Furthermore, being prepared by reading about all the possible and rare breastfeeding issues, and how to prepare for and protect your breasts from breastfeeding, as well as wearing the right clothes, putting a pin on each side after they're emptied, and only feed for a certain amount of time. . . I concluded that feeding this stranger was going to be the hardest thing next to birth that I will ever have to do! (As opposed to the natural process that it was when left alone.)

 I was made to feel insecure and petrified in just about every way as a parent. I was told I shouldn't listening to my instincts, and instead listen to the pediatrician. (Which advice I had thrown out by my second child thankfully, or she would be dead!) I was instructed to schedule babies feedings, time and schedule awake and sleep times, (never sleeping with baby, as that would be UNSAFE!) micromanaging by baby as if she had no say in the matter. To say the least, she was a miserable baby, who cried so much I thought it must be colic. . .until I saw how good she was for other people. . .

  In pregnancy I also read about the theory of classical music building the brain, and reading and singing to the baby in the womb doing so with one child. Some books even taught me to use brain building black and white patterns and face flash cards at certain times, and done in a certain way to educate the baby. Then there is baby sign language, which while teaching one form of communication, some suspect it sets back talking, with the lack of need. It never connected in my mind that like the book says, "Einstein never used flashcards".

 I did all that junk with only my second child. . . and later I realized that they were all just as brilliant as her, and she had no memory of what a regime I put her and myself through while she was in the womb. (If anything, this was my least brilliant child, only scoring in the 98th percentile in academics, instead of the 99th like her other two siblings.)

 Instead of reading the books or evidence showing the research of what is actually proven to build the brain, or IQ (like a healthy diet, frequent "kangaroo care" touch and extended nursing), I believed I could try really hard and school the smarts into my child. I wasn't told that genetics are really the most important thing connected to a higher IQ.

Then there were the books and mothers from the last generation that all pretty much agreed that giving too much attention and holding would make the baby spoiled. So when the baby acted like they didn't want you to put them down, discipline or at least distraction methods were always suggested. And never giving in to their crying was the key. (Of course this mentality stemmed from the belief that they had a sin nature. . .)

The books said that they needed to be taught to not need you by forcing them to use a pacifier from an early age. It was called a "plug" at times because, like using duct tape, all the pacifier did was basically shut the baby temporarily up. Making it hopefully forget why it needed you. Some cultures call it a "dummy" partially because it makes the baby literally "dumb", and partially because it is a replacement of mom. It is a poor substitute, and just like formula, many babies refuse it. Yet, we know that babies and young children need to suck, not just for food, but for security and comfort. . .so the mother has the same choice as she did with formula in the older generation, be uncouth to society and nurse for comfort and to sleep, or use a "pacifier".


Whether moms know it or not though, needing a pacifier is a sign that the baby needs security, as it is not getting it from it's mom. "Pacifiers" can be found in many forms, from a thumb, to a blanket or doll. The closer the attachment to the object(s), the more security the child needs and derives from the replacement mother. (Which is a poor replacement too might I add.)

 So, while it is rare to find a breastfed baby nursing even occasionally for comfort (in any part of the world) past 3 or 4, we many times see older children with blankets, or sucking their thumbs.  I have even seen adults who suck their thumbs, usually in their sleep! Don't ever let anyone tell you that is normal or natural for a child or adult to do this. . ."security blankets" special dolls, or a dependence of pacifiers or thumb sucking to get calm or to sleep are all obvious signs of insecurity, and neediness in a child or adult. (And yes, this is a personal testimony. . .)

 I was reading a lot of old books in libraries (that should be burned!) and I was being taught some very old (religion based) ideas from most of the older woman in my life, who had no idea of the bad science or consequences their suggestions and advice had on the mental health of babies. . . so in ignorance, I too went blissfully on, believing that I was well read and ready when it came time to birth my first little girl. . .but now I know how wrong I was! 

One thing I have learned, through much trial and error though, is that if you try something, and it feels wrong, stop it! Thankfully I listened to my instincts FIRST as a new mother, probably because of my lack of trust in my authority, thanks to the "training" I had as a baby. It is honestly probably the one thing I did right with my firstborn! At first though I tried every bit of doctor or old lady advice, but usually stopped it within a week or less as I saw what it was doing to my daughter.

Traditionally, mothers didn't need to be told how to give birth, or be a mother, they simply needed support in doing what they instinctively knew to do. Instinct tells all animals how it's done, and we are no exception! What started the confusion? Male Doctors of course.

 First they told us that pregnancy was a disease, birth was an emergency, and sleeping with our children was the reason for the spread of diseases, and death. . . While there were some diseases that spread, (causing much fear) the diseased germs almost invariably originated out of dietary deficiencies and unsanitary conditions. So while being close to your family did spread it to them, it didn't justify living in quarantine from them indefinitely! Especially your needy baby!!

  The Christian religious community readily picked up on this fear of rolling over on your baby, as their favorite book the Bible spoke of a story of a mother rolling over on her newborn son. (Never mind the fact that the woman was a harlot, sleeping with another woman who had a baby. She was likely a drunk, with a poor little malnurished baby. . .which most of the bad stats for rolling over on babies comes from being drunk even today.)

Oh, but that wasn't all, the (religiously biased) doctors told mothers that they weren't animals, and didn't need to feed their babies a "primitive milk", when they could give them their convenient scientific "formula". (More "snake oil" peddling for profit. . .and man is it expensive!)  It was marketed as more sanitary, and "civilized" in our Victorian society. No woman of society would dare show herself feeding her baby from her body in public in the past.  It was a shame and not acceptable, associated with the poor and dirty . . .similar to going topless as a woman in our culture now.

  Formula was also freeing to the feminist business women who wanted to, or had to, work away from home.  Though sometimes out of desperation the woman would feel ripped away from her baby because of work, but too often, the mother couldn't wait to get back to work! Many times the lacking maternal desire that would cause such a mindset towards their baby and role as caregiver though stemmed from the drugged up births, and the consequent lack of bonding that they had. This experience, often exacerbated by the formula feeding, schedules, control and discipline they were taught to do after the baby was out, caused a disconnect with feeling like mom, or even a resentment towards the baby for slowing them down, or ruining their figure or lifestyle.

