Do you instinctively feel the falsehood of accepted theory of origin? You should... for everything you know is wrong..... Lloyd Pye

I asked him about the way the stone was cut, and he just shook his head and said, "Allen, the rocks in the ruins located in the Cusco area, the foundation stones, were rough on the outside like sand paper, but where the quakes had separated the stone enough to slip your fingers in between the huge pieces, the feeling was that of slipping your hand between two ceramic plates, almost like glass." Now I know a little bit about stone as I am a rock hound and do cut, polish and work with it. I have tried making implements such as arrow heads, Fulsome points, choppers and the like from many different types of stone and volcanic glass. It is not easy...

The ancients cut the stone and then they had to be placed in position and in some areas, the quarries were some distance away. As an engineer, I know what it takes to move stone and what signs would be left just from moving it a short distance. In the Andes, it was up hill and so tough and remote that the present day archeologists do not even want to try to discuss how it came to be. You see, we cannot cut that stone to this very day the way it was done, and cannot lift it. Yes, we can walk on the moon and land robots on Mars, but we cannot duplicate the older foundations of the edifices found in Egypt or in the Andes.

This was just a little of what Lloyd covered in his presentation, but there was oh so much more. Everyone was listening and eating at the seminar, but half way through even the catering gang was sitting and listening, mesmerized by this man named Pye who painted an indelible picture in the listener's mind. When I left, I was asked how accurate the information was and I have to admit, I grinned from ear to ear while explaining Lloyd's basic material was completely correct.

What are my gut feelings about this man? I trust him and like him, I understand him more than he realizes, and I am going to work with him. I will pass the ammo, so to speak, and watch Pye chew it up and spit it out his way... By clicking on the book at the top of this page, you will get to his site and hopefully his schedule.

Allen D. Furford
The Mobius Insight

FOX TELEVISION HOAX EXPOSED!!!

By Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)

INTRODUCTION:

On Monday, December 28th, the Fox Television Network aired a show called "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed." The show was heavily publicized and was seen by millions of basically uninformed people who would be inclined to agree with and accept the shows basic premise: That the events discussed are generally accepted as factual, thus requiring such a show to "expose" the multiple deceptions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In general, the show revealed nothing new. For several months now the "alien autopsy" has been known to be a hoax and widely exposed as such. It is also widely known that several--and perhaps all--of the above-surface photos of the Loch Ness Monster are hoaxes, though the underwater shots are accepted as genuine and were indicated as such in the program. Furthermore, nearly all serious UFO researchers consider Billy Meir an outright fraud. Crop circles were conspicuously unmentioned in the program because, no doubt, the patent absurdity of the "Doug and Dave" explanation has become untenable even to the media establishment that promulgated it.

This brings us to the opening sequence of the show, the only one where supposedly "new" evidence was offered, the ultimate exposure as a hoax of the Roger Patterson film of a female bigfoot striding across a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California, in October of 1967. Anyone watching that segment and not knowing any better would no doubt consider it a paragon of valid, unbiased, well-researched information. However, once again, nothing could be further from the truth. It was a slick piece of utter disinformation with no basis in fact and riddled with blatant distortions.

BACKGROUND:

Roger Patterson was a feisty little outdoorsman from the Pacific northwest who had previously encountered a bigfoot and knew they were a real phenomenon. Not long after his first sighting, he made it a personal goal to film one, so he began taking horseback rides through the heavy montane forests where most bigfoot sightings occurred. He did not believe in killing one, so he would take his rides armed only with his old-style 8mm movie camera. Knowing this, his friends would often ride with him carrying hunting rifles, to protect him if he encountered a bigfoot and trouble ensued. On the October day he finally hit paydirt, he had such a companion with him, Bob Gimlin. Pattersons rules for such companions were simple: No firing unless they were attacked.

As they rode along a the banks of Bluff Creek, their horses caught the first whiffs of the bigfoots powerful body odor. They bolted, but not before Patterson had spied the female at the creek bank, probably washing food, as all four hominoid types are known to do. His horse reared and fell over with Patterson still in the saddle, but he managed to scramble out from underneath and retrieve his camera from inside the saddlebag where he carried it. Bob Gimlin had all he could do to steady his own agitated horse, catch and hold Pattersons terrified animal, and keep an eye on the bigfoot in case he had to grab his rifle and start firing at it.

Patterson ran toward the creature, filming as he ran, which the jiggling film clearly shows. Then he paused in his pursuit to try to get a few steady frames, at which point the female sensed his pause and turned to glance at him. All of this action is clearly visible in the film. Then she turns away from him and continues her measured retreat back into the woods flanking the creek. At that point Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin have made history: They have captured on film undeniably genuine proof that hominoids exist. And while it is not the first such proof by any means, it is certainly one of the most compelling.

HOAX HALLMARKS:

True hoaxes have certain hallmarks, and such is the case with hominoid hoaxes. In fact, the Fox TV show used two such "genuine" hoaxes in an effort to smear the Patterson film by association. A hoaxed hominoid film will usually not be attributable to any specific person, it will be provided anonymously, so whoever filmed it cannot be grilled by specialists who will be able to quickly expose the fraud. Also, the place where the filming occurred with not be provided, so experts cannot return to the scene and check for footprints, measure the creature against items (tree limbs, rocks, etc.) in the background, or bring tracking dogs to see what their reaction will be. (Because of a hominoids overpowering stench, even tracking dogs will recoil from it, while a human in a suit will be pursued as if the suit did not exist.)

In contrast to a hoaxers typical behavior, Roget Patterson went right out from the sighting and called several area experts, begging them to come to the scene and to bring tracking dogs. None of the experts would come. However, several friends within the community of bigfoot hunters did come to the scene to thoroughly examine it for several days afterward, so there is no doubt that the creature was there, she left numerous clear tracks that were photographed and casted in plaster, and her weight was in the 600 to 800 pound range because the tracks she left sank a full inch into the hard-packed sand at the creek bank, while a 200 pound man walking near her tracks sank only about a quarter of an inch. These facts are utterly undeniable, and they were utterly avoided in the piece presented as fact on "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes."

TECHNICAL EVIDENCE:

1) It was a bright, cloudless day with sunlight glinting off the creatures fur as she walked. In close-up and at very slow motion it is easy to see her muscles rippling in her right shoulder and in her right thigh, just as they would be visible in a human with those body parts exposed. If it had been a human in a suit, the suit would have to have been glued to the skin to achieve such an effect, but in the act of gluing, the subtle interaction between muscle and skin would be lost. Even today, in 1999, Hollywood special effects wizards find it extremely difficult to portray such subtle subcutaneous movements. In 1967 it was flatly impossible (check out "Planet Of The Apes").

2) The creatures arms are markedly longer than human arms, with elbows that clearly articulate well below where the elbows of a human in a suit would articulate. The added length of the humerus (shoulder to elbow) is four, five, or even six inches, which in anatomical terms is a light-year, and which causes the hands to swing down near the knees, whereas in a human the hands reach only to mid-thigh or above. There is literally no reasonable comparison between the two.

3) The creatures breasts are large, pendulous, and quite noticeable when she turns to face Patterson as he films. In close-up and slow motion (conspicuously avoided in the Fox show), it is easy to see their fluid sway as she turns, and their distinct "bounce" as she takes two steps. They are indistinguishable from human mammary tissue in motion, yet if they were an attachment to a modern body suit they would move more like silicone or gel implants. And in 1967 they would no doubt have looked like the original implant "nosecones."

4) The creatures body is extraordinarily thick throughout all of its parts and in every dimension, much more so than a similarly proportioned human (as seen in the accompanying "true" hoaxes). The thighs are massive and flow quite naturally into equally thick buttocks. When the creature turns to observe Patterson, the movement begins with a smooth shift of the hips that follows up through a swing of the entire upper torso, which reveals a shoulder width of approximately 30 percent more than humans have. Such outsized dimensions are not possible to duplicate with a human in a suit and still retain even a semblance of the "natural" movements seen in the film.

5) The creatures walk has been carefully analyzed by specialists in biomechanics in both England and Russia. Their conclusion is that its walk is completely natural, yet unmistakably non-human. The torso never rises above several degrees from vertical, while humans walk with their torsos at or near vertical. The knees never lock, maintaining a clear bend through the "carry" of each step. Humans lock their knees with each step. So once again, there is no reasonable comparison to be made except that humans and the Patterson creature walk upright on two legs.

WHO IS HOAXING WHOM?

In "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes" insurance agent Jerry Romney was "revealed" as the person wearing the suit in the Patterson film. That he flatly denied any involvement was of no importance to the Fox TV team. They simply filmed Romney walking, flashed his walk momentarily against the walking bigfoot, and gleefully announced that the two walks were suspiciously similar. Anyone who taped the show can see what an egregious breach of journalistic ethics this was. In matching the two gaits you will see that Jerry Romney walks extraordinarily erect, and clearly locks his knees with each step, and his hands swing just below his hips rather than down near his knees. Again, there is no reasonable comparison that can be made between the two.

As for the alleged "zipper line" seen down the back of the creature as she walks, let me refer again to the bright sun shining that day. The creature obviously is covered by black hair. The sun glints off her upper back and both sides of her lower back. But down the middle of her lower back and down into the crack of her buttocks there is indeed a dark line. What is it? A shadow caused by the indentation of muscles along the spine of any upright walker. There is nothing at all unnatural or suspicious about such a dark line in precisely that place.

Now, as for the idea of a zipper, imagine how difficult it would be to manipulate one placed in such a place. Any surfers out there? You know a wetsuit has a backside zipper, and to zip it up requires a string attached so it can be opened and closed. If going to the trouble to make such a fantastically convincing suit, why put the zipper in back so someone else will have to help you into and out of it? And for that matter, if making a suit for Jerry Romney, why go to the trouble to add breasts to it? Just so you can rag on poor Jerry about having to sashay around as a female?

Another point the Fox TV crew made is that Roger Patterson worked for a film outfit called American National Enterprises, or ANE. They said he was on their payroll. Fine. Ive been in this field as a researcher for many years now and have never heard that story, but Im in no position to deny it outright. However, I am in position to suggest that pay stubs with Pattersons name on them should have been presented on the program in addition to the unsupported statement that he was indeed on their payroll. Again, I see this as an egregious breach of journalistic ethics.

One more such breach that needs to be mentioned is this: Bob Gimlin is still alive, yet his name was not mentioned in "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes." Why? Because Gimlin has insisted all of his long life that the film is genuine. Now, to question the authenticity of the film is to question the integrity of Bob Gimlin, and that is not easy to do for the following reason. When money for the film began to roll in, Roger Patterson ruthlessly cut Bob Gimlin out of any participation in the proceeds. If the film had been a hoax and Bob Gimlin had known about it, that would have been an insane move for Patterson to make. All Gimlin would have had to do was expose the hoax to make the $25,000 that was being offered at the time for conclusive proof about it one way or the other. Gimlin did not offer such proof, even at the lowest point in his relationship with Patterson.

What that means is this: If Patterson did indeed fake the film, he clearly did so without Bob Gimlins knowledge. And that means the person in the suit (Jerry Romney if you believe the Fox TV hoaxers) was parading around in front of a man armed with a high-powered hunting rifle who would have been well within his legal (if not moral) rights to shoot him dead and take him home as a priceless "trophy." So it seems unlikely that Jerry Romney, or anyone short of a complete imbecile, could have been talked into getting into that suit on that particular day.

CONCLUSION:

For whatever reason, Fox TV and the producers of "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes" consciously conspired to disseminate a hoax of their own, at least as far as their expose of the Patterson film is concerned. I have no idea what their agenda might have been, other than to make those of us in the "fringe" look bad for believing in it. But I can say this without fear of contradiction: Anyone who has legitimately studied the Patterson film (as Kal Korff said on camera that he has been doing "for 25 years") knows the evidence supporting its reality is literally overwhelming on so many practical and technical levels as to make the issue beyond dispute.

The Patterson film remains one of the best pieces of evidence ever produced in support of hominoid reality, and the only reason that reality has not been accepted is because the media conspires to keep it discredited with hatchet jobs like "Worlds Greatest Hoaxes." I hope everyone reading this essay will mention it to friends and acquaintances who might have been hoaxed not by the Patterson film, but by those individuals claiming to be exposing it as a hoax. And to those responsible for that Fox TV travesty, I sincerely hope that someday you become as thoroughly ashamed of yourselves as your mothers would be if they knew what you had done.
 
 

Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)

Framing The Picture

How did life begin on Earth? More intellectual and literal blood has been shed and spilled attempting to answer this question than any other in any aspect of science or religion. Why? Because the answer, if it could be determined beyond doubt, would reveal to us the deepest meanings behind ourselves and all that we see around us. More importantly, it would demolish once and for all the thorny tangle of conscious and unconscious thought and belief that causes most of the bloodshed.

At present there are only two socially acceptable explanations for how life has come to be on Earth. Science insists it has developed by entirely natural means, using only the materials at hand on the early planet, with no help from any outside source, whether that source be divine or extraterrestrial. Religion insists with equal fervor that life was brought into existence whole and complete by a divine Creator called by different names by the worlds various sects. Between these two diametrically opposed viewpoints there is no overlap, no common ground where negotiation might be undertaken. Each considers its own position to be totally correct and the other totally wrong, a certainty bolstered by the fact that each can blow gaping holes in the logic/dogma of the other.

Science is quick to point to the overwhelming technical proofs that life could not, and indeed did not, appear whole and complete within the restricted time frame outlined in the Biblical account. Of course, people of faith are immune to arguments based on fact or logic. Faith requires that they accept the Biblical account no matter how dissonant it might be with reality. Besides, they can show that not a shred of tangible evidence exists to support the notion that any species can transmute itself into another species given enough time and enough positive genetic mutations, which is the bedrock of Charles Darwins theory of incremental evolution, or "gradualism."

In the early 1800's Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands and noticed certain species had developed distinct adaptations for dealing with various environmental niches found there. Finch beaks were modified for eating fruit, insects, and seeds; tortoise shells were notched and unnotched for high-bush browsing and low-bush browsing. Every variation clearly remained part of the same root stock--finches remained finches, tortoises remained tortoises--but those obvious modifications in isolated body parts led Darwin to the logical assumption that entire bodies could change in the same way over vastly more time. Voila! Gradualism was conceived and, after gestating nearly three decades, was birthed in 1859 with the publication of the landmark On The Origin Of Species. Since then Darwin and his work have been topics of intense, usually acrimonious debate between science and religion.

The irony of a two-party political system whose members spend the majority of their time shooting holes in each others policies is that it becomes abundantly clear to everyone beyond the fray that neither side knows what the hell it is talking about. Yet those standing outside the science-religion fray do not grow belligerent and say, "Youre both wrong. An idiot can see that. Find another explanation." No! In this emotionally charged atmosphere nearly everyone seems compelled to choose one side or the other, as if seeking a more objective middle ground would somehow cause instant annihilation. Such is the psychological toll wrought on all of us by the take-no-prisoners attitude of the two sides battling for our hearts and minds regarding this issue.

Facts Will Be Facts

Because those of faith insist on being immune to arguments based on facts, they remove themselves from serious discussions of how life might have actually come to be on Earth. So if anyone reading this has a world view based on divine revelation, stop here and move on to something else. You will not like (to say the least!) what you are about to read. Nor, for that matter, will those who believe what science postulates is beyond any valid doubt. As it turns out, and as was noted above, neither side in this two-party system knows what the hell it is talking about.

To move ahead, we must assign a name to those who believe life spontaneously sprang into existence from a mass of inorganic chemicals floating about in the early Earths prebiotic seas. Lets call them "Darwinists," a term often used for that purpose. Darwinists have dealt themselves a difficult hand to play because those prebiotic seas had to exist at a certain degree of coolness for the inorganic chemicals floating in them to bind together into complex molecules. Anyone who has taken high school chemistry knows that one of the best ways to break chemical bonds is to heat them.

Given that well-known reality, Darwinists quickly postulated that the first spark of life would no doubt have ignited itself sometime after the continental threshold was reached around 2.5 billion years ago. At that point land would have existed as land and seas would have existed as seas, though not in nearly the same shapes we know them today. But the water in those seas would have been cool enough to allow the chemical chain reactions required by "spontaneous animation." So among Darwinists there arose a broad consensus that the spontaneous animation of life had to have occurred (again, because they do not allow for the possibility of outside intervention, divine or extraterrestrial), and it had to have occurred no earlier than the continental threshold of 2.5 billion years ago.

These assumptions were believed and taught worldwide with a fervor that leaves religious fundamentalists green with envy. Furthermore, they were taught as facts because that is what science inevitably does. It reaches a consensus about a set of assumptions in a field it has not fully mastered, then those assumptions are believed as dogma and taught as facts until the real facts become known. Sometimes such consensus "facts" endure for a short time (Isaac Newtons assumption that the speed of light was a relative measure lasted only 200 years), while others endure like barnacles on the underside of our awareness (the universe doggedly expands beyond every finite measure given for it).

In the same way Newtons fluctuating speed of light was overturned by Albert Einsteins theory of relativity, the continental threshold origin of life was blown out of the water, so to speak, by discoveries in the 1970's that indicated lifes origins were much older than anticipated. So old, in fact, it went back nearly to the point of coalition, 4.5 billion years ago, when the Sun had ignited and the protoplanets had taken the general shapes and positions they maintain today. Ultimately, 4.0 billion years became the new starting point for life on Earth, based on fossilized stromatolites discovered in Australia that dated to 3.6 billion years old.

For Darwinists that meant going from the frying pan into the fire, literally, because at 4.0 billion years ago the proto-Earth was nothing but a seething cauldron of lava, cooling lava, and steam, about as far from an incubator for incipient life as could be imagined. In short, right out of the gate, at the first crack of the bat, Charles Darwin was, as they say in the south, a blowed-up peckerwood.

Limbo Of The Lost

The fossilized stromatolites discovered in Australia had been produced by the dead bodies of billions of prokaryotic bacteria, the very first life forms known to exist on the planet. They are also by far the simplest, with no nucleus to contain their DNA. Yet in relative terms prokaryotes are not simple at all. They are dozens of times larger than a typical virus, with hundreds of strands of DNA instead of the five to ten of the simplest viruses. So it is clear that prokaryotes are extremely sophisticated creatures relative to what one would assume to be the very first self-animated life form, which can plausibly be imagined as even smaller than the smallest virus.

(By the way, viruses do not figure into this scenario because they are not technically "alive" in the classic sense. To be fully alive means having the ability to take nourishment from the immediate environment, turn that nourishment into energy, expel waste, and reproduce indefinitely. Viruses need a living host to flourish, though they can and do reproduce themselves when ensconced in a suitable host. So it seems safe to assume hosts precede viruses in every case.)

Needless to say, the discovery of fossilized prokaryotes at 3.6 billion years ago left scientists reeling. However, because so many of their pet theories had been overturned in the past, they knew how to react without panic or stridency. They made a collective decision to just whistle in the dark and move on as if nothing had changed. And nothing did. No textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the new discovery. Teachers continued to teach the spontaneous animation theory as they had been doing for decades. The stromatolites were consigned to the eerie limbo where all OOPARTS (out-of-place artifacts) dwell, while scientists edgily anticipated the next bombshell.

They didnt have to wait long. In the late 1980's a biologist named Carl Woese discovered that not only did life appear on Earth in the form of prokaryotes at around 4.0 billion years ago, there was more than one kind! Woese found that what had always been considered a single creature was in fact two distinct types he named archaea and true bacteria. This unexpected, astounding discovery made one thing clear beyond any shadow of doubt: Life could not possibly have evolved on Earth. For it to appear as early as it did in the fossil record, and to consist of two distinct and relatively sophisticated types of bacteria, meant spontaneous animation flatly did not occur.

This discovery has been met with the same resounding silence as the stromatolite discovery. No textbooks have been rewritten to accommodate it. No teachers have changed what they are teaching. If you can find a high school biology teacher that religious fundamentalists have not yet terrorized into silence, go to their classroom and you will find them blithely teaching that spontaneous animation is how life came to be on Earth. Mention the words "stromatolite" or "prokaryote" and you will get frowns of confusion from teacher and students alike. For all intents and purposes this is unknown information, withheld from those who most need to know about it because it does not fit the currently accepted paradigm built around Charles Darwins besieged theory of gradualism.

Outside Intervention

The ongoing, relentless assaults on gradualism by religious fundamentalists is the principle reason scientists cant afford to disseminate these truths through teaching. If fundamentalists would keep their opinions and theories inside churches, where they belong, scientists would be far more able (if not inclined) to acknowledge where reality does not coincide with their own theories. But because fundamentalists stand so closely behind them, loudly banging on the doors of their own bailiwick, schools, scientists have no choice but to keep them at bay by any means possible, which includes propping up an explanation for lifes origins that has been bankrupt for more than two decades.

Another reason scientists resist disseminating the truth is that it would so profoundly change the financial landscape for many of them. Consider the millions and billions of tax dollars and foundation grants that are spent each year trying to answer one question: Does life exist beyond Earth? The reality of two types of prokaryotes appearing suddenly, virtually overnight, at around 4.0 billion years ago provides overwhelming testimony that the answer is "Yes!" Clearly life could not have spontaneously animated from inorganic chemicals in seas comprised of seething lava rather than relatively cool water. So billions of dollars of funding would vanish if scientists ever openly conceded that life must have come to Earth from somewhere else because it obviously could not have originated here.

A third reason scientists avoid disseminating this knowledge is that spontaneous animation is a fundamental tenet of their corollary theory of human evolution. As with life in general, scientists insist that humanity is a product of the same protracted series of gradual genetic mutations that they feel produced every living thing on Earth. And, again, all this has been done by natural processes within the confines of the planet, with no outside intervention of any kind, divine or extraterrestrial. So, if spontaneous animation goes out the window, then the dreaded specter of outside intervention comes slithering in to take its place, and that idea is so anathema to scientists they would rather deal with the myriad embarrassments caused by their blowed-up icon and his clearly bankrupt theory.

So What Is The Answer?

Life came to Earth from somewhere else--period. It came to Earth whole and complete, in large volume, and in two forms that were invulnerable to the most hostile environments imaginable. Given those proven, undeniable realities, it is time to make the frightening mental leap that few if any scientists or theologians have been willing or able to make: Life was seeded here! There...its on the table...life was seeded here.... The Earth hasnt split open. Lightening bolts have not rained down. Time marches on. It seems safe to discuss the idea further.

If life was actually seeded here, how might that have happened? By accident....or (hushed whisper) deliberately? Well, the idea of accidental seeding has been explored in considerable detail by a surprising number of non-mainstream thinkers and even by a few credentialed scientists (British astronomer Fred Hoyle being perhaps the most notable). The "accidental seeding" theory is called panspermia, and the idea behind it is that bacterial life came to Earth on comets or asteroids arriving from planets where it had existed before they exploded and sent pieces hurtling through space to collide some millennia later with our just-forming planet.

A variation of this theory is called directed panspermia, which replaces comets and asteroids with capsules launched by alien civilizations to traverse space for millennia and deliberately home in on our just-forming planet. However, the idea of conscious direction from any source beyond the confines of Earth is as abhorrent to science as ever, so directed panspermia has received little better than polite derision from the establishment. But for as blatantly as undirected panspermia defies the scientific tenet that all of life begins and ends within the confines of Earth, it is marginally acceptable as an alternative possibility. There have even been serious, ongoing attempts to try to determine if the raw materials for life might be found in comets.

The point to note here is that no one wants to step up to the plate and suggest the obvious, which is that some entity or entities from somewhere beyond our solar system came here when it was barely formed and for whatever reason decided to seed it with two kinds of prokaryotes, the hardiest forms of bacteria we are aware of and, for all we know, are creatures purposefully designed to be capable of flourishing in absolutely any environment in the universe. (Understand that prokaryotes exist today just as they did 4.0 billion years ago...unchanged, indestructible, microscopic terminators with the unique ability to turn any hell into a heaven. But more about that in a moment.)

If we take the suggested leap and accept the notion of directed-at-the-scene panspermia, we are then confronted with a plethora of follow-up questions. Were all of the planets seeded, or just Earth? Why Earth? Why when it was a seething cauldron? Why not a couple billion years later, when it was cooled off? Good questions all, and many more like them can be construed. But they all lead away from the fundamental issue of why anyone or (to be fair) anything would want to bring life here in the first place, whether to the proto-Earth or to any other protoplanet? And this brings us to the kicker, a question few of us are comfortable contemplating: Is Earth being deliberately terraformed?

Welcome To The Ant Farm

The concept of terraforming does indeed conjure up images from the recent movie "Antz." Nevertheless, for all we know that is exactly what we humans--and all other life forms, for that matter--are, players on a stage that seems immense to us, but (visualize the camera pulling back at the end of "Antz") in reality is just a tiny orb swirling through the vastness of a seemingly infinite universe. An unsettling and even unlikely scenario, but one that has to be addressed. Well, so what? What if we are just bit players in a cosmic movie that has been filming for 4.0 billion years? As long as we are left alone to do our work and live our lives in relative peace, where is the harm in it?

Is this fantastic notion really possible? Is it even remotely plausible? Consider the facts as we know them to be, not what we are misled into believing by those we trust to correctly inform us. The simple truth is that life came to our planet when it (Earth) had no business hosting anything but a galactic-level marshmallow roast. The life forms that were brought, the two prokaryotes, just happen to be the simplest and most durable creatures we are aware of. And, most important of all, they have the unique ability to produce oxygen as a result of their metabolic processes.

Why oxygen? Why is that important? Because without an oxygen-based atmosphere life as we currently know it is impossible. Of course, anaerobic organisms live perfectly well without it, but they would not make good neighbors or dinner companions. No, oxygen is essential for complex life as we know it, and quite possibly is necessary for higher life forms everywhere. If that is the case, if oxygen is the key ingredient for life throughout the universe, then from a terraformers perspective bringing a load of prokaryotes to this solar system 4.0 billion years ago begins to make a lot of sense.

Lets put ourselves in their shoes (or whatever they wear) for a moment. They are a few million or even a few billion years into their life cycle as a species. Space and time mean nothing to them. Traversing the universe is like a drive across Texas to us...a bit long but easily doable. So as they travel around they make it a point to look for likely places to establish life, and 4.0 billion years ago they spot a solar system (in this case ours) forming off their port side. They pull a hard left and take it all in. At that point every protoplanet is as much a seething cauldron as the proto-Earth, so they sprinkle prokaryotes on all of them in the hope that one or more will allow them to flourish.

What the terraformers know is that if the prokaryotes ultimately prevail, then over time trillions of them will produce enough oxygen to, first, turn all of the cooling planets free iron into iron-oxide (rust). Once that is done...after, say, a billion years (which, remember, means nothing to the terraformers)...oxygen produced by the prokaryotes will be free to start saturating the waters of the seas and the atmosphere above. When enough of that saturation occurs (say, another billion years), the terraformers can begin to introduce increasingly more complex life forms to the planet.

