Follow by Email

Friday, January 4, 2019

Who Is The Illuminati?

Another great vid from my friend Wes!

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Myrkwood Farms October Update


Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Star Wars- The Hidden spiritual Meaning


The Wizard of Oz- The True Occult Meaning


Monday, July 30, 2018

Part 2 on Lloyd Pye's Bigfoot Theory

Here is Lloyd's Video for those who Haven't Watched it:

The difference between ape respiratory systems and our own is the process of evolution, partly driven by cross-hybridization. So ours don't look like a chimps. But they look a lot more like an erectus, and a lot more like a Neandetrhal. It's been debated for a while but we've done enough real studies to agree that Neanderthal could talk.

Next Lloyd talks about neanderthals and Cro-magnons, but his dates are off. We haven't thought we evolved from neanderthals since the 60s or 70s. The discovery of  anatomically modern humans earlier than 40,000 came later, so the two have little to do with each other. We figured out we didn't evolve directly from them because of their anatomy. However, there is proof today that they are actually one of the ancestors of most people living today. Since this is an older video, Lloyd would not know that anatomically modern homo sapiens are now as old as 325 thousand years ago, possibly predating neanderthals.

Lloyd is probably right about driving the Neanderthals into places where they don't make fossils anymore. There is new evidence of one as late as 16,000 years ago in Siberia, Maybe even later Marco Polo and other travelers have descriptions of peoples that sound a lot like them.

From here on out he is starting to sound more spot on. There are vast area of wilderness we haven't field explored yet, much less led done archaeological digs. We would really need to have had fur in order to get back there to exterminate them. There's a book called Missing 411 by David Paulides that collected missing persons reports from National Parks and found that all areas with high missing persons also had bigfoot sightings . The strange thing is that there were almost no missing persons or sightings in the Midwest. One of his readers correlated the areas with levels of rainfall.  The Midwest just doesn't have enough for Bigfoot.

It's a universal myth that the big hairy ogres stole women and children. Of course, neanderthals and humans likely exchanged women via raid and tribal warfare. If a species is cut off from the rest of its species it has no choice if it were going to survive. The descendents of the so-called alma woman Zana have an extinct African mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, which would have reached the the Caucasus mountains when they were occupied by Neanderthals.

They've found hairs that have never seen scissors that were reported to be Bigfoot hairs, but they always return human mt DNA. However, it's usually ancient Native American DNA. This should actually be no surprise, because Neanderthals were trading homo sapien women from the Levant to Siberia as far back as 100 thousand years ago. It seems they chose our women over their own.
This is actually what my first novelette is about, "The Unnamed Bears Favor." It's releasing this September.

However, I'm not sure what the first 35 minutes has to do with proving archaic hominids exists. There are heavily robust neanderthal/erectus/sapiens hybrids in China as late as 10,000 years ago called The Red Deer Cave People, some Mongolian neanderthal hybrids around 9000 years ago, and Balangoda Man in Sri Lanka lasted until 5000 years ago.
The Palau hominids in Micronesia are among the strangest hybrids we've found, and they were still living during the Roman Empire.

Maybe Lloyd's weak intro was due to the lack of info about hybridization processes at the time. I don't know what the misunderstanding about hominid evolution have to do with cryptids. Because the video is nearly 2 hours long, I skipped ahead to see if my suspicions were correct. Namely, that he's suggesting Creationsism or Alien interference.

It seems Loyd is a proponent of the latter.

Well, we aren't actually new to this planet and many scientists are now saying that homo sapiens sapiens predate Neanderthals. Anatomically Modern Humans are dated to as much as 325 thousand years ago.

We've identified the copying errors that differentiate our brain from chimanzees. It happened in three distinct stages, each accompanied by a new culture or technology in the archaeological record. Each stage is separated from the other by at least a million years, the last one occurring a million years ago.

Three million years is a long time to wait around for your slaves to be ready. We could upgrade a chimp today and clone it tomorrow. But at our current rate of progress, we are thousands of years from understanding how to get to another solar system. Why would aliens be so terrible at biological alterations? Their technology would have to be hundreds of times greater than ours if they could locate a living planet and make a trip to it across the stars.

Making androids would be child's play for them.

The Star Child is likely either a hydrocephalic homo sapien or a hybrid with complications, hence the homo sapiens sapiens DNA scientists extracted from it. All the genes in fossil hominids seems to come from hominids, and we haven't identified any DNA that could not have come from our common ancestor with chimps. They should test the Y DNA and nuclear DNA as well, and perhaps they'll find some introgression. My bet is that the introgression would be less than 3 million years old and closely related to one of the types of introgression already on record.

Hybridization creates strange abnormalities in hominids. The Red Deer Cave People show this well. Early aurignacians and African archaics were missing their frontal sinuses, likely due to hybridization.

Overall, it seems like he's discovered some interesting things about hominids, but is trying to shove them into the theories of Zach Sitchen. Sitchin's translation of ancient texts about Anunaki are very different from other translations and embellishments have been pointed out by many.

Lloyd says we appeared as alien hybrids 120,000 years ago to defeat the indigenous Neanderthals. Problem is, Neanderthals were far more advanced than us at this time. We were still using Heidelberg technology, whereas Neanderthal had advanced the Levallois technique into the Mousterian culture. They were making tar, glue, and fire at the time and almost certainly domesticating a certain type of canine. They also had a religion, burying their dead with grave goods and creating bear idols and cave art. In contrast, it's unknown whether homo sapiens were making fire at this time, and there's no evidence they buried there dead.