Lastly, doctors were the origin of the myth of the spoiled baby. Mothers were told that if they picked up their crying baby, or spent too much time holding them, you were spoiling your child, and they would learn to be dependent and clingy. . .(whereas doctors like Dr. Sears have noted that those who were raised with attachment parenting methods were yes, clingier at first, but ended up the most appropriately independent, confident and trusting children by age 2 or so.) Consequently, inventions were made to entertain, swaddle, rock and distract the baby from what it really wanted and needed. . .mom! A fortune has been made, and spent on these unnecessary contraptions, that babies rarely like much anyhow, and yet parents keep buying them!

Mothers even still today get so prepared for babyhood being a miserable chore, that a goldmine has opened up even besides the toys, pacifiers, swings, bouncers, jolly jumpers, etc. . .that of child-raising classes and baby books! And yet, in other countries, colicky, crying, and miserable "spoiled" babies are not hardly seen. . .while having little or no access to baby books or classes.  As a matter of fact, it is well known that "African babies don't cry!" It is rare to see a young crying baby in most of Africa, look it up! (A few places have some cruel practices of force feeding solids while plugging the nose of the baby or of circumcising both male and females though mind you . .both of which cause crying.) If a baby is crying for more then a few seconds, the mothers quickly step in to help or give disapproving looks. This I saw in Africa for myself in the cultures untouched by white man. You see, in native cultures, babies are carried, nursed on demand and through the night because they sleep with mom. . .and consequently they are happy.

The problem is, we live in a culture that has taught woman to go against her gut feelings to nurture and do what she knows to do. Consequently then we have whole books written just to fix what should have never been a problem if women hadn't been told the bad advice in the first place.

It is not hard to have a happy baby when you are going with your natural instincts to mother them. That may seem like a huge blanket statement, but I ask you, if you had an issue with breastfeeding, and it wasn't a rare issue of tongue tied baby or flat nipples, (both of which are fixed with support and care from a lactation consultant.) could it have been a bad birth experience/drugs at birth, pumping/separation from baby, bad positioning because of bad advice, or a rigid schedule that may have caused the lack of milk, the engorgement, or the pain and problems?

Or if your baby was "colicky", could it be that you were giving them formula that didn't digest well (which is all of them) or trying to control them with a schedule and they were just saying that they weren't tired, or were hungrier then the schedule allowed time for eating in? They also may have been suffering from the mental trauma of a bad birth, that we know now greatly effects babies in the first few months. Also if the baby wasn't carried much, most babies will be fussy about the disorienting feeling of going from the movement of the womb to being still.

Bonded mothers want to breastfeed, sleep close, and carry their babies. . . usually in a carrier or sling. But bad breastfeeding advice can even make bonded moms stop holding baby (probably because her back kills from improper nursing positions). Consequently, the baby requires more movement, white noise (like a heart beat teddy, ocean noises, shhing sounds or just plain loud sounds) and just plain comfort to replace the secure feeling it was use to in the womb.  Babies who aren't carried are unsettled, like a sailor trying to get it's land legs again after being out to sea for a while.

 If you give the baby the honor of a natural birth, (in an uncontrolled homey setting) you and he/she will have the natural bonding and desire for a host of other things. Breastfeeding doesn't go well when you are sore, tired, drugged and angry at baby for a miserable birth.  To make matters worse, even when you feel bonded with a good birth,  immediate force feeding baby after birth, instead of letting them lead, as well as hard positions on mom's back, only stress out and hurt mom, and hinder milkflow.

Laying down, (side or back) or reclined far back is natural and then baby is in control. No hands involved! I learned that from sheer laziness, and ease, and came to find out that it was a "NEW position" called "Biological nursing" that the best lactation consultants were just starting to teach.  Umm, it's been around as long as mothers weren't told how to nurse. Babies nurse from any angle, and can even crawl over the shoulder when they are older. It all works. The breast is like the face of a clock in the right position, and the baby is safe, and in control the whole time.

Then of course, baby is colder (or sometimes hotter) then it's become use to in the womb. . . proper temperature regulation is hard for a baby when you aren't there to sleep beside him/her. So you can swaddle, (making the baby feel helpless to change it's hot situation) or put a heated rice pack on or beside the baby to warm them. But while temporarily helping, you often find a very sweaty baby when they wake up. The other extreme being a cold baby who has kicked off the covers, and is unable to sleep long that way. Both are fixed by baby sleeping with mom.

So, how can you have a happy, secure and trusting baby that grows up to feel loved, while respecting your authority, all the while without you needing to control, manipulate, or abuse them in order to do it? Treat them as you would want to be treated, (Ever heard of the golden rule? It applies to babies too. . .). Forget what society or doctors have told you, if it goes against natural instinct or conscience, and start listening to your mother instincts. The instinctual and natural way of mammals worldwide BTW is to keep their babies with them at pretty much all times in that first dependent time of life; and until they break away from you. Cuddling and nursing on demand and by their side, and sleeping with their mom's through the night is the norm.

In the end, those ""attachment parenting" mammals, or those who follow in their stead, are mothers who are well rested, bonded, and comparatively de-stressed because they have what most would deem, an "easy baby" That is a baby who will later grow into a child who while confident and independent, nonetheless loves and obeys you happily. . .

Or you could do it the more "civilized", controlling and religious way of raising your baby, out of likely ignorance/religious teachings, selfishness or necessity from busyness. The end of which usually ends up with Mom and the family despising "miserable" babyhood, the "terrible two's" or the "trying threes", then later having a rebellious teen who has issues with authority and trust. . .

Of course, depending on how harshly you discipline your child in the first few years or not, you may end up with a passively rebellious child for many years, that you only later realize is rebellious (other then miserable in their first years) when they get to be as big as you, and feel they can defend themselves against your abusive ways. Yes, this is the story of many religiously raised kids I know, that apear so perfectly behaved at first. . . Parents, wake up, and don't start this cycle over again with your kids, PLEASE! Love is not control, it is protection. Which, while including guidelines for their safety, has nothing to do with making cookie cutter robots for your own selfish gains. Thanks for reading my thoughts on this touchy subject; now my rant is done.

Are childless and/or non breastfeeding woman with children selfish for their choice?

The choice to be a career woman instead of having kids, (even when you are happily in a relationship) or to bottle feed kids if you do have them are a lot of things, but I would not say "selfish"! That word would imply a gain or benefit to the woman who makes such choices. So lest you don't know, let's go over some of the reasons why it's actually far more self-serving to have kids and then breastfeed them.

First, did you know that amid the troubles of pregnancy and birth, (of which I have my share believe me!) there are actually health benefits to having children:

Every pregnancy:

•  stops cystic fybroids from growing.
• regulates your progesterone levels with the estrogen dominance that is frequently caused by stress, bad diet, and birth control pills.
•  detoxes you, as evidenced by the fatigue of every woman, and the nausea and throwing up of those who need the most detoxing. Also the bright smelly pee is not just the supplements, it's the junk coming out thanks in part to some of them though maybe. (The body protects the baby as much as it can by detoxing throughout pregnancy.)
• lowers your chances of uterine cancer.

The mental benefits of pregnancy and children:

• gives you purpose/you have someone who can carry on after you/ one to protect
• gives self esteem/makes you feel needed
• humbles you
• teaches you patience
• helps you grow up and be responsible as you care for them by caring for yourself at times
• helps you prioritize your time properly for what matters in life: people
• changes your circle of friends to a more responsible and mature crowd
• bonds you with your mother, and other mothers
• shows you what love and trust looks like in a human
• you feel so womanly and often beautiful
• as you get much more attention and politeness
• sometimes you get special deals, parking spots, tax incentives and help with healthcare, carseats or food from the government. . .adding up to less stress financially and physically.
• and much more. . .

As for breastfeeding, it helps mom in many ways both
Physically:

• Immediately following birth, a mother who breastfeeds will have less bloodloss, (and chance of hemorrhage)  because the sucking stimulates a clamping down of the uterus, shutting off the blood from the placenta site.
• helps mom recover from the bloodloss of birth before the return of a period, (which can cause anemia if started too soon) Menstrual bleeding drains her of a lot more iron then breastfeeding does. (Especially beneficial is doing biological breastfeeding, which practically guarantees a 6 month pregnancy/menstruation free period. . .more typical is a year or so, but closer to two for me!)
• This guaranteed (98-99% according to La Leche League stats) spacing of children ensures a healthier next child with recovery of mom's stores. (Although 2 years in between a birth and the start of the next  pregnancy is more traditionally accepted as healthy, and best for the children's development and mom's mental health.)
• Weightloss, as it speeds up metabolism equal to burning 200-500 calories a day. . .the equivalent of biking uphill for an hour EVERY DAY!
• mothers with gestational diabetes had lower bloodsugar (more regulated) then non breastfeeding ones in studies. . .between the lessened weight and the better bloodsugar, this translates to a long term lessoned risk of type 2 diabetes later in life.
• breastfeeding mothers have good levels of good cholesterol, and lower blood pressure when compared to non breastfeeding mothers. Taking the rest into consideration, this means a lesser risk of heart disease in later life.
• a lessened risk of imbalance of calcium/magnesium, because of the way breastfeeding depletes calcium, which is abundant in the soil and diet. (Whereas magnesium is not abundant naturally, and is cooked out of food, and lost with stress. We need a 1/1 ratio) Excess calcium (especially in indigestible forms) and not equal magnesium amounts is connected to osteoporosis and bone spurs because of calcium deposits.
• a lessened risk of uterine, ovarian and breast cancer, that lessens with each year of breastfeeding.
• regular and on demand feedings from the start will ensure that there is no painful engorgement when the milk comes in. . .a lousy process if you choose to let yourself dry up "right off the bat".

Also mentally and practically:

• breastfeeding produces oxytocin, the "love" or "bonding" hormone that heightens the mother/ baby bond.
• breastfeeding provides skin to skin "kangaroo care".  . .proven to be very beneficial to all ages of babies.
• Breastfeeding also produces a hormone called prolactin, which is known to calm the nerves, an asset in child raising!
• there is a lessened risk of post partum depression, because of more progesterone in the body with breastfeeding. (Sometimes there is still a deficiency though with a bad diet or stress, and a natural supplemental cream is then a benefit to many moms.)

• it creates a stronger brain response to baby's cry, creating more empathy and likelihood of a maternal reaction. (Further helping your bond, and creating trust with baby.)
• With support and knowledge if needed, breastfeeding creates confidence in your body, and it's natural workings.
• you can be confident that you are busty without silicone implants.
• you can be confident and proud that you are doing what's good for the environment.
• Breastfeeding is much more convenient for night feedings, so you get more sleep, especially if you practice co-sleeping!
• Much more convenient for outings too.
• Also much easier for moms nursing a toddler; not stressing about the child eating enough nutritious solid food every day, as many kids are sporadic or picky eaters.
• No worry over formula recalls.
• Much cheaper to breastfeed! 
• No bottles, nipples and pumps to clutter up your house and clean constantly.
• No worry over toxins in the BPAs and formula.
• No issues with constipation or rejection of formula.
• With comfort nursing there is no stress over weaning from pacifiers/soothers or thumb sucking, (or even special blankets or dolls) as those are simply a replacement for the comfort a mom should give with her breasts until naturally outgrown/weaned. . . or the child may revert in desperation to one of those mock mothers for comfort. Studies seem to indicate that comfort nursing decreases a baby’s heart rate and lets him relax. It seems to have a very positive effect on his whole physical and emotional well-being. Don’t be afraid to allow this type of nursing. Breastfeeding is more than just imparting fluids and nourishment. It’s a way to nurture your child as well.
• You'll have a natural all-purpose, incredibly useful liquid at your disposal (Breastmilk has over 58 uses!)
• You can be lazy and lie in bed all day, (at least at first) and be a great mom!
• babies diapers (cloth) and clothes clean up easier if the baby is drinking breastmilk, then if drinking formula.
• you will save money on menstrual pads.

Source source Source Source Source

All these reasons, while good, are simply for the benefit of the mom, but there are a ton of reasons why you should nurse your baby besides these! Check out this resource for

101 Reasons Why You Should Breastfeed Your Baby!

As you can see, even though many would believe that the decision to first not have kids, and then to not breastfeed them if you do have them are usually based on "convenience" or "selfishness", I believe that in most cases of both, it is instead sheer ignorance.

If this article was convincing enough to make you rethink your decision to not have kids, you will not be sorry. I have met plenty of old people who were sorry that they didn't have any, or stopped having kids for numerous shallow reasons, but I have never met one yet who regrets having a single child they did have. If your troubles are not that you don't want them, but that you can't, there are two simple strategies I would suggest: Progesterone cream, and buying a book called "Taking charge of your fertility".

If this article has helped sway you away from not breastfeeding your baby, then let me share with you some great resources for breastfeeding.

One thing that is nice first off is an article of what to expect at different stages of breastfeeding, I stumbled upon a really good article here.

The top breastfeeding websites I have heard of are:


Kelly Mom - evidence-based answers about all things breastfeeding!

La Leche League- World renown resource for all things breastfeeding and child. A little too big of an organization to be as up to date (especially in their old books) as some of the other websites, but over all good info.

Breastfeeding USA, very up to date info on lots of subjects about breastfeeding.

Laid Back Breastfeeding- the only position you need to know about, besides side laying. . .all the rest are just plain not comfortable, and hurt your back. (Unless you are standing and baby is in a sling. . .) Also here.

Human Milk for Human Babies – milk sharing through Facebook, for when there is a rare physical problem with baby or mom.

Could the Angel's fiery chariots really be space ships and/or flying saucers? Part 16

I hope you have been following me thus far in the series, as I explained that the true translation of "Angels" is interchangeable with "gods", and it was only shortened to "God" in the Bible because of an obvious mistranslation of the Hebrew word Elohim, as well as other overt mistakes.

Throughout this series we also discussed first about the type, and looks of the bloodline connected with the gods of old, otherwise believed to be "the children of God." We traced it back to the Neanderthals, and forward to the present European kings, and every US president, as well as many of the elite. . . We looked at the myths connected with them, and made sense out of the Heaven and Hell belief. Then we got into a language study of the names of God and Satan, finding that most references of God can be traced to a "Pagan" god from the past, or many gods all put into one with a generic term. As for Satan, he was completely invented from a term. Every reference to him was based on a presumption of a reference to a verb in the Old testament, because of the invention of a wicked Angel in between the Old and new Testament time.
We also discussed the evolution of church rituals and worship, as well as the origin of the garden of Eden myth, and it's likely location. We dispelled some bad science that has hidden the knowledge of the garden, and also the likely location of "God" now. Some of which science we re-examined included how the mountains were formed, when, and what they were known for in the ancient times. . .that being, the homes of the gods. (as discussed in part 13 and 15) It was common at one time for the gods to live on a mountain.

As one example of this, we see in the Bible that the law was given to Moses on a mountain. The rest of the common people were instructed not to get near it or they should be stoned! Was that meaning from the violent earthquake, wind, or intentional stoning though I wonder. . .in other words, was it a threat, or a promise?

 The point of interest to me in that story is not the law, or the stoning, but that the mountain shakes, there is a great wind, and a fire when God is there the Bible says. Does he, and/or the gods, live there in that fire and quaking I wonder? Is it an active volcano?

 As the gods seem to be made basically like those of us with their blood, just bigger, and with more esp and "magical" knowledge, (as we discussed near the start of the series) it is very unlikely that they could handle the fire, at least any better then us.

Could it be that by the time of Moses they did not live in the mountaintops anymore? Were they simply just popping in and out to check in with their children in their spaceship I wonder? A spaceship would certainly cause shaking and fire if it was anything like a space ship today. . .

This Victory Stele of Naram-Sin, Babylon, c.2200 BC to the right shows what could have been a depiction of a spaceship/UFO's landing on a mountain.


Don't think "God" had a spaceship? Well, there is a whole lot of evidence from cave paintings even from the start of civilization that the gods did have them. . .even in the days of Moses.




As all the gods names in the ancient texts originated from the more original gods called "ilu", or the "tall men", who were translated as the Annanaki in the Sumerian text, it stands to reason that all the gods had the same knowledge and technology.

Sadly, by the time of the later Egyptians their creation, that knowledge was long lost apparently. Nonetheless, there was an account of one of the most famous pharaohs confirming that he was visited by not only one, but many "UFO's".

The Tulli Papyrus named after professor Alberto Tulli, former director of the Vatican Egyptian Museum is considered an evidence of visitors from outer space to Egypt.

ACCOUNT OF THUTMOSE III (King Tut)

  "One winter morning around the year 1,482 B.C. Thutmose III first saw a 'UFO'.... Described as;

" a CIRCLE of FIRE", emitted no sound, it had no voice', according to inscriptions. After some days had passed, these things became more numerous in the

skies than ever. "Were extremely bright or more...than the brightness of the sun, and were relatively small about 16' in diameter. Thutmose III was taken aboard and flew up to the sky and learned the secrets of Heaven."

(This "abduction" would not be surprising at all, as like the classic case of today's abductions, he was of the RH- bloodline, as I discussed in my past post: The white royals of history were all "sons of the tall men" Part 7.)

Another place states:

".....among the papers of the late Professor Alberto Tulli, former Director of the Egyptian section of the Vatican Museum. It is a fragment from the Royal Annals of Thuthmosis III (circa 1504-1450 B.C.) and when translated reads as follows:

"In the year 22, in the third month of winter, in the sixth hour of the day, the scribes of the House of Life noticed a circle of fire that was coming from the sky [...] From the mouth it emitted

a foul breath. It had no head. Its body was one rod long and one rod wide.  It had no voice. And from that the hearts of the scribes became confused and they threw themselves down on their bellies [...] then they reported the thing to the Pharaoh [...] His Majesty ordered [...] has been examined [...] and he was meditating on what had happened, that it was recorded in the scrolls of the House of the Life." 

"Now after some days had passed, these things became more and more numerous in the skies. Their splendor exceeded that of the sun and extended to the limits of the four angles of the sky [...] High and wide in the sky was the position from which these fire circles came and went. The army of the Pharaoh looked on with him in their midst."

"It was after supper. Then these fire circles ascended higher into the sky and they headed toward the south. Fish and birds then fell from the sky. A marvel never before known since the foundation of their land [...] And Pharaoh caused incense to be brought to make peace with Earth and what happened was ordered to be written in the Annals of the House of Life so that it be remembered for all time forward."

There is some debate as to the authenticity of the Tulli Papyrus, but it makes little logic to discount it by more then a few slight words at most, which would actually further clarify the circles as circular objects, and the fire as balls of energy or the like. The papyrus is not the original, (it is no longer in existence) but the one who translated it from the original had the best credentials to do so, and had no reason to ruin his good reputation by lying about it. For more on the debate and the evidence, check out this site here.

In addition to the findings in the Tulli Papyrus, strange hieroglyphics were found in the Temple of Osiris in Abydos, Egypt that are 3000 years old,. These strange symbols depict technologically advanced transportation. From a helicopter to a submarine and even a flying saucer, these glyphs provide more proof of alien encounters.  yet depicting planes and possibly even a submarine!

        Source

It has long been speculated that the 3 pyramids in Giza were built by aliens, or the ancient "gods". This was evidenced by their workmanship and uniqueness to the later pyramids after the "age of the gods". (As discussed in my post: The Bible's history of the earth claims it's growing?! Is it right? Part 15)

When Dr. Ala Shaheen, a member of the Archaeology Department at Cairo University was asked whether the Pyramids of Giza contained alien technology (even possibly a UFO within), Dr. Shaheen replied, "I cannot confirm or deny this, but there is something inside the pyramid that is 'not of this world.'"

There are a lot of "myths" legends and prophecies surrounding the Sphinx and Giza pyramids, one of the more interesting ones states the Sphinx as being the entrance to a "subterranean passage" that some speculate goes into the hollow earth. I guess after studying the evidence for the hollow earth, (that I discussed in my post: Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14) nothing would surprise me anymore. "Truth is stranger then fiction."

Another one is that it was a marker for those of their kind residing on the moon, to point where they went to stay after the flood. (The hollow earth, as entered from the North pole.) Not only did the alignment of the pyramids point to a perfect north, but the pyramids were originally covered with casing stones that "reflected the sun’s light and made the pyramid shine like a jewel. It has been calculated that the original casing stones would act like gigantic mirrors and reflect light so powerful that it would be visible from the moon as a shining star on earth. Appropriately, the ancient Egyptians called the Great Pyramid “Ikhet”, meaning the “Glorious Light”. "
Source

There have been UFO "sightings" in many countries, and leaders from their bloodline in every great civilization as well down thru time, like the writings and figures and drawings in India. . .




Getting away from Egypt, India and conspiracy theories though, (although, believe me, there is a whole lot more  evidence I could bring up if you had days to read it all. . .) let's get into the Angels, otherwise translated as "God" in places in the Bible. (as I discussed in my post: An Atheist admits that the Biblical accounts of origins have their base in truth. Part 4)

When we see "Angels" appear in the Bible, (also translated "God", "sons of god" or the "tall men" which originated in the ancient aliens otherwise called the Annanaki ) they were often in "fiery chariots" in the sky . Could these flying or fiery chariots have really been space ships? We hear of these "gods" coming down from Heaven, but often the method of travel is just glazed over.

Like in the case of the book of Enoch, which describes these "children of heaven" as "descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon," which seems to imply that they came from the sky and landed on the mountain, being obviously a lower elevation if they "descended". . .but not how they traveled. In the book of Enoch, he was also "taken up" with the gods somehow. After being shown much. . .he was returned to earth unharmed, just as the previously mentioned Pharaoh was.
 The Bible also talks of people being "taken up" (including a short mention of Enoch) or as we'd say now, they were "abducted", sometimes never to be seen again after being "taken to Heaven" in one of these "flaming chariots". (Generally by choice.)

 According to the Bible, examples of these "abductions" where they were permanently "taken" were: Enoch, Elijah,  possibly Moses and Jesus! Although, according to the book of Enoch, he did come back, and wrote extensively of the alien abduction. . .check it out! It's no wonder the church left that book out of the canon, as it changes the meaning of the evolved and fantastical understanding of the God of the Bible completely!
Source

Actually there are hundreds of references to the alien crafts or technology in the Bible! There was a book and website based on the connection between the Bible and UFOs that was very interesting to me, and would make a great read for those doubting Christians in the crowd. Check it out here Also, for those who like it short and visual, like me, there is a great video on the many verses in the Bible in reference to: spaceships, astronauts and robots in the Bible. Check it out here!

Whatever the case, it seems the likeliest candidates for the intelligence behind the "fiery chariots" as described in the texts and pictured in numerous cultures, would be the race historically called 'the gods', but under a variety of names down through history.  Depending upon religion and geography, they were described with such terms as the Anunnaki, Elohim, Nefilim, Watchers, Gods of the Greeks, Tuatha de Dannaan  and the like.


"According to the mythical tales those who originally arrived in Ireland, (later known as gods) arrived by air. These people probably looked like their female war-leader Eriu, who's description indicates tall attractive people with pale skin, high foreheads, long red hair and large blue eyes. Other descriptions of the people indicate blonde, golden hair with blue eyes."


 (Their description is of consequence as that is the description of the gods in every culture down through history. Those of their bloodline, and consequently with their looks, were believed to be the "chosen people", or the "children of god" because of their connection to the gods of the past through. . .down to the kings and the elite today. . .as explained in my first posts of this series.)

Back to the aliens technology though:

These Aliens/gods space ships were stunning no doubt, but besides that it is said that, "their architecture is a marvel in mathematics and engineering. Music is their principal Magic - by manipulating sound waves (Harmonics) to could lift and move massive sized objects- possibly even planets. Their megaliths served a variety of functions ie. geodetic markers, recorders of mathematical measurements, observatories, and military strongholds. Everything about them is simultaneously simply but complex. Their graphics communicate on at least three levels at the same time, being pictorial, mathematical and verbal. The verbal also communicate on at least two levels at one time almost invariably incorporating puns and double entendres."

With such technology and superiority  you might wonder why the aliens have stayed hidden for so long if they are still alive? Well, perhaps they felt that our culture wasn't ready for the knowledge of spaceships and aliens yet.  Or maybe they were content with how their role has evolved as unseen but ever watching "gods". . .at least as long as they were able to control the affairs of man from afar through a connection with the purest bloodline the kings and elite who were always in power.

 On the other hand, maybe they no longer want to stay hidden, and uninvolved. . .maybe because their bloodline/creation has stopped listening to them, and have gotten arrogant and corrupted by power and greed. Who knows, maybe they haven't tried to be for hundreds or even thousands of years now! This seems to be evidenced by the numerous attempts they have made to bring attention to themselves by flying in public, as well as sending messages to both large groups (i.e. crop circles) and small, with the abductions of many individuals from the bloodline of the gods.

 "Throughout the ancient records, there are instances of flying gods, in almost every culture, in every part of the world and throughout the ages. UFOs are one of the most popular topics on the internet. Sightings are so common that one would have to land on the Pentagon to hit the evening news."

One time some did drop in over the pentagon as a matter of fact:


"During our Independence day, July 4th, 1952 they (the aliens in their ships) took part in the famous UFO airshow over Washington D.C.flying in formation for Congress, the Pentagon, President, and national PRESS over the White House! This sighting made international newspaper headlines and the six o'clock national television news! The incident was widely believed by the public until our government hired the prominent astronomer Menzel to invent a hoax explaining away the sighting. . . The disinformation released to the PRESS to hide the truth was that the UFOs flying in triangular formations were a "temperature inversion", a weather atmospheric illusion of light reflections caused by air of different temperatures in layers with clouds."

"If this was the case, why did the Air Force panic and send up jet fighter aircraft to chase and try to intercept a temperature inversion? "How can a temperature inversion fly in perfect triangular formation at supersonic speeds, dodge and out-maneuver chasing jets and make 90 degree angle high speed turns?, Click here to see photos of space ships and newspaper report

In dealing with UFOs, this site comments on the governments approach:

"The almost comical approach by the government is alarming and any intelligent person can see that their standard “official” explanations are insulting. Even more insulting, believers, persuaded by an unending flow of solid proof of an unearthly presence, are labeled as everything from mildly paranoid to mentally incompetent."

  "This scenario is typical of a mass urban sighting. A large, glowing, and spinning object in the sky knocks out power for miles. It is seen by hundreds of civilians, chased for miles by police officers, and tracked by military and civilian air controllers. It is pursued by military jets, buzzes commercial planes, and suddenly takes of into deep space at speeds even military pilots can’t calculate or match. The civilians testify, the police officers and their radio recordings witness the chase. Radar documentation and control tower transmissions verify the aerial activity. Even video recordings have captured the action. And, to all this, the official explanation is always predictable. Take your pick; swamp gas, out of control weather balloons, meteors or the favorite, the planet Venus. No matter how much proof exists, or how loud the public clamors for investigation, they pump out their cookie-cutter press releases and retire to their bunkers. This is clearly deception. . . there is a conspiracy of silence permeating the whole of society." 

Source

 There is a good representation of the mass blindness and even fear and hysteria that some have over the knowledge of aliens in the series "Dr Who", and I think many today would still react like that because of the conditioning by those in control. . .why would they fight so hard against this knowledge of the Aliens? Take this scenario of an invading fleet of spaceships to illustrate:

"If the commander of this fleet tells the powers that be that he comes with the expressed intent of overthrowing all human established authority and will take total control of the planet immediately, will that fleet be welcomed with open arms? If this commander says he will not negotiate and will crush any resistance to the imposition of his absolute authority, will the armies of this world drop their weapons and sheepishly submit? And, if he threatens to melt the flesh off the bones of those who oppose his takeover, will the world's rich and powerful elite relinquish their power, give up their status and be willing see their wealth vaporize? Of course not! And that is exactly what the Bible says will happen. The Biblical text says Jesus will return and mankind will fight him. Why? Could the key be because they won't know him?"
Source

While those close to the pure bloodline would have already suspected that they don't quite fit in with this world, unfortunately, the world's religions have twisted the ancient knowledge of the "Gods" into such a mess, that the foretold coming (or "second coming") of these gods Say Jesus) will not be recognized for what they are, a mass alien "abduction"! (Of course, if you still don't believe Jesus is an Alien, you need to check out this great video full of Bible quotes that prove that he was an Alien. Check it out here.)

In the end, most of the true bloodline will be the very ones to fight against their own creators as they are even now fighting against the knowledge that they would benefit most from! This knowledge of the coming abduction is suppose to make "the children of God" happy, but it is predictable that the elite will twist the truth as they already have, and thus trick the world into fighting the aliens for them as their pawns. Sadly, as with the wars of the past, they will likely be unscathed and "taken up" anyways because of their position and bloodline. I for one will not be one of those gullible and doomed ponds of the government! "Christian" or not, my bloodline may not be pure, but it's close enough still to say that I believe I'm a"child of God", and just in case I'm not recognized for being one of theirs, (even though I am white with blond hair and hazel eyes) I fully intend to put up the white flag and happily go with the Alien Jesus, if he and his fellow "Angels" so choose to take me. And so an Atheist ends this long series on the Alien/gods with the hope of a rapture. . .kind of ironic huh.

The Bible's history of the earth claims it's growing?! Is it right? Part 15

Could plate tectonics be an out dated theory? I believe it is, and that soon progressive schools will be teaching the real cause of the supposed crustal shifting. I'm not just saying this because I have invested interest. I simply looked at both sides, and came out on what I believe was the side of the most evidence. . .no matter if a religious text agreed with me or not. If you have not been following me in my blog, I am not into defending the Bible because I am a Christian. . .I have much against the Bible, and am an Agnostic Atheist.

 That said, when it has historical or science based truth, (as I believe all of the ancient texts have some) then I don't want to discount it. Of course, most Christians would disown the concept of a growing earth, and deny that the Bible would support it. . .so, maybe first I'll enlighten the Christians in the crowd about the support for it in their own book, the Bible. (Something according to religious stats, Atheists know more about then any brand of Christian anyways.)

The expanding earth theory is, I believe, connected to the Biblical flood. (As I discussed in my last post : Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14) So if you like the Bible, and believe in the global flood, you might want to consider this theory, especially because the Bible supports both.

Many people have numerous arguments against a worldwide flood, but every one are based on some basic presumptions. Let's discuss one of the things used to discount the flood, that being that "the animals couldn't have come to Noah, (or been collected by him) to be put on the ark, because the animals couldn't have gone over oceans to get there." 

 While fossil evidence proves that many of the same animals were on the mainland as the now separated islands/continents like Australia. . .there are also some that seemed to have evolved more from one area or island then another. If the earth was all one solid connected mass at one time before the flood though, that argument would be null and void.

 Furthermore, if the flood caused the earth to be  more then split a crack with the "fountains of the deep" bringing up water from the pressured hollow earth, (as I previously discussed in: Making sense of the world and how it works. Part 14) then the migration of the animals wouldn't have been able to happen on any but one continent when Noah landed with the animals.



Unless the other world flood myths were also true, and there were survivors on numerous parts of the globe. . . as I mentioned in my post: The origins of God, man, and the Garden of Eden. Part 13. Then this separation at the right timing would explain the development of the different flood myths. No worries though, the Bible tells us all about when this splitting happened, and it fits perfectly with the evidence.

Five or six generations after Noah, we can read in Genesis 10:25 that in the days of Peleg (which means "division") that "the earth was divided." This would explain why the animal migration happened as it did. If the land prior to the Flood was one big continent, this would indeed have facilitated the migration of animals to (or collection of them from) Noah's location, as the Bible claims. Of course, many have disputed this as impossible with the continental shifts happening before the flood time. The "crustal shift" happening after the Flood though would have provided a way for the animals unique to say, Australia, to get there.

That answers a few questions about the flood, but what about the much mocked statement in the Bible that the flood covered the highest mountain? Just because water came from "the fountains of the deep" and it rained for 40 days, that would never cover a mountain range like the Himalayans!

That is a logical assumption, but based on another one. . .
In Psalm 104:5-9 it gives mention to the flood with the mountains growing and the valleys sinking. . .(sounds suspiciously like a growing earth.)

  "You who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; at the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You did establish for them. You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, that they may not return to cover the earth."

So if according to the Bible, the mountains hardly existed before the flood, and the valleys weren't deep, (and filled with water now known to be oceans) the statement in the Bible that the flood "covered the highest mountain" suddenly becomes plausible. 
What we see in the fossil record on the top of mountains is enough evidence of this truth, even without the core samples proving that they were once low land, and the oldest land as well. Between them both though, it would be an obvious conclusion to expect to see evidence of those so called "Gods" (by the future generations) living on the mountain tops. This legend tells us with Noah landing on what was later known as Mt. Ararat.

Artifacts from the early Bronze Age, and very likely the ark, as well as remains of human bodies have been found at Mt. Ararat, further confirming the belief. In Armenian mythology Mt. Ararat is not just where Noah landed the ark, but it is considered the home of the Gods, much like Mt. Olympus is in Greek Mythology.

Source

 As a matter of fact, mountain residences were mentioned in many different legends. In the Bible the mountain(s) of "God" is spoken of in many places. The "high places" are often spoken of in reference to even the "false gods" in the Bible. . .(many of which were simply one and the same, as I spoke in depth of in my post: Do you know God's names, and where they came from. . .? Part 10)   In many parts of the world temples still exist on the top of mountains to worship the gods.

Do we have additional proof of just how high the flood rose in order to measure these mountains? I believe we do.

 I showed this picture in my post: Origins of "God", man, and the location of the original Garden of Eden? Part 13 and it was confusing to some, but let me explain: I believe the Gaza pyramids are a key element to not only proof of the flood, but of the "gods". . .and where they went.

Of course, there would be little connection if they were as young as previously thought. . .but there is much evidence that they aren't. "Were these Pyramids constructed only 4,300 years ago, or—like the Sphinx—is there evidence they could be far older, dating instead to perhaps 12,000 years ago?" The old dating "stands in sharp contrast to most other Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Hermetic, Coptic and medieval Arabic scholarly sources which agree that the Great Pyramid was not constructed during the time frame of Pharaoh Khufu or Dynastic Egypt, but was the product of the "Age of the Gods" thousands of years earlier."

It is associated with the Pharaoh Khufu, but in reality he was not the builder, only the repairer. A recently discovered Stele describes how Pharaoh Khufu, "gave to her (Isis) an offering anew, and he built again (to restore, renovate, reconstruct) her temple of stone."

ANCIENT LEGENDS AND MODERN RESEARCH CONFIRM EACH OTHER

"When we look at mythic history for the story of the origins of the Great Pyramid, we discover that the monument was not attributed to any Pharaoh, but was the product of the genius and higher learning of the Gods of Old. Time and time again, from the Roman Marcellinus to the Coptic Al Masudi and the Arab Ibn Abd Alhokim, the recounters of the ancient legends tell how the Pyramid was built to preserve the knowledge of a magnificent civilization from destruction by a Flood, and that it was this Flood which brought the Age of the Gods to its tragic end. "

"The various Chronologies of Legendary Rulers place a minimum date for the Age of the Gods as circa 10,000 B.C. This is the time frame Plato, in his Timaeus and Critias, ascribed to the destruction of Atlantis. [the "upper" Eden] And it is also this date, as can be proven in modern scientific studies, which was highlighted by major climatic, geologic and geomagnetic disturbances, accompanied by massive paleo-biological extinctions in the planet." (i.e. the flood?)

Source

Some of the key evidence I have read of for the age of the Sphinx and the Gaza pyramids was the major water damage as if it were submerged in turbulent water. . .which is why the snorkel thing on the Sphinx. Remember, the pyramids are in a desert. . .

 "Geologists are hard pressed to explain why there existed a fourteen-foot layer of silt sediment around the base of the Pyramid, a layer which also contained many seashells, and the fossil of a sea cow, all of which were dated by radiocarbon methods to 11,600 B.P. (Before Present) plus or minus 300 years."

"The traces of the water of the Deluge and the effects of the waves are still visible on these pyramids halfway up, above which the water did not rise." Add to this the observation made when the Pyramid was first opened, that incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. Most of this salt is natural exudation from the chambered rock wall, but chemical analysis also shows some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. Thus, during the prehistoric Flood, when waters surrounded the Great Pyramid, the known and unknown entrances leaked, allowing seawater into the interior, which later evaporated and left the salts behind. The locations where the salts are found are consistent with the monument having been submerged half-way up its height." 

"If the floodings of 10,000 B.C. were the last major catastrophic water events in Egypt, and the Pyramid exhibits signs of having been subjected to them, it means the Pyramid must date from a period before the flooding occurred."

As the great pyramid was about 480 feet tall, and the water marks were about half way up, that would have made the water level to be about 240 feet high. The water was also said to have raised 23-25 feet above the highest mountain, according to the Bible) so if the Biblical account was right, I would conclude that the highest "mountain" would have been only about 215 feet higher then the rest of the land. .  .as there was no sea level then with no sea.

Some points of interest about the Sphinx and the three pyramids:

"First, only the Great Pyramid and (from what is known from legend and esoteric literature) the other two Giza Pyramids have chambers in their upper interior—all the rest possess only a lower chamber or chambers near the foundation. These are copies of the pit chambers in the Giza Pyramids. The Dynastic Egyptians, not knowing of the secret chambers higher up, had no precedent for including these in their own pyramids."

"Second, only the Giza Three are accurately aligned to true north, which is indicative of a very sophisticated science of Earth measurement and construction—elements exhibited in no other pyramid."

"Third, only the Giza monuments were built with a high degree of accuracy—this precision, coupled with the apparent mastery of large, multi-ton stone construction, is what allowed the Giza Pyramids to reach their gigantic size, the largest in Egypt. In the Second and Third Pyramids the construction blocks are often not as massive or as finely positioned as they are seen in the Great Pyramid, but they are precise enough to place them in an entirely different category from all other structures along the Nile."

"Fourth, the Giza monuments were built using construction designs totally alien to any other pyramid form. As William R. Fix, in Pyramid Odyssey observed: "Because the other pyramids consist of much smaller blocks, they were built as a series of shells with multiple internal retaining walls to give cohesiveness. The three large Giza Pyramids do not have these internal casings. The very size of the blocks produces the necessary stability. This characteristic reveals a general excellence of workmanship and also imply a much higher technological capability than that employed anywhere else.."

"And fifth, unlike any pyramid supposedly built either before or after the Giza Three, none of the Giza monuments contain religious symbols or pictures in any of their inner chambers."

"We may well ask, if the Giza Pyramids, in all their excellence, were supposedly built in the Fourth Dynasty, what happened to the advanced knowledge seen in their design and construction—why was it never used again, in not a single later pyramid?"

Source

As was briefly mentioned up above, when looked at from the sky, all three Giza pyramids perfectly point to the north pole. . .perhaps the flood, which sunk Atlantis, (the "upper" Eden, as I discussed earlier in:  The reality of Heaven and Hell in history part 9, and Origins of "God", man, and the location of the original Garden of Eden? Part 13) didn't really bring "the Age of the Gods to its tragic end" as was mentioned above? Maybe they were simply leaving a message to all who would follow, as to where they went, or were soon to go. . . All the world's flood myths said they had knowledge of the impending doom, and even warned their favorites. . . Whatever the case, it is certainly ironic that the message on the pyramids points to the North pole, which is where there is said to be an opening to the hollow earth, where the god's are said to live even now. . .

That might be more conspiracy theory then you want, so let's get back to the science of the expanding earth: To show how the earth is growing, and how all the continents fit perfectly together on all sides once when you remove the oceans, you need to watch this video.  

Neal Adams’ reconstructions of the expanding earth (based on the geological evidence from mostly the core samples) are popular, but the Australian geologist Dr James Maxlow’s reconstructions have the added advantage that the geological evidence behind the reconstructions are explained in detail within his book, Terra Non Firma Earth. The raw data for the age of the ocean floor can be obtained from institutions like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is presenting the raw data of the age of the ocean floor and is not supporting the Expanding Earth theory in any way, so they are an unbiased source.

The probability of the pieces of the Earth forming by chance to all fit, as we can see they do, (even after half of the area was supposedly changed by subduction) is so low it seems impossible. It is similar to arguing that a jigsaw puzzle fits together by chance rather than for any logical reason. Whereas, without the water, and on a smaller earth, the pieces fitting on every edge only seems logical when you admit to the earth expanding. 

A few questions that may be connected with the expanding earth theory are:

• Why is the earth's rotation slowing down if it is not growing? Or more specifically, why is it taking longer for the earth to make the same rotation around the Sun, that it did thousands of years ago? 

• If the earth use to be smaller, wouldn't it's gravitational pull also be less. . .as smaller planets have less gravity then larger ones?

(Source) 

A Reduced Gravity Earth would have larger plants and animals in the past, and not surprisingly, this we see from the fossil record.

" This larger scale of life during the dinosaurs’ time can be explained by a reduced gravity on the ancient Earth. 

Using the concept of a gravity that increased since the dinosaurs’ time also reveals a fascinating new world where the gigantic animals of the past evolved smaller sizes as gravity increased to its present value. This size reduction of life has definitely occurred."

Source 

Check out this video for more evidence:

Ancient Life's Gravity and its Implications . . .

• And if gravity has changed because of the earths mass changing, wouldn't time also be somewhat warped, creating longer living people and animals? 

Source

If the earth is getting more mass, (as it seems it is) and it is also hollow, (as it also seems it is) the real question is:

•   "Where is the mass coming from?" 

Some claim the world is gaining mass simply because of dust from space. May I suggest that the inner sun's gases, (which was theorized to have originally created the rest of the planet) are still creating mass? What could it be creating? I would say hydrogen seems likely, and when I hear about the massive plants and greenhouse effect in the hollow earth, it seems that oxygen is another by-product of the inner earth. What element could be produced as both gases seep through the ground because of centrifugal force causing it to come up through the thinnest part of the crust? H2O.

 As evidence for this, first we have the explosion of water from the "fountains of the deep" in the flood, that seemed to have started the cracks that split the earths crust and started the "continental drift" which was actually the crust expanding. After that, the pressure seems to have subsided, and the inner earth's water being drained, hollowed out a spot for habitation of the gods who had likely taken to their ships in the sky for refuge. (Which I will get into next.)

 We don't see the production of water stopping completely though, even today we see the oceans growing as the land cracks and the mountains rise, to make room for it. The sea level has risen 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 cm) in the last 100 years alone! And the cause is not the melting of the poles from global warming, as you might have been told. . ."This higher temperature may be causing some floating icebergs to melt, but this will not make the oceans rise. Icebergs are large floating chunks of ice. In order to float, the iceberg displaces a volume of water that has a weight equal to that of the iceberg."

So any icebergs floating in water would make little to no difference to the sea level, whereas any glaciers that break off of land and melt into the ocean would make a significant difference. "The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice.  . .Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 7,000 feet thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 200 feet. But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing."

If my hypothesis is right, and water is the only thing being presently made by the inner earth's atmosphere, eventually the land will open up to the hollow earth, and the water may drain down again. . . but as the crust is still many hundreds of miles thick in most places of the world, it's not a worry I will dwell on. In the mean time, why not watch a real geologist explain the evidence for the expanding earth theory with me.

Yes! The Earth is Expanding. Part 1 of 14.