This might include, for example, eukaryotes, Earths second life form, another single-celled bacteria which clearly appeared (rather than evolved) just as suddenly as the prokaryotes at (surprise!) around 2.0 billion years ago. Eukaryotes are distinctive because they are the first life form with a nucleus, which is a hallmark of all Earth life except prokaryotes. We humans are eukaryotic creatures. But those second immigrants (which, like prokaryotes, exist today just as they did when they arrived) were much larger than their predecessors, more fragile, and more efficient at producing oxygen.

After establishing the first portion of their program, the terraformers wait patiently while the protoplanet cools enough for "real" life forms to be introduced. When the time is right, starting at around half a billion years ago, higher life forms are introduced by means of what today is called the "Cambrian Explosion." Thousands of highly complex forms appear virtually overnight, males and females, predators and prey, looking like nothing alive at present. This is what actually happened.

The terraformers continue to monitor their project. They notice Earth suffers periodic catastrophes that eliminate 50% to 90% of all higher life forms. (Such mass extinction events have in fact occurred five times, the last being the Cretaceous extinction of 65 million years ago, which wiped out the dinosaurs). They wait a few thousand years after each event while the planet regains its biotic equilibrium, then they restock it with new plants and animals that can make their way in the post-catastrophe environment. (This, too, is actually borne out by the fossil record, which scientists try to explain away with a specious addendum to Darwinism called "punctuated equilibrium.")

For as outrageous as the above scenario might seem at first glance, it does account for the real, true, literal evidence much better than either Darwinism or Creationism ever have...or ever will. This produces the bitterest irony of the entire debate. With pillars of concrete evidence supporting outside intervention as the modus for lifes origins on Earth, the concept is ignored to the point of suppression in both scientific or religious circles. This is, of course, understandable, because to discuss it openly might give it a credibility neither side can afford at present. Both have their hands quite full maintaining the battle against each other, so the last thing either side wants or needs is a third wheel trying to crash their party. However, that third wheel has arrived and is rolling their way.

Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)
 

Got a Question? We try our best to answer them...

This one is from AOL ...

Dear Mr. Furford, I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed your site, though it took me some time to get through all of it. Every time I came back you had added something, somewhere. I am still trying to get through all of the bookmarks.

I bought a copy of Lloyd Pye's book and really liked it, and read most of Mr. Sitchin's stuff which is kind of hard to understand, and I am a little confused at the discrepancies in your work, even reading between the lines in the fictional section, Mr. Pye's work, and some others I have also been able to read. Can you explain this, like the date for the next time the planet X comes through and why you picked Turkey as Eden for just two? Do you personally know Art Bell? You sure have a lot of links to his site.

Could you post this answer as I do not own the machine I am sending this from. (It's my mother's old PC and I get my own when I start college next year) Some of my classmates use your pages also, and listen to Art Bell alot and think he is real cool.

Sincerely, Sherry Ross AOL

Allen's Response:

Well Sherry, you have some valid questions to field around, so I will try to answer mine and I am sure Lloyd will add his two bits worth and then some before we are all finished... and no, I do not personally know Mr. Bell, but send him information from time to time. I do support his efforts and will continue to do so unless he makes some horrible kind of blunder, which I do not see on any horizon at the moment. I think Mr. Bell is real cool myself, to tell you the truth. I spend some time with the Seattle chat club and know some of the players who are on Art's radio program like Peter Davenport and Mr. Pye, but in truth I do not the the chance to catch many of the broadcasts because I am made of flesh and blood and have a busy schedule of my own. Some of us are "normals" and have to sleep, though I am sure Lloyd would dispute that with a smile from time to time, as well as the Navy people who know me...

Lloyd Pye approached his book "Everything You Know is Wrong", from holes in Darwinism which really bothered him. I think the new genetic findings would bother Mr. Darwin too, if he was still alive. Lloyd is a very nice person, Sherry, and a very conscientious one. It took him some time to gather all of his information, and no small amount of money to visit much of what he has written about. He tries to be as scientifically accurate as he can, something we all strive for to the best of our resources and ability. You should really catch a lecture of his if you can, for you will not regret it and he will make you smile at the same time.

As for myself, I was not trying to write something which would be accepted by science, nor something for the book market. I was writing for my children and grandchildren, and dreams forced me to seek what I found, visions of bad weather, quakes and floods, not the end of the world but some real changes. I looked into the geology and geophysical problems with Earth first, then the Greek Theogony (their old religious book), then Mr. Sitchin's work.. This is why I wrote what I did in fictional form, for I knew my family members would never read dry technical literature, at least not the majority of them. The book was originally written years ago, but still holds for the most part because it is fiction, though many underlying truths shine through. A few paragraphs regarding Art Bell and the web were added to it, but that was about the sum of the changes. It makes people think and seek answers the way you did when you wrote to me, but you have a lot of study ahead of you yet as far as this subject is concerned. We all do...

Zacheria Sitchin was guided by religious questions, something we all had in common, and by the time he arrived where he is, he became the world's foremost translator of the Sumerian language, the oldest we acknowledge at this time. This is no small accomplishment! People bring Zacheria clay tablets, and he reads them. He does no actual field work as far as finding the material buried in the ground. Alan Alford, another researcher closer to your age, questions some of the translations, but I more or less stay out of that area as I have nothing to bring into a discussion so far out of my profession. I merely listen and read interseting e-mail, and watch the heavens as my ancestors did, for that is the direction trouble always starts from.

The one thing we all have in common is obscure works coming to light, new scientific techniques for measuring age, and what is currently unfolding as far as comets, our sun and the weather. The next item is not so minor... The accuracy of the Sumerians and what they wrote. Keep in mind a few thousand years passed after the last ice age before Sumer came to be, and time distorts things no matter how hard we try to avoid this. Languages change and disasters happen, while politics always are present.

All of the people writing in the field of earth changes are now comparing notes and exchanging tidbits of information each has found, to better understand our past. In short, none of us have all the answers and none of us will be totally correct, but by the time this is over and all the overlays are placed on the table, a great revelation which cannot be discounted will occur. Mainstream academia is getting hit very hard now as far as older theories go, and in truth very powerful factions on this third rock from the sun do not want the facts to come out for many reasons, religious and political, along with possible economic disruptions. In short we are fighting on a very vicious battle field for many reasons not even fully understood by us who were innocently sucked into this war...

The timing of The Planet of the Crossing, or planet X if it suits you, is not easy. Now the timing would seem pretty cut and dried just based upon what cuneiform texts have been translated, however when the scholars find historical text from Babylon which state the Great Flood was estimated by the scholars then to have been at least 90 ages back, and they knew an age was 2166 years, suddenly dating becomes somewhat more complicated. The old "Ice Bridge" theory for man to enter the Americas is shot full of holes, even more so with an announcement last week about older Indian cultures in the Southeast USA dating to at least 12,500 years ago. In Peru they are getting back to 50,000 years now, with 30,000 accepted. Findings in Japan put temples underwater of which the age is virtually unknown. What is important about all of this is language experts are very sure we all spoke one tongue, something all cultures young and old agree upon in various ancient and modern histories, and tell of cultures long gone. We are just beginning to find some of these cultures now. Atlantis and Lemuria are just two of these cultures.

Lloyd Pye based 200 BC for planet X as the last time through the inner system, from Greenland Ice core dating, for want of anything else, but seemed to have discounted the fact the Greeks and other cultures surely would have mentioned this object which is so large it even was to be seen in the daytime. He never mentioned activity from spacecraft or "gods" as well as disastrous, civilization shaking, weather at 200 BC. Much of this information is not readily available to us because of lost records when the Library at Alexandria, Egypt was destroyed. We now know something else may have had the pollen counts go haywire then, much like the weather you are living with now. Meanwhile we have a geological scarf (like a rock cliff face) in the Jackson Hole Wyoming area that raises like clockwork every 3600 years (1 shar), and it is due now. Even this is not enough, but it is as good as the pollen method. Lloyd did not know about that scarf when he wrote his book through no fault of his own, and now because of other input, he is carrying around this information plus a very interesting skull (Starchild Project), and I do not think it is an Anunaki hybrid myself. It seems we have more ET's than the Anunaki running around this area of our galaxy...

Lloyd will have to come up with an update for his manuscript, and he will in time, a doozy knowing Lloyd and I am looking forward to it. I got a T-shirt from him I just love which sums up Mr. Pye's position... Zacheria Sitchin stays very quiet about putting forth a firm date on The Planet of the Crossing while Lloyd, as I do, tables a possible date...

The timing of the gods leaving the planet does not really matter either, taking into account technology changes for them as far as space flight goes. Keep in mind old fighter biplanes were real fast if they could make 120 mph in level flight. If they could carry enough fuel, at 120 mph how long would it take one to fly around the equator? Over 208 hours... Now how long would one of our new fighter aircraft, which travels faster than a .308 caliber bullet, or say the slower 1200 mph SST take to make the trip? About 20.8 hours or less... and these are not our fastest craft. Escape velocity from this planet to go to the moon is 28,000 mph and we did that a long time ago when I was a young man. All of this came in less than 100 years, in fact about 50 years to be more correct. If the Anunaki had space flight about 500,000 years ago, they must really be able to burn rubber now like hot rodders if they did not destroy themselves, which is another possibility... and we really do not know if they all left this world either.

The arrival of planet X is always heralded by comets and severe weather problems, with rain in abundance according to the ancient texts. The last rain geologists have determined like that was 3600 years ago, about the time of Joseph in Egypt... so we have to think about tidbits of good information and more coming to us every day, young lady, thanks to the wonders of the Web and programs like Mr. Bell has aired. The comets and rain are a Sumerian signaling factor, followed by quakes, tidal waves and flooding, plus volcanic activity. At this moment is sure appears we are in this stage, but we still need more proof... The best person trying to explain this weather is Mr. Stan Deyo who lives in Australia, another very kind and thoughtful man. (Stan's button is at the bottom of the page)

Now I chose Turkey for Eden as it had the only physical requirements set forth as a location by the Bible, based upon an aerial map. E.DIN was the land around the Mesopotamian area by way of the Sumerians, all the land between the Tigris and Euphrates and bounded by the Black Sea. The Turks are very sensitive about the Anatola Plateau in the Ankara area, and cite religious reasons for the lack of excavation permits. They have a valid point! It was a mysterious area for a long time...

Lloyd and I talked about a Mayan stelle in Central America that has a starting date of 1,300,000 years ago, both of us pondering that date over. It was an important date and obviously signaled the starting of an event. Now just what event?

I will do as you ask, and post this piece for all to see and place a link to it on the updater page, after Lloyd looks it over and adds what he wants to, and you were timely with the letter as I had just finished his book for the second time. (I hate to read it too much because it is still the only autographed book I own...)

Sincerely, Allen D. Furford

Lloyd's Response:

Dear Sherry:

Well, my good friend Allen has covered most of the bases of your letter with a thoroughness and good humor that I can only marvel at. The guy spews words like a fountain spewing mist, doesn't he? It should come so easily to all of us.

As for details, I choose 200 BC as the last time around for Nibiru because, as he says, I go with the ice core readings of pollen counts, etc., which indicate the last ice age ended by starting around 15,000 years ago (13,000 BC) at the North Pole and slowly moving for 2000 years down to Antarctica. Suddenly, within as little as five years, it was over, sometime around 13,000 years ago (11,000 BC). If you start counting then and go by increments of 3600, the generally accepted time for Nibiru's orbit, then you come to 200 BC as the last time around.

Allen points out that we do not have any significant mention of that final orbit in what we know as "modern" history. Leaving the fate of the Alexandria library aside, he is right. One would think there might have been some mention of it. However, it would have at best been no more than the size of Mars in the sky now (3 times the size of Earth but orbiting between Mars and Jupiter), so maybe there are more subtle references that have notbeen noticed for what they are. Who can say?

While 200 BC might be off by several centuries (the guess as to when the Ice Age ended is approximate at best), what really matters is that Nibiru DID come through our solar system, as it has been doing for millennia. When that is finally accepted by the vast majority of our citizens, then we can seriously get to work trying to accurately determine when its last orbit might have been---and, of course, when it will come again. If I'm right, then 3400 AD is its next time around. But I can always be wrong.

Remember, Everything You Know Is Wrong, and that sometimes applies to me, too.

Thanks for your interest and I hope this answers your question sufficiently.

Lloyd 

Hello Everyone:

Another impersonal missive to alert you to the fact that this Friday, Nov. 12th, the tabloid television show "Extra" will contain a 4-minute segment about the Starchild Skull. It was filmed here in New Orleans about two weeks ago and will contain comments by me and several others. I have not seen the segment, but the producer assures me it makes a favorable impression. I certainly hope so!

Because "Extra" is syndicated, I cannot tell you when it will play in your area. You will have to seek that information on your own, either by calling your local stations (NBC, ABC, CBS, or FOX) to find out which one carries it, or by checking your TV Guide. Also, be aware that during the weekend following an airing, many markets present an hour-long compliation of "Extra's" top stories for the week. The Starchild segment will be one of those, so if you can't watch or tape the Friday airing, you may be able to catch it on a weekend compilation.

Let me also use this means to notify you that the Starchild's DNA is being tested as this is written, and we should have definitive answers about it before Thanksgiving. What will happen at that point is as follows: (1) If it is not entirely human, we will hold a major press conference to announce our findings to the world. We will need about two weeks to prepare for that. (2) If it is entirely a human deformity, we will fully update the website to that effect and then go on radio programs (Art, Jeff, Laura, etc.) to spread the word as widely as possible. In either case, look for results to be announced around the first week in December.

Lloyd Pye

RAISING THE STARCHILD
By Billy Cox
Billy Cox, the writer of this article in Fate Magazine, is a reporter/columnist for "Florida Today," a daily newspaper based near the Kennedy Space Center.  He is writing his first novel, about a fictional cryptozoologist with "a hankering for immortality."
 

Author and crypto-historian Lloyd Pye is risking his reputation on a wonderfully bizarre hypothesis: that a grotesquely misshapen child's skull is proof of alien life.
As he approached his fifty-third birthday, obstinate nonconformist Lloyd Pye thought he had it all figured out. Finally, a way to make a living without working for or with anyone else. A labor of pure love gestating since childhood, up and running, mobile as a circuit rider. Book signings at the fringe conventions from New Orleans to Vancouver, B.C., where sales penetrations were beginning to reach a remarkable 50 percent. And his vocabulary - impressing crowds, from the "foot-slope orientations of the prehistoric Laetoli" to the "braincase rounding of the Australopithecines." So tight a command did he have of missing-link paleoanthropology, he would move like a force across the land, he and his revelations about hominoids and the Anunnaki, campaigning for a prime-time showdown against the only institution qualified to stop him - academia. And he would chew 'em up and spit 'em out in the court of public opinion, those tweedy ostriches and their willful ignorance.
 

Lloyd Pye, a guy who'd rather drive a car with 218,000 miles on the odometer than compromise, would help rewrite the history of mankind. But then, last February, he was immobilized by the dead gaze of Starchild. And the locomotive of momentum jumped the rails and vanished into the dark. Now Pye is tooling across the mute bayous of Louisiana with a pair of skulls in the trunk of his Buick Roadmaster. And he's a little scared because both the skulls may be human. And what if that's the case? "I'm a blowed-up peckerwood, that's all there is to say," Pye laments in his Louisiana drawl. "I'm as low or lower than when I started. It's going to be really, really bad."
Thanks to Starchild, he has postponed promotion of his self-published assault on Darwinism, the audaciously titled "Everything You Know Is Wrong - Book One: Human Origins." Today Pye is staking his credibility on something imminently more verifiable. He's wagering one of the skulls locked up back there in a tool box - the one he calls Starchild - is a space alien. Or at least an alien hybrid, mongrelized with human blood. The DNA verdict is expected anytime. Maybe as early as Thanksgiving. Whatever currency Pye holds as a competent revisionist is now linked to the outcome.

THE STARCHILD AND MR. PYE
Like an urban legend, Starchild's origins come without papers, and are shrouded in hearsay. Pye is shielding the identities of Starchild's owners, at their request. Therefore, Pye's version of the story is the only one being told: Sometime between the first and second world wars, a teenage Mexican-American girl, unnamed, explores an abandoned mine shaft 100 miles southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico. She is startled by a skeleton, maybe five feet tall, lying on its back. From beneath the dirt, a smaller, skeletal hand the girl describes only as "misshapen" is wrapped around the other's upper arm bone. The girl digs. She exhumes the remains of what she presumes is a child, because of its size. But its hands and body are also "misshapen." And the skull - the skull is nearly as big as the adult's.
She gathers the entire bone pile in a basket. She goes home and leaves the basket outside, where its contents are washed away in a flash flood. The girl recovers only the skulls, which have been banged up by the weather's violence. For the rest of her life she keeps them at home in a cardboard box, where they collect dust. Shortly before her death, six or seven years ago, she bequeaths the skulls to a neighbor somewhere in the American Southwest. The neighbor hangs onto them for a while, until his wife orders him to throw out the ghoulish relics. But the browbeaten hubby cannot force himself to do it. So the neighbor contacts friends, a married couple. They're into UFOs, alien abductions. Maybe the skulls are related somehow. He gives them the skulls, free, around the first of this year.
The couple - one an engineer, the other a massage therapist - starts talking it up. In February, they bring the skulls to a friend, who happens to be speaking at a UFO conference. The speaker/friend has just read "Everything You Know Is Wrong." And the author just happens to be lecturing at this particular conference. Pye is not into UFO's, but he is not quite at home in the world, either. He's a Bigfoot guy, hooked on Yeti tales since reading Ivan Sanderson's "The Abominable Snowman" as a kid. He attended Tulane University on a football scholarship, 1964-68. Graduated with a degree in psychology because "nobody's going to give a degree in hominoids." Kicked around in the Army for a couple of years. Missed Vietnam. Conventional careers left him hollow. "I couldn't see myself listening to people piss and moan all day long," he says, "and I'm not enough of a materialist or a humanitarian to go into law or medicine."
He does like to write. He spent the better half of a decade in Hollywood. Six screenplays optioned off, nothing produced. One writing credit to show for it - "Scarecrow and Mrs. King," Kate Jackson's post-"Charlie's Angels" series. His first novel, in 1977, was about a football player for the Green Wave. It almost got made into a TV movie. His second and last novel in 1988 was a high-tech thriller. But there are few kindred souls on the road less traveled. "I never did all that well in relationships because the women I dated were making more money than me." Pye winces as he pushed west along I-10, toward his parents' home in Slidell. "It was just embarrassing at parties I'd go to with them. People asking, 'What do you do?' 'Well, I'm t rying to be a writer.' 'Who do you work for? What have you written?' That kind of thing." Through it all, he kept up his reading about origins, specifically hominoids, those elusive, lumbering ape-like beings inhabiting the fog of cryptozoology.
His conclusion: "Science is a long series of corrected mistakes."

CRADLE ROBBERS OF THE GODS
In 1990, Pye picked up "The Earth Chronicles," the magnum opus of Zecharia Sitchin. Over several books, the Russian-born scholar of ancient Sumerian texts proposed a provocative new Genesis story, literal and revolutionary: Some 430,000 years ago, aliens from the elliptically-orbiting planet Nibiru colonized Earth. Among other things, the Anunnaki left behind a legacy of genetically-manipulated Earthlings -- us. Impressed, Pye followed Sitchin on pilgrimages to sacred sites in Egypt, Peru and Jordan. Things began to click. He fused Sitchin into his own cosmology: Cro-Magnons are the hybrid slaves of the Anunnaki, while many of the hominoids - particularly the Bigfoot-like, man-sized Almas of Russia - are the living remnants of the ape-like Neanderthals.
Pye stitched his unified field theory together in his 1997 book. And just as he was starting to get known for his own work -- he commanded an audience of millions on Art Bell's radio show that December -- the Starchild owners confronted him in a motel lounge. They liked his analysis of bones, particularly the remains of early protohumans. So they showed him the skull. "As soon as I saw the eyes, it blew me away." Pye pulls into his parents' home. He prefers to discuss his treasure here instead of his cramped apartment in Metairie. "We all in this field know what the Greys look like. I thought, 'Holy moley, could this be the real thing?' "
He totes the toolbox inside and unlocks it on the kitchen table. His folks are out of town; they've heard it all before. "Well," he says. The latch clicks. The crackling of plastic bubble padding. "Here it is." Starchild is in bad shape. It looks like its face got shot off at point-blank range. That is, if it really is a child. Pye initially thought, due to the remains of apparent baby teeth that it had lived only five or six years. But several of what seem to be additional teeth have been analyzed, indicating Starchild might have been a late teen or young adult. And the other skull -- Pye believed it was a female at first, perhaps the mother. But subtle forensic indicators are more ambiguous. Perhaps it's a male.
At any rate, what's left of Starchild's mandibles are a couple of teeth still packed inside a chunk of the upper jaw, detached from the skull when Pye got it. But Starchild is unquestionably bizarre, especially when compared to its companion, which he still can't rule out as its mother. The head is egregiously misshapen, bulbous. Vaguely archetypal. Most experts, Pye says, blow Starchild off as a "cradleboarded hydrocephalic." In pursuit of cosmetic exotica, Pre-Columbian cultures often bound boards to the heads of infants to sculpt the growth of putty-soft skulls -- a practice known as cradleboarding. Furthermore, this kid apparently was double-whammied at birth by water on the brain, a.k.a. hydrocephaly -- a condition in which accumulation of water in the head causes enlargement of the skull.
But wait a minute. Pye had done research into Native American folklore, where legends of "Star Beings" can be harvested from the American Southwest to Tierra Del Fuego. In story-telling traditions dating back to antiquity, the gods once descended from heaven to impregnate barren females in remote villages. Mothers bearing these strange seeds would then nurture and raise the "Star Children" until the age of six or thereabouts, when the gods would return to reclaim their progeny, leaving villagers staring up into the infinite night.
Look at this skull, he beckons. Starchild's brain capacity is 1,600 cubic centimeters; a typical adult averages roughly 1,400. And check out the eye sockets, or orbits. Human orbits are cone-shaped and about five centimeters deep in the skull. But Starchild had no cones, merely shallow, three-centimeter-deep housings that make comparison to human eyes a serious stretch. And explore Starchild's reduced zygomatic arch, the bony loops around temples. In normal humans, you'd be able to pass two fingers' worth of muscle through it. Wit this sucker, you can barely slip two strands of spaghetti in between. Talk about your weak cheek muscles. Oh -- and the inion bump, down where the skull ends and the neck muscles would begin. "I've seen a lot of cases of cranial binding, but not one of them involves going below the inion," Pye says. But look here -- the entire rear skullbone, called the occipital, is flattened, unlike any other cradleboarded specimen in the book.
See those parietal bones forming the upper rear of the cranium? Too huge to be human. Big enough maybe to house a trilateral brain. And there's enough of a nasal cavity left to show that this thing never had sinuses. Look at the positioning of Starchild's neck hole, called the foramen magnum. The foramen magnum is centered under the head. Good God -- what's that all about? In humans, the hole is situated rear of the center to balance the heavy cranium against the relatively weightless face. This is beyond freaky. All told, Starchild's skull weighs about 13 ounces. Add on the missing mandibles and you're looking at maybe 16 ounces tops. The average five-year-old skull weighs in at 20 ounces and the average adult skull comes in at 35. Starchild's head is bigger, but its bones are lighter.
"This is either alien," Pye says, "or the most anomalous human specimen since the Elephant Man."

CLASH OF THE SKEPTICS
The experts who have examined Starchild don't know what to make of it. A quick poll reflects a house divided. Ed Waldrip, director of the Southern Institute of Forensic Science in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, agrees that the adult skull is female, perhaps the mother. The slight flattening on the back of her head suggests she was cradleboarded as a child, too. His vote: Starchild is a cradleboarded hydrocephalic. He feels privileged to have held this rare conjunction in his own hands. "As a forensic investigator, this is not a skull you'll run across in a lifetime of investigation," he says.
Trent Holliday, a Tulane anthropologist who specializes in Neanderthals, buys the cradleboarding theory. But he doesn't think Starchild was hydrocephalic. A hydrocephalic child in an early Native American culture would never have lived to age five. Other than that, Holliday doesn't think Starchild looks all that weird. Not even the eyes. "The orbits look perfectly normal to me," he says. But not to Fred Mausolf, a Lincoln, Nebraska, opthamologist who wrote a book on skulls and their orbits -- "The Anatomy of the Ocular Adenexa." Mausolf is unwilling to concede Starchild's orbits conflict with human physiology, but he calls the kid's condition "surprising," even "shocking." He is simply bewildered. And he is not sure if Pye's scheduled DNA tests will resolve anything. "Even if the results are compatible with human genetics, that still doesn't rule out aliens, does it?" Mausolf wonders. "Do we have any alien DNA to compare it to?"
Joseph Smith is the director of radiology for Children's Hospital in New Orleans, and a professor of radiology and pediatrics at Tulane and Louisiana State. In all his years in medicine, dating back to 1959, Smith has never encountered anything like Starchild. "I've seen hydrocephalics so big you had to carry 'em around in a wheelbarrow," Smith says. "This is no hydrocephalic. The cranial sutures are normal. I personally think we're dealing with a deformed child with a neuromuscular illness. I think the kid may have been living flat on his back for five to six years, which would account for the positional molding on the back of the head. What impressed me most of all -- the most unusual abnormality -- were the orbits and the narrow space between the eyes. I've never seen orbits like this before -- the shallowness, the teardrop appearance, with the small parts slanted toward the nose. This is most peculiar."
The next step: DNA testing. Pye has a lab picked out, but he's concealing its identity, as well as the identity of Starchild's owners. In April, Pye made the mistake of blabbing the name of a lab that had volunteered to do the work on Art Bell's Coast to Coast A.M. Millions of Americans were tuned in. The lab didn't need the heat, and wimped out. The second lab will need the teeth -- the repository of genetic information. Starchild has only four left. Plan A: Cut them out by the roots, bore out the pulp, and save the tooth. Plan B: If the pulp is too degraded, pulverize the teeth into dust and scan whatever turns up. If nothing else, they'll be able to resolve a genetic link between Starchild and the adult.
Either way, the nuclear DNA test is expensive, maybe $20,000 a shot. The secret lab has agreed to shoulder the cost, which brings up the next point. For all the secrecy, Pye says he told Starchild's owners back in February that the best way to handle this was out in the open. Go national with it. Build public expectations, which he did immediately, at a UFO conference in Laughlin, Nevada. Why? Because, well, frankly, Pye was a little paranoid about government scrutiny. Maybe his strategy worked. Because, well, just as frankly, he's experienced no sign of government shadows whatsoever. "I'm almost disappointed," he says.

SEARCH FOR A MEANING
A brief glimpse into Pye's lifestyle reveals no visible signs of financial gain. He says he hasn't made a dime off Starchild, nor have its owners. His Buick Roadmaster is old. His apartment is so small and carelessly regarded he doesn't even like to invite his girlfriend over. He does have a computer, above which a wall map is posted, showing all the Bigfoot sightings in the United States. Pye often checks his email and updates his Website, www.lloydpye.com. Reluctantly, he had informed readers that he's strapped for cash. Between the loss of projected revenues for the book he no longer promotes and his out-of-pocket Starchild expenses, Pye reckons he's $20,000 in the hole at mid-year. And he needs another $10,000 or so for peripheral analysis, such as Carbon-14 dating on the skulls, an endocranial cast to reflect Starchild's brain shape, neutron spectroscopy to qualify the bone chemistry, and a clay sculpture to flesh out the skull. He is not optimistic. "Truthfully," he says, "my fund-raising skills are so sparse, I'm not sure I could raise dust on a dirt farm."
So the world waits. And Pye waits. He aims his old car toward the airport. "I've tried to handle this thing aboveboard, with as much dignity and correctness as possible," he says. "Too many issues in this field are contaminated by money. The potential gain to humanity is too great for that." Fallback plans? "Yeah, I'll jump off a bridge and let my insurance pay off everything."
Finding the real thing -- new and old all at once, but original, authentic -- is damn near impossible these days. Not even the name of his book is original. Immediately after publication, Pye was informed "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is the name of a cultural trivia book by Paul Kirchner -- "Everything You Know Is Wrong: Common Fallicies, Mistakes and Misattributed Quotations." But Starchild is different. He can feel it in his bones. It feels like immortality.
"All my life," he continues, "I've wanted to do something that wasn't just different, but something with value, something with meaning." Lloyd Pye wonders what horrific debacle unfolded at the bottom of a Mexican mine shaft several hundred years ago. A mother and her godforsaken kid? Murder-suicide? Something worse? The airport swings into view; another stranger is about to return to the sky.
"My only obligations are financial. I'm single, I don't have a mortgage or kids to support." Congestion ahead. "It's a risk I can afford to take. It's almost as if I've been unconsciously positioning myself to be at this very point in my life. So it was a pretty easy decision." A fractured smile, quick and gone. "I had no choice."
 

THE END

Well, it's happening again. I am going to be on the Art Bell show with Art
himself this coming Tuesday night, Jan. 25th (early Wed. morning). I presume
I'll come on at the usual time, beginning the second hour, which is 11:00 pm
Pacific time and 2:00 am Eastern time. By now you should know your local
station that carries the show, or at least how to listen in via Real Audio
if you prefer to do it that way.

We will be discussing the Starchild and its recent DNA test results, the
dissemination of which I did not handle well, so many people have been left
with the impression that the Starchild is a male human and that's that. This
is not correct. Therefore, a big part of what I will be trying to do is
clarify the results in a more descriptive fashion, which I was not able to
do in the update on the website.

To help bolster my case I will be bringing on two experts who support the
possibility that the Starchild is not entirely human. One is Dr. Paula
Gunn-Allen, professor emeritus from UCLA who specializes in North American
Indian culture, a part of which is what are known as "The Star Husband
Stories," which throughout the totality of the Americas (North and South)
are known as "The Star Being Legends." This should be a fascinating addition
to the show relative to the "Gods of Cholula" aspect of the Starchild story,
so I am sure you will enjoy hearing the details of what Dr. Gunn-Allen has
to say.

The other expert will be Dr. Ted Robinson, a cranio-facial plastic surgeon
from Vancouver, BC, Canada. For those of you who have read the website
update, yes, this IS the gentleman who wanted to remain anonymous to protect
his extensive surgical practice. Now, however, considering how important
this appearance on Art's show could be to the Starchild's cause, he is
willing to "come out" to try to help.

Dr. Robinson will talk about how he initially felt as I did, that the
Starchild could not possibly be a deformed human, but he could not be sure
until he rechecked all relevant textbooks on deformities. After that
analysis (similar to the one I did here in New Orleans, though I'm sure his
"official" access made his more comprehensive), he was convinced that his
first impression was correct: the Starchild was not a "natural" deformity.

After that he began bringing colleague specialists from the Vancouver area
to examine the skull, and what he found when they examined it was precisely
what I kept experiencing when I would take it to similar specialists (other
than Dr. Robinson and a mere handful of others).....

Well, let him tell his version of it and I will tell mine. I hope you all
can either listen in live or catch the show when it is archived. I think it
is going to be a good one, and I hope it leaves Dr. Robinson and Chad
Deetken (the two men taking over as leaders of the Starchild Project) with
enough money to get further testing done. Let's hope so!

POINT-COUNTERPOINT

[The following is a critical letter written by Mr. Bari Hooper of Essex, England, to the editors of Fortean Times, a magazine published in England. In November of 1999, F.T. ran a story by Max McCoy regarding my efforts to promote the Starchild Project. Why it has taken until July of 2000 for this letter to be published is beyond me, but I have taken grave exception to both its tone and its basis in fact. Below is the letter in its entirety, followed by my response to it, which I hope Fortean Times will find means to publish in less than the seven months Mr. Hooper's complaint required to see print. --- Lloyd Pye]

Dear Sirs:

Your article "Star Child" describing "skeletal remains of an alien-human hybrid" cannot be allowed to pass into UFO folklore without being answered. The photographs accompanying the article clearly show two human skulls, an adult, probably male, and a child.

Although one might not ordinarily comment on a skull without physically examining it, from the photographs the child's skull appears to exhibit a mild case of hydrocephaly. This condition is sometimes known as "water on the brain," and in about a quarter of cases is probably congenital; the remainder originate from prenatal development, perinatal trauma, or as a result of post-natal infection. The condition usually becomes manifest in the fist six months of life, with the highest mortality rate occurring during the first 18 months. Cases have been reported from archeological sites in Europe, North Africa, and South America. One adult case of the Roman period is reported as having a cranial capacity of 2,600 cubic centimeters.

Vault deformity in the form of posterior flattening of the occipital region is also evident in both skulls, that in the child being particularly pronounced. Skull deformation of this type is usally caused by regular pressure being applied during infancy, the child having its head bound to a cradle-board. Artificial cranial deformation was widespread in antiquity, being found on every continent except Australia. It is still practiced today in some parts of the world, including Central America.

As for the supposedly abnormal eye sockets and lack of sinuses, I suggest that Mr. Pye, who is described in your article as an amateur anthropologist, takes a course in human skeletal anatomy. All of the foregoing information was apparently given to the protagonists of the so-called Starchild Project by American anatomists, but not surprisingly it was rejected by them. UFO loonies, like the religious cranks they closely resemble, subsist on faith rather than facts. If Mr. Pye succeeds in getting a DNA analysis for his skull, it will undoubtedly prove its mundane origins, but no doubt this fact will also be rejected.

[My response.]

Dear Sirs:

This regards Bari Hooper's rather scathing rebuttal of the article you published about me and my efforts to establish the biological credentials of what we have hopefully named "The Starchild Skull." Mr. Hooper opens his complaint by saying the adult human skull found with the Starchild is "probably a male," when forensic DNA testing proved beyond doubt it is a female. He then covers his pronouncement with the caveat that "one might not ordinarily comment on a skull without physically examining it." In that spirit I will open by saying one might not ordinarily call another person a complete ignoramus without knowing if they are truly as arrogant and narrow-minded as they sound.

From March through December of 1999, I attempted to raise enough funding to obtain expensive diagnostic testing of the Starchild's DNA. While trying to raise those funds, I took it to over fifty medical, physiological, and anthropological specialists with a widely varying range of expertise. My hope was that by undertaking a comprehensive survey, the results would be consistent and therefore accurate enough to provide an indication of what we might be dealing with. Some interesting results came from those encounters, to be sure, although very few provided substance regarding the Starchild's heritage.

Only five of those specialists actually took the time to carefully examine the skull. Every other one glanced at it for no more than a few seconds. Some would not even touch it. I know this sounds incredible, but it is true. They were either that dismissive of it, or that intimidated by it; I was never able to determine which. Like Mr. Hooper, fully half made an initial pronouncement that it was a cradle-boarded hydrocephalic. It seems obvious. I would then point out various reasons why the hydrocephalic end of the equation was not possible, starting with the unobvious fact that if you look inside the skull to view its inner lining, you find veins indented the bone up to the arch of the cranial vault, meaning there could not have been fluid on the brain. It was clearly solid brain pressing against bone.

Next I would point to the utter symmetry of the upper cranial "deformity," complete with an unmistakable finger-width "crease" in the bone where the two parietals meet, neatly bisecting the twin "bulges" that look so distinctively hydrocephalic. Even the most ardent supporter of that theory had to accept a zero likelihood that upward pressure of fluid on the brain would cause two symmetrical bulges while leaving a distinctive dent in the bone along the much weaker fault line created where the two parietal bones meet. If anything, that weakened area of conjoining should have been higher instead of lower. Case closed.

As for the cradle-boarding argument, in the many dozens of genuinely cradle-boarded skulls I had been shown or seen in studies, which included the human skull found with the Starchild, every single one stopped at the center-rear of the skull just above the knob of bone known as the "inion." This is because thick neck muscles attach to the inion, and to extend the compression further would severely damage the neck of any infant. Also, cradleboards leave the compressed bone with a glass-smooth surface, with even small convolutions pressed flat by the pressure of constraint. The rear of the Starchild's head, though quite flat by ordinary standards, nonetheless retains its natural convolutions.

The Starchild's inion is missing, replaced by a very shallow, thumb-tip-sized concavity relative to the surrounding surface. Furthermore, its neck muscles attach fully an inch below where they belong, and only an inch (half of normal) from the foramen magnum opening where the spine enters the skull. The foramen magnum itself is shifted forward an inch from its position in a normal skull, placing it dead center under the overall mass of the cranium. This means the Starchild's neck would have been 1/3 to 1/2 the width and volume of a normal neck, and centered directly under the skull case, moving it perilously close to the exact shape and position of nearly every "Gray" alien neck ever described.

My quick demolishing of the "cradle-boarded hydrocephalic" argument won me few friends among the specialists I consulted. After some strained, trying-to-be-polite chit-chat, I would be shown the door. Of course, I don't want to present an entirely one-sided picture. Other specialists had their own pet theories as to what had caused the Starchild's obvious physical deformity. Some said Apert's Disease, others said Crouzon's Disease, still others felt it had to be Treacher-Collins Disease. However, I would then ask if those disorders should leave the skull with normal bone density, and they would assure me it would. I would then hand the skull over to them and their jaws would drop, because the Starchild's bone density is uniformly only 40% of normal (proved by a recent test). In the hand it weighs only half of normal and feels like a dried gourd more than a skull.

I would like to think that had Mr. Hooper taken the precaution of examining the Starchild skull before metaphorically opening his mouth and adroitly inserting both feet, he would have been as gracious as most experts I consulted, who merely showed me their door. But since he called me a "UFO loonie" who "subsists on faith rather than facts," I will have to say to him that he could not be more wrong if he made a lifetime project of it.

To the best of my ability I try to live by facts, as opposed to the hysterical nay-saying of those who simply can't accept the possibility of undeniable proof of a human-like being that is not 100% human. And one fact in this case is clear: this skull is like nothing ever seen before by any specialist encountered. Not one could give it a name or a description that could then be found as a case study anywhere. They were all flying blind, taking their usual stabs in the dark with the assumption I would tuck tail, say, "Oh, well, then, Dr. Expert, sorry to have bothered you," and that would be the end of it.

I would also tell Mr. Hooper that in addition to the scientific specialists I took the skull to for examination, I also took it to roughly the same number of "mystics" and "sensitives" who wanted to "psychometrize" it for me. He will be pleased to know they were no more consistent in their "readings" than the scientists were in their analyses. And in the end, of course, there is only one source any of us can turn to for definitive answers regarding this greatest single physical anomaly on planet Earth-until proven otherwise. That source is diagnostic DNA testing, and the Starchild Project is still struggling mightily to obtain the funding and/or interest from those in position to provide that answer.

For what it may be worth, I am no longer in charge of day-to-day affairs regarding the Starchild. My year with it put me into a deep financial hole I will be trying to climb out of for the foreseeable future. Luckily, one of the experts I consulted was a cranio-facial plastic surgeon in Vancouver, Canada, named Ted Robinson. Upon seeing the skull and giving it a thorough examination, cranial expert Dr. Robinson admitted he was unaware of anything like it, but that he would like to check all reference books relevant to it to be certain of his appraisal. He was the first and only specialist to take that long route to an answer (instead of the glib shortcuts favored by Mr. Hooper and so many others).

After a few weeks Dr. Robinson called to say he was convinced. He had been through every textbook available and had proved to himself that there was absolutely nothing like the Starchild on record anywhere in the literature of human deformity. I asked him if he, a certified expert, was convinced enough to take over the Starchild Project from me, an uncertified layman, and thankfully he agreed to do so. Now, assisted by an excellent Vancouver anomaly researcher named Chad Deetken, they are doing all they can to move the Starchild Project forward. Ironically, even with Dr. Robinson leading the way, they keep encountering the same stiff official resistance I dealt with during the year I had it.

Mr. Hooper concludes his screed by stating that when the DNA results are in, they are bound to prove the Starchild had "mundane origins." He apparently doesn't know that whenever I discuss the Starchild publicly, I always stress the possibility that we may be barking up the wrong tree. Well-meaning people assured me that was an exceptionally poor tactic for raising funds, but the truth is the truth and I won't pretend otherwise.

Mr. Hooper also states we will reject the results if they are not to our liking. Not on your life, Bari, my boy! No one would be happier than me to just get this intractable problem solved! When the skull's owners first contacted me and asked me to arrange its testing, I told them it would take three or four months, tops. Here we are, 18 months later, and very little closer to any definitive truths than we were early on. Nonetheless, I can assure Bari Hooper and everyone else of this: diagnostic DNA testing cannot be argued with. It will say what it will say, then we will all have to deal with that in our own ways.

Sincerely,

lloyd@lloydpye.com

Lloyd Pye

Now I could add to the above piece, however the person throwing stones is somewhat unfamiliar to me. He isn't to others, however. Read the following...

From: James A Gilliland <james@cazekiel.org>
Organization: Self-Mastery Earth Institute
Reply-To: james@cazekiel.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 10:17:37 -0700
To: lloyd@lloydpye.com
Subject: Starchild

Dear Loyd, for the record we believe in the authenticity of the skull.
We have been harassed my a man who goes by the name, GEFortean. I think
it very well could be this Barry fellow. He uses all of the tactics of a
government mole set out to discredit and confuse the facts. No matter
how many facts are presented he will twist the information and never
admit to past mistakes, accusations or assumptions. Myself and several
others have a long correspondence with him. In each case he has acted
with ill intent, discredits everything and tries to create confusion. I
have spent hours addressing each one of his assumptions, accusations,
and often slanderous remarks on various email lists exposing his agenda.
Despite the photos, videos, hundreds of eye witnesses he continues to
find one possible fault and dwells on it dismissing all the other
evidence. I told him we know what you are doing, the only thing we do
not know is your motive. Is it just your nature or are you being paid to
discredit, debunk, and create confusion disregarding the facts which is
standard policy in the disinformation game.

Just wanted to let you know you are not alone in dealing with this man.
You cannot reason with ignorance, insanity, or a paid agenda. Smile
--
James Gilliland
Self-Mastery Earth Institute
PO Box 281, Hood River, Oregon 97031
(509) 395-2092 http://www.cazekiel.org

The present culture of Earth changes are rife with ancient Egyptian culture, myths and artifacts, and yet a few years back Malta stunned the world when archeological findings clearly showed a culture highly advanced before the ancient Egyptians even were on the map of civilization, timed by present theory which has been found lacking...

The stone work on the oldest temples in the Malta area is as the oldest stone work in South America and Egypt appears, something we cannot duplicate to this present age, but far more important and often lost in argument is the fact this commonality in construction may be considered the string that binds the cultures together. Egyptologists are losing prestige slowly but surely, regardless of the Fox TV network and conservatives who fight for old theory dogma, and are these people are saved in the ignorant public mind only by the very size and massiveness of the Giza pyramids which is the focal point called to mind.

Smugly the old guard tells of sliding the massive stones in Egypt into place, which sounds good except none of the construction time factors pan out, and they glibly try to ignore obelisks which were partially cut and found faulty so were left as they were worked, dictated by the fact they could not be used because of breakage, cut by means unknown except in "myth" which told of the stone cutting tools of the "gods". When the South American stone work is brought into any argument because of its quality, massive sizes and terrible logistic complexities, the three monkey mode of blind, deaf and speechless is employed in academic circles. In short, don't rock the boat... don't make waves....

Now we cannot as of this time date the actual cutting of the stones, however taking in all the commonality of all similar massive works in this world, and inspecting location as well as materials, the only method which feasibly had to be employed for the placement of the oldest foundation stones all over the world is summed up with the words: "air lifted into place". This is the bottom line...

The method really does not concern me as much as it concerns the average archeologist, because I will lose no prestige by stating the above facts, and those under the old guard scrutiny of " archeological science" (... its nothing more than a three monkey club) would be branded as radicals for stating such a preposterous idea, though we in the engineering fields would loudly applaud the "radical" for being somewhat more intelligent than his or her peers.

Now ruins off shore in Malta show what appears to be underwater temples (shades of Bermuda and Japan) and some have tabled the idea that 3500-3600 B.C. or there about tsunami and or quake sunk this section of the Maltese island. Given the location and all of the seismic activity in the Med. area I am sure this is a good bet though the date is in question. Keep in mind the underwater structures are dated from current theory and may be older than what was cautiously tabled for the media.

We cannot date the cutting of stone, but it seems odd to me that actual stone cutting method from around the world has not been well compared (marks, smoothness, residual physics info). Maybe when and how are mysteries, but if the method is, or seems to be the same, it would prove world wide continuity. (This is worse than finding corn and the coca plant in Egyptian tombs as far as present dogma is concerned, and this has occurred.) The geologists and the geneticists have slapped the field of archeology silly in the last decade with Sphinx erosion and Neanderthal information contrary to what old theory wants to accept, and when engineers have come out and told Egyptologists rather bluntly their "campy" construction theories are full of logical holes, the three monkey effect comes quickly back into play.
 

And so it always comes back around to our ancient records baked in clay and carved in stone... and the works of men like Sitchin and Pye. As far as the three monkeys are concerned, perhaps we should fall back to anciently old and effect methods of truth. Those who refuse to hear it should have molten tin poured in their ears, those who refuse to see it should have molten lead poured in their eyes, and those who know but refuse to speak, molten gold poured into their mouths. It was amazing in the king's court how many were suddenly cured of their deafness, blindness, and speechlessness...

Allen Furford

We all agree to disagree... agreeably.

Genesis of Light ...