And if we're following Lloyd's assertion that he is following Sitchen's theory, then we have to entertain a scenario where they made the slaves 120,000 years ago but didn't use them to make anything until the time of the Anunnaki, which is only 7000 years ago or less.

Sitchin talks about the holes in megalithic construction. Scientists admit they don't have explanations for some of these so-called anomolies, but they also don't jump to conclusions as to what tech was used. In my own studies the methods used for megalith construction in SE Asia doesn't explain some of the cutting and moving techniques seen at places like Baalbek. But the world's legends doin't point to aliens, and neither do the Tibetan accounts of monastery construction. Coral Castle was created by a normal homo sapien, and Keely's sonic technology. All of these sources seem to point to one thing—sonic technology, something our own culture has barely explored.

The following video points to a possible better understanding of that technology:

Sonic Staff of Ra


Friday, July 27, 2018

Why the theories in Lloyd Pye's "Everything You Know Is Wrong" are probably WRONG themselves, but the title Isn't...Part 1

Lloyd brings up some good points, but I know the answers, and it seems he's leading us toward a fantasy. Maybe he will change my mind nevertheless as I continue watching, but here are my thoughts on the first 20 minutes.

Lloyd's Video


My first alarm is that he's using an old model of primate evolution. Most mainstreamers no longer think bipedalism started 4 million years ago. The more common idea today is that all great apes evolved from a bipedal ancestor. We now have possible upright australopithecines in Greece 10 million years ago. In fact there is a 10 million year old fossil of an ape with a skeleton very close yo Homo, but with a brain as small as a chimp. And a bipedal footprint near it far older than the one he's showing. They've also found a living bipedal chimp in the Congo which hunts big cats and acts like a gorilla. Their feet are bigger than gorillas and they're estimated to stand nearly 6 foot tall. It's called the Bili Ape and there's an entry on it in wikipedia. I have a theory on the implications of this I'll be presenting soon.

Loyd's's not taking into account the hybridization events which shaped our species.

Homo didn't evolve in a linear fashion from Austros. Homo is a hybrid between several species of austros, some of which lived outside of Africa or in the Congo where the fossil record is blank or poor.

Only certain environments have even a chance of producing a fossil, especially the fossil of a primate. Only super-successful species with a huge range even leave a single fossil.
The skulls changed so much because they result from the mixing of several subspecies. We can see every trait that defines Anatomically Modern Homo Sapien in the various species of archaic homo sapien that came before them. Mix them all together and you have a anatomically modern homo sapien.

Why did we lose our strength?

 If you could mix a gorilla with a macaque, the hybrid child wouldn't  be as strong as the gorilla.
If a 6 foot Bili Ape had a kid with a 3 foot bonobo, which they strong is the hybrid going to be?

Probably about half as strong as the Bili Ape.

On top of that, we don't use our muscles even a tenth of what our ancestors did, and bone gains mass as we grow muscle within our lifetimes.

Neolithic people were also much stronger than us. A Neolithic woman could lift more than most modern male athletes.

"There's not a single human bone in the so-called pre-human fossil record."

I could just as easily say, "There is not a single chihuahua bone in the so-called wolf fossil record."
So we sexually/naturally selected the upper torso of a pygmy tribe  and our pelvis and legs from a savanna people. What's the big deal? Our DNA shows evidence of 5 different hominids that we chose our physical make-up from.

A possible reason for the choice:

This is the only torso that's good for throwing spears. Neanderthal may not have been able to throw a spear, but pygmies from 150,000 years ago had the correct shoulder structure to do so.

We have direct evidence that Neanderthal was finally defeated in the Middle East by throwing spears. Our only chance against them was to throw spears and run away, hence the need for long legs. Best man for the job is gonna be a pygmy with long legs from his 7 foot tall Homo Sapiens Idaltu mother.

The limb ratio seen in apes and early hominids is also observed in certain paleolithic homo sapiens. Interestingly, several of these are practitioners of artificial cranial deformation, like the Kow Swamp people and certain Native American tribes, notably in Pantagonia.

Perhaps the spear-thrower people reached those places last?


There's No Such Thing as Coincidence

 Convergent evolution without common causation is coincidence too. It's an easy cop-out scientists have been using for decades when things don't fit. And we bought it!

All of Darwin's theories were sound, but today's model is way off. Some are beginning to realize part of it, which is why the world of dinosaurs is in such an uproar right now. Long story short,  the consensus model of vertebrate evolution and dispersal is still based on the pre-1960s view that the Continents have always been where they are now. That model has placental mammals arising right after impact event that ended the dinosaurs. But for that they'd need to swim thousands of miles across open ocean to leave the fossils that begin appearing around 50 million years ago on four widely separated continents.

And genetics tells us placental mammals arose and divided into clades 50 million years before the impact event that ended the dinosaurs! At exactly the time the continents began to rapidly drift away from one another!

Marsupials and monotremes split off from placentals long before the dinosaur extinction, leaving fossils by 150 million years ago. But no fossils at all for placental mammals. Not for 100 million years. Every other lineage but placental mammals is well represented in the fossil record during the Cretaceous, complete with transitional forms. So why didn't placental mammals leave any fossils?

Well maybe they did, and we have mislabeled them.

This mislabeling stems from a mistake made in the early 20th century.

In the early 20th century, they based "reptile" and "mammal" on number of temporal fenestra, because all living mammals have one pