I am yet another opinionated poster who admits to not having read the book.

But the question I'd like to pose is why, Peter H, you find Tellinger's book "completely plausible"? Could you provide evidence for why you find the hypothesis plausible?
All those god fearing freaks must realise that it deals with the development of the biological human form only.
This claim by Tellinger sounds like a testable one. This I like. Tellinger has claimed that the hypothesis is one of a biological nature, specifically the hypothesis seeks to address the question of the origin of humans. Was there a problem with the existing theory of evolution?
As it is claimed to be a biological subject, do you think that genome research could reveal to us the areas of the genome which were not inherited from ancestral apes but rather were inherited from the
Anunnaki race? Once we isolate it, could we breed pure
Anunnaki so that we may lay our eyes on them? If we do
not find such evidence, does that weaken Tellinger's point or are there other explanations for the lack of evidence which might still hold true in his hypothesis?
I ask this because genomicists can do (almost unimaginable) things like
reconstructing the genome of extinct ancestors from modern descendants.
Oh yes, and by the way, welcome to the forum Peter H

. We are always happy to find new members who are interested in debate.
James