Lloyd Pye - cool dude! (Page 1 of 3)

Thanks, lyra.  I've heard of him but don't know if I've read his articles.  Bookmarked it for later.

I haven't read Lloyd Pye's work, but this is pretty much the viewpoint I've been moving towards for a while. I think that the Intervenors (or a faction thereof, or those who learned from the same source) are the ones who will come back some day to facilitate the world's acceptance of the so-called Antichrist. Western scientism is the new world religion, and it will take scientific proof to convince its ever-jealous "priests" to validate the new world leader(s) and relinquish (or share in) control. I think this proof will come in the form of information: genetic codes to lost species, methods of editing the DNA code to produce specific results, and ways of successfully incubating the creations. For most people, there will be no arguing with such proof. The thing is, the Intervenors have to do this quickly, before we learn how to do it all ourselves. Otherwise their knowledge won't impress us enough for us to consider them gods.

I recently read a book called Red Earth, White Lies, which deals in part with Native American legends and how they often describe literal historical events going back many thousands of years. I don't know if this is discussed in Goro Adachi's book, but there are Native America legends of "giant men who carved the rivers" in North America. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but I'll dig up the quotes and post them later.

Thanks for the links. I'll check this stuff out when I have a chance.

Ly,
Thanks for posting. I stayed up until 2 AM reading a bunch of stuff on Pye's site! It's weird... a few hours before I saw your post, I was poking around John Sanford's site (dailygrail.com linked to him the other day.) Sanford is a geneticist refuting what he calls the "Primary Axiom" of Darwinism, which states that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. I'm wanting to dig deeper on this subject.

Just wondering what you, and others on NR, have found to be convincing books or articles about Itelligent Design?

I'm thinking about getting Time Rivers by Adachi, but I suck at math and I just don't know if it's going to be too tedious for me. I'm well into one of the Disinformation books about hidden archeology.

Also, I haven't looked to see if there's thread about this, but I'd love to keep track of the latest writers and websites that people consider worthwhile. I check dailygrail.com, goro adachi's site, Stuart Wilde when he posts (which is far and few between these days.) Personally, I like Karen Bishop. I would love to hear who others are plugging into these days... as a lot of us are no longer feeling a connection with Rense, Icke, and the like.

Well........it's not Intelligent Design.  That's a different theory.  This one is Interventionism.   Intelligent Design still maintains that there was a God being behind the creation of Man, but, without all the other nonsense that goes with Creationism.  Interventionism postulates that other intelligent species (ie, aliens?) may have seeded life on earth, based on what the evidence is pointing to.

I don't know if it's aliens or what, but Lloyd does lay out a case that our ancestors, being who they supposedly were, could not have created domesticated grains and livestock through selective breeding.  Changes occurred within the grains.....at a chromosonal level.  It was a complete re-tooling of these grains, not artifiicial selection and breeding, as we're taught in school.   I mean, to put it bluntly - we're lied to in school about that, and the nature of the most basic things around us.   We have a completely hidden history, and yet, we're bopping along in the present, completely oblivious to it.  I think that's a shame.   If there were past civilizations, be it Atlantis, or aliens, or who knows what that put into place the very things that we're using and eating today, then I think we ought to know about it.  Yet TPTB want us completely severed from all that in the past.  Let's pretend none of it happened, completely re-write history and put ourselves as the center piece focal point star of the show.  Why?   Side rant, I know, but still! 

For me though that's the main allure of Lloyd's material.  Showing us in an intelligent, coherant, organized way how our history has been completely fabricated.  It's not speculation - he lays it out with proof.   Basically like "Look - they tell us that homonid B 'evolved' from homonid A....but homonid B appeared out of nowhere, and then co-existed with homonid A for thousands of years before hominod A died off."   That's not evolution.

Another thing he gets into is how species on Earth tend towards "stasis."  They exist as is for thousands of years, even up to a million years, with only a few micro-evolution mutation changes.   But they're not evolving into all these other kinds of crazy life forms, the way we're taught.   Fish don't turn into amphibeans, and amphibeans don't turn into lizards, and lizards don't become birds, who in turn become mammals.  Sorry, doesn't work that way.  X!   Species have never demonstrated the ability to miraculously turn into a completely new species.  However what's interesting is that all life on earth shares the same blueprint for life, so that's possibly why scientists feel that because we're all "connected" genetically we therefore, all evolved from each other.   So then meanwhile, life is moving along in its stasis state with only a few minor edits along the way.....until some kind of catastrophe will happen, maybe comets, or pole shifts, or whatever, wiping out mass quantiies of life on earth.    Years will go by, then it's like, POOF!   New life springs up, literally, out of nowhere, and it all starts up again.  He refers to this process as the "Cosmic Dump Truck."  It's like some cosmic dump truck comes by and dumps all the "seeds of life" onto the planet so it can all start up again.  But it certainly does not "macro evolve" from its predessors.  Most times, these creatures HAVE no predecessors.   They just.....appear.   But that was one of the best parts of his theory, to me.  I enjoyed reading that.

What's interesting is when the fossil records gets to Cro-Magnun.  There were all these primate-like homonids in the vain of "big foot" for thousands of years....big heavy bones, jaws with amazing crushing power, heavy browbones and smaller foreheads, then comes Cro Magnun, something so human-like that you could stick a hat on him and walk him down a modern city street and nobody would be able to tell the difference.  CM just...appeared.  It was like "they", whoever "they" are, were THIS close to perfecting what would eventually become us.  There were apparently still issues with CM, so he abruptly disappeared, and the next model - Homo Sapiens - appeared.  The final product that's been around now for about 200,000 years.  But which is being "upgraded" now too you could say, if the hybrid stuff is all true.   !  (In the future, will some future civilization scientists be analzying the skulls and skeletons of the hybrids walking among us today, noticing how these changes just abruptly "appeared" overnight, and how they were walking among us, the old version of human, until we eventually "died out", leaving them as the inheritors of the world?   !)  The whole 200,000 years thing is another interesting thing to look at.  We're told over and over again that species turn into other species through macro evolution, but there simply was not enough time for humans to have evolved into what we are.  Remember as kids we were taught that humans are 1-5 million years old?  I remember that, but it was only fairly recently that some anthrapologists realized....humans are, at best, 200,000 years old.  They were completely attacked for revealing that publicly, as if they were incompetant for even thinking such a thing, but they had the proof, and eventually the other scientists had to concede.  Although nobody is willing to (publicly) take the implications of that and run with it.  200,000 years huh....so......how in the world did that happen??   hmmmm......!

Lloyd gets more into detail regarding the glaring holes and discrepancies in the fossil record in his book, "Everything you know is wrong."  The title is tongue-in-cheek of course, as explained in the opening intro., but yet still said with some seriousness.  It's an interesting book if anybody wants more details about homonids and the fossil record "issues" not found in the articles.   The only thing I didn't like about the book was that at the end, he tied in his research with the work of Zecharia Sitchin.  I saw that and was like, AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!   I mean, I was REALLY disappointed.  That's when I emailed him, because after all, he had said "let me know what you think of the book" in a previous email when I'd ordered it from him, and well, since he did ask......!   So, I carefully, intelligently, politely, explained what my problems are with ZS's work, and how I think it could inadvertantly drag Lloyd's work down to hitch his research to Z's.  He responded that he's since distanced himself from ZS's research, as you'll notice in the articles which all came after the book was published and don't mention it, but, he felt back then that he couldn't lay out the case for interventionism without getting into the whole case for ancient sumerian advanced ET civilizations.   He was really cool about the whole thing.   But I still disagree....I think he could have done it, easily.   Just lay out the proof, and let it speak for itself.  It doesn't need to be backed up by ZS's work, of all people.   Let the evidence lead you.   If you're smart, you can see where it's going.   It's the same mistake Jim Marrs made imo, with his "Rule By Secrecy."  The book was chugging along nicely, then at the end, when he goes to show how there's been non-human manipulation into the affairs of Man over the millenia, he goes and ties it all in.....to Zecharia Sitchin.  DAH!!!!   NOOOOOO!!!!!   Totally tanked the book, imo.  But, Lloyd's current work has separated itself from that, so, that's good.

Anyway, Lloyd may not be right either about what's going on here, but I just like the fact that here's somebody challenging the status quo, and showing us that it's not correct.  What the real answer is remains to be seen, but, it isn't what we're being taught, that's for sure.   

It's not as bad as you think.  I don't do math either, but I was able to follow along and keep up.  There aren't any formulas or anything.  At best, there's some numbers pertaining to what happens if you were to theoretically "stretch out" the Nile river into a straight line, and then some really amazing ratios that tie into Phi.  But I don't know math, and even I could keep up, so, it should be fine.

It's a very easy book to follow, although that book should have been paired down.  I think what Goro should have done was forget a lot of the stuff you'll find at the beginning of the book, just, chop it out, and leave only the second half.  Or better yet........split the book into two smaller books.   Change the order of the information being presented.  The first book could have proven, using the numbers and figures, how the Nile was artificially engineered.  Establish that first, to really get people's interest and to make his case.  Then the second book would pertain to the actual "time" prophesy stuff after he's proven the rest.   Instead his book did it the other way around, and maybe that's why it wasn't as well received as it could have been.   But like Lloyd, I think Goro was too close to the work, and couldn't see a different way of doing it.  Ultimately though, it really doesn't matter how Goro arranged the book when it comes to trying to prove his case to the academic establishment, because as we all should know, mainstream academia and science will NEVER admit openly or accept anything that shows artifical engineering of anything by "something else" no matter how the material is presented.  Be it the Nile river, the moon, humans, our cereal grains, livestock, or anything.   Period.  They can't, and won't.  So even if Goro had rearranged his material and did the book differently it still wouldn't have been accepted by anybody who has a career on the line.  Unfortunately.

First, thanks so much for elaborating on Pye's work and what's intriguing you!

Can you clarify a little more on the difference between Interventionism, Intelligent Design and Creationism?  Here are my elevator speeches for each theory:

1) Creationism: "God" created everything on the earth in a vacuum in 6 days and rested on the 7th (Humans are only a few thousand years old and this is the first and only age of man.)

2) Intelligent Design: Some form of higher intelligence designed all life on Earth. These blueprints could not have been an accident or product of random mutation.

3) Interventionism: Some form of higher intelligence seeded all life on Earth and "tends" to the garden via purposeful mutations that are not the direct result of a "natural" evolutionary process.

Please add, subtract and modify

(Then, of course, there's the idea that those who are tending to the garden are not the ones who seeded it... this would still qualify is Interventionism, right? That geneticist, John Sanford - who may be a Creationist in disguise - argues that we are actually DE-evolving, which would mean that if other theories we've discussed are true - like hybrid programs - then at one time or another, two or more groups of HEB's have been involved in the "evolution" of man... and there we have the theories for battlefield Earth.)

Please elaborate on your beef with Sitchin, or I can just see if you've spoken about this on another thread. I haven't read his stuff. Are there any astroarcheologists, or whatever they're called, whose research and conclusions jive with your own???

That sounds right to me. 

For starters, the core of the Sitchen material relies on the validity of his Sumerian tablet translations.  If he's not translating things 100% correct, or he's slightly skewing translations in order to make them fit an agenda, then that changes the entire nature of the Sumerian story he's giving us.  And I have come across people who've questioned where he's getting some of his translations from, especially parts concerning the term "rockets."  (as in space rockets.)

Secondly, nobody can prove that the story of Enki and Enlil is real.  It could be fictional myth for all we know.   Yet it's being held up as actual fact by people who are avid followers of Sitchen, and talked about as if this is real, genuine, historical fact.....and it very well may not be!   I mean, I don't know about anybody else, but I would never go around spouting the story of Enki and Enlil as if it was a given.   That's goofy.  But people are doing just that. 

Also people are taking his "10th planet" theory and just running with it in a really far out way.  The whole "Nibiru/Planet X" nonsense that you see crazy people over at Zeta Talk scanning the skies for, taking pictures of the sun face on and then claiming that reflections and spots and sun dogs in the pictures are  Nibiru.   "IT'S NIBURU, RIGHT THERE!!  YOU SEE??  YOU SEE??  RIGHT THERE!!"  It's nuts.  They've really given the whole 10th planet concept a bad rap.   People really believe that "Planet X" is due to swing by any day now................bringing with it Enki and Enlil and all the alien god peeps from the days of Sumeria.  They're coming back!   They're coming back!!   So yeah, the whole thing just rubs me the wrong way, and I feel that any researcher is doing themselves a grave disservice when they hitch their work to that.   You want your work to stand on its own two feet, letting the facts speak for themselves.  You don't want to connect it to what could very well be fictional mythology.   Even if Enki, Enlil, Niburu, and all the rest really happened, we live in a world where that's not going to fly in mainstream academia.   It will automatically discredit your work, period.   

I don't know of any, only because I don't read that sort of thing normally.   I'm only familiar with ZS.  I've stayed away from these areas of research only because it's all too speculative.  People don't have proof for anything, all they can do is offer up theories.  And then just the way most people write to me is very boring.  Hardly anything grabs my attention.  But when I came across Lloyd's stuff several years ago something just clicked with me in a way that other "speculative material" hasn't, because of the way he writes, as well as the data he's presenting.   I couldn't tell you hardly anything that I've read in Nexus magazine over the years....but I definitely remember his two part Darwinism series, and when it came out!  So that says a lot, for me.

Well, I think there could be validity to the idea of Planet X, or a 10th planet.  You never know, anything is possible.   But then there are kooky people who've taken it and distorted it and again, have given it all a bad rap.  For me, I don't put much credence into Sitchen's work....not because he's got radical ideas, but rather because it boils down to trusting his translations, and then, taking on faith that what he translated (the story of Enki, Enlil, and all the rest) is actual historical fact.  Which we just can never know, imo.