View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Discuss Ancient Mysteries and Places - Atlantis, The Pyramids, Stonehenge, etc. Also Forbidden Archaeology.

Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Scepcop » 11 Oct 2010, 03:50

Lloyd Pye has a new page on his site where he exposes the fraudulent Wikipedia article about him and corrects the errors in it that its biased editors refuse to do.

http://www.lloydpye.com/lloydpyewikipedia.htm

Pye has also issued a point by point rebuttal to Steven Novella's 1999 attack piece about him and the Starchild Skull (which was changed to 2006 to make it look more current).

http://www.lloydpye.com/lloydpyenovella.htm

To view info about Lloyd Pye's book "Everything You Know is Wrong" and download sample chapters, visit:

http://www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm

More on his Starchild project:

http://www.starchildproject.com

Some short video presentations by Lloyd Pye:



“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby derrida » 11 Oct 2010, 08:52

hey scescop
just a question do you believe then that we come from the space or aliens had to do with us in any way?
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Scepcop » 11 Oct 2010, 23:48

derrida wrote:hey scescop
just a question do you believe then that we come from the space or aliens had to do with us in any way?


It's a possibility. Yeah. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. He would rather believe in alien intervention than in God.

If you watch Lloyd Pye's lectures, the possibility becomes more and more plausible.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 12 Oct 2010, 22:10

Scepcop wrote:
derrida wrote:hey scescop
just a question do you believe then that we come from the space or aliens had to do with us in any way?


It's a possibility. Yeah. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. He would rather believe in alien intervention than in God.

If you watch Lloyd Pye's lectures, the possibility becomes more and more plausible.


What Dawkins said in that interview was that it was more likely that aliens created human life than a god. He didn't say that either were very likely.

As for Lloyd Pye, Scepcop, what do you think his strongest argument is that we were created by aliens or that our DNA was manipulated by aliens after the fact?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby derrida » 13 Oct 2010, 00:06

so do you believe scientology is all right?
or perhaps the raelians?

just asking..
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Scepcop » 13 Oct 2010, 17:01

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
derrida wrote:hey scescop
just a question do you believe then that we come from the space or aliens had to do with us in any way?


It's a possibility. Yeah. Even Richard Dawkins admits that. He would rather believe in alien intervention than in God.

If you watch Lloyd Pye's lectures, the possibility becomes more and more plausible.


What Dawkins said in that interview was that it was more likely that aliens created human life than a god. He didn't say that either were very likely.

As for Lloyd Pye, Scepcop, what do you think his strongest argument is that we were created by aliens or that our DNA was manipulated by aliens after the fact?


He has many strong arguments. Examples:

http://www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm

Have You Ever Wondered...?

Why humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains, yet savants can somehow access parts of the remaining 90%

Why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?

Why we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?

Why Earth is the only planet or moon with moveable tectonic plates?

Why Earth’s moon is so extraordinarily outsized relative to other moons?

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?

How the ancient Sumerians could know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto existed when we discovered Uranus only in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930?

How and why the Sumerians kept cosmic time in units of almost 26,000 years?

Why humans have a gene pool with over 4000 genetic defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas, have very few?

Why the human genome clocks is only about 200,000 years old but anthropologists insist we descend from creatures 6.0 million years old?

Why humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called “pre”-humans?

Why humans have 46 chromosomes while our closest genetic relatives (sharing over 95% of our DNA) total 48?


Did you see his video I posted above about human genetics?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 13 Oct 2010, 20:12

Scepcop wrote:He has many strong arguments. Examples:

http://www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htm

Have You Ever Wondered...?

Why humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains, yet savants can somehow access parts of the remaining 90%

Why our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth?

Why we are so physically weak compared to our closest genetic relatives?

Why Earth is the only planet or moon with moveable tectonic plates?

Why Earth’s moon is so extraordinarily outsized relative to other moons?

Why megalithic structures like the Pyramids cannot be duplicated today?

How the ancient Sumerians could know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto existed when we discovered Uranus only in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930?

How and why the Sumerians kept cosmic time in units of almost 26,000 years?

Why humans have a gene pool with over 4000 genetic defects, while our closest genetic relatives, chimps and gorillas, have very few?

Why the human genome clocks is only about 200,000 years old but anthropologists insist we descend from creatures 6.0 million years old?

Why humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called “pre”-humans?

Why humans have 46 chromosomes while our closest genetic relatives (sharing over 95% of our DNA) total 48?


Did you see his video I posted above about human genetics?


I did look at his video, now, I'm not evolutionary biologist, but compared to either hearing or reading real evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins, his knowledge seems basic and uninformed. There is a reason that people study years to properly learn how to analyse this stuff.

Those questions start off poorly with the debunked myth that we only use 10% of our brain. Neurologists do not believe this. The question of savants is, indeed, interesting - I listened to a podcast recently discussing savants: they don't use "more" of their brain, they use their brians differently - and usually its at the detriment of one part of their brain which gets compensated from another part (such as with autisticTh savants). But MRI technology clearly shows that we use our whole brains.

Didn't our skin only become poorly adaptive to the amount of sun hitting the earth when we opened a hole in our ozone layer letting in excess radiation? And who knows, give it few 10s of 1000s of years and we might do just fine with less ozone!

Aren't we weaker compared to our closest relatives due to the use of tools? Humans just don't need such big muscles in order to survive.

Who says that the earth is the only planet with movable tectonic plates? From wiki:

The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics. Earth may be a borderline case, owing its tectonic activity to abundant water (Valencia, O'Connell & Sasselov 2007)[63]


The article says that they have found evidence of suspected plate tectonics on Titan. That there may have been plate tectonics on Venus at one point (but this is still being debated). Some scientists think there may be tectonics on Mars (though it seems most disagree). There may be evidence of tectonic movement on some of the Jupiter's satellites. And it is theorized that many planets around other stars will have plate tectonics. Our sample size is very small here on earth, and there are billions upon billions of planets out there. Quite a strange comment for Pye to make.

Why is Earth's moon outsized compared to other moons? What does that even mean? From listening to astronmy cast, there are some pretty big moons out there! Does Pye even know what a moon is? Again from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_satellite

The large gas giants have extensive systems of moons, including half a dozen comparable in size to Earth's moon: the four Galilean moons, Saturn's Titan, and Neptune's Triton


Why can't we duplicate the Pyramids? Who says we can't? Just because no one has decided to do it? Why would someone want to build something like that using the techniques from back then?

I don't know a lot about the sumerians: how reliable is the hypothesis that they knew about uranus, neptune and pluto?

What reason does Pye have to believe that the great apes don't have many genetic defects? I would imagine that we know a heck of a lot more about human genetic defects for obvious reasons, but this study suggests that we share some pretty major defects with our cousins: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11350162

J Mol Biol. 2001 May 11;308(4):587-96.
Human genetic disorders, a phylogenetic perspective.

Martinez J, Dugaiczyk LJ, Zielinski R, Dugaiczyk A.

Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Abstract

When viewed from the perspective of time, human genetic disorders give new insights into their etiology and evolution. Here, we have correlated a specific set of Alu repetitive DNA elements, known to be the basis of certain genetic defects, with their phylogenetic roots in primate evolution. From a differential distribution of Alu repeats among primate species, we identify the phylogenetic roots of three human genetic diseases involving the LPL, ApoB, and HPRT genes. The different phylogenetic age of these genetic disorders could explain the different susceptibility of various primate species to genetic diseases. Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer. We submit that de novo transpositions of Alu elements, and saltatory appearances of Alu-mediated genetic disorders, represent singularities, places where behavior changes suddenly. Alus' propensity to spread, not only increased the regulatory and developmental complexity of the primate genome, it also increased its instability and susceptibility to genetic defects and cancer. The dynamic spread not only provided markers of primate phylogeny, it must have actively shaped the course of that phylogeny.



The last three go beyond what I know about offhand, but given his treatment of the others, what do you think the odds are that those will hold up if I actually dig into them.

Scepcop, you've got to be careful with your heros. Beware of flashy presentations in youtube videos. Pye is filled with errors to the point that a lay person like me can dig them up with relative ease. Read a book on evolution, see the detail they go into. You will see the difference between them and anomaly hunters like Pye, who with all due respect, don't match up. This isn't an insult: PHds for example, go through an incredible amount of training into research methodology and the scientific method.




'
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby OmegaChaos » 13 Oct 2010, 22:09

I support Lloyd Pye,s work a lot...he is the only one who has actually found hard evidence of genetic manipulation by alien beings...his work on that Starchild skull is really great....waiting for whole genome to be released...interesting what will come out of it...

But I have some problems with his chronology,which is mostly Zecharia Sitchin,s interpretation...and also some of his Bigfoot stuff is a bit off...but otherwise really great researcher..
User avatar
OmegaChaos
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 01 May 2010, 02:27

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 13 Oct 2010, 22:37

OmegaChaos wrote:I support Lloyd Pye,s work a lot...he is the only one who has actually found hard evidence of genetic manipulation by alien beings...his work on that Starchild skull is really great....waiting for whole genome to be released...interesting what will come out of it...

But I have some problems with his chronology,which is mostly Zecharia Sitchin,s interpretation...and also some of his Bigfoot stuff is a bit off...but otherwise really great researcher..


See my post above: he gets quite a bit dead wrong for such a "great researcher". That said, on the star child stuff, I agree that there's nothing much to talk about until the genetic testing comes back.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby derrida » 14 Oct 2010, 01:52

i dont think the test will ever come back or else he loses the pilar of his theory
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Scepcop » 15 Oct 2010, 03:10

Arouet, you are just speculating and dismissing the big questions and giving copouts. There are many things you can't explain by Darwinism.

Pye didn't say that we couldn't duplicate the pyramids with ancient techniques. He said we couldn't duplicate them with MODERN techniques. Get that straight.

Words and actions are totally different things. You can say all you want, but you can't erase the facts.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Scepcop » 15 Oct 2010, 03:37

Here is a program on the History Channel about the Starchild Skull.







Description:

The team studies two alleged alien abduction cases with alarmingly similar details that involve encounters with the creatures known as "Greys," and then they closely examine the famous Starchild skull, a strange humanoid skull found in Mexico that could be the remains of an alien-human hybrid.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby Arouet » 15 Oct 2010, 04:12

Scepcop wrote:Arouet, you are just speculating and dismissing the big questions and giving copouts. There are many things you can't explain by Darwinism.

Pye didn't say that we couldn't duplicate the pyramids with ancient techniques. He said we couldn't duplicate them with MODERN techniques. Get that straight.

Words and actions are totally different things. You can say all you want, but you can't erase the facts.


You've conveniently ignored most of what I wrote. What reason is there to believe that we can't duplicate the pyramids? The question is why would we want to and who would pay for it? To suggest that we can't build it today using modern technology is silly. From even a brief google search on the internet it is clear there are many experts who have good hypotheses on how they were actually made, and how we could do it today. If you insist, I could find some good articles to post, but I think you'll find them easily enough.

And of course there are many things that Darwinism, or the modern theory of evolution can't explain. It's not a theory of everything. We're trying to figure out things that happened millions of years ago! And its being developed and expanded as time goes on, moving into new areas such as epigenetics.

Go back and read my post. Then take a second look at what Pye presents. Then go and find other sources on what he says, see how it holds up. I've shown you pretty easily that he makes many claims which are flat wrong.

Also, Scepcop, I've spent considerable time posting detailed replies to your posts. I'm hardiy giving copouts. If you think that I have, please direct me to them, and I'll do my best to correct it. Of course we can't change facts. The question is: what are the facts? And what is the best way of figuring them out.

What Pye is, is an anomaly hunter. You have to be very careful with such an approach. They tend to lose the forest for just a few trees.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby caniswalensis » 15 Oct 2010, 07:14

I love Bill Burns. He is a charming and interesting person, but also he is an inveterate huxter that will say anything to keep people interested in UFOs and his magazine. He's definately not the guy you want on your side if you are trying to raise your credibility.

Also, while there are things that are not yet explained by the theory of evolution, it has demopnstrated it's predictive power amply enough....and there are some things that really can't be explained without it.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Lloyd Pye debunks Wikipedia/Novella articles about him

Postby JamesGallagher » 19 Sep 2011, 01:29

Lloyd Pye doesn't debunk his critics. He just picks apart the parts of their arguments that can't be proved one way or another and shifts his theories when the critics explain away his claims.

Take the Star Child nonesense. Pye claims that the skull has been shown to have evidence of female DNa and thus has a human mother. That's a logical conclusion. He then says that they haven't been able to extract male human DNA and therefore the father must be an alien. That's a completely illogical argument and really really bad science.

His agument relies on the basis that things that can't be found or explained must therefore be alien, which is stupid.
User avatar
JamesGallagher
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 01:09

Next

Return to Ancient Mysteries and Places / Forbidden Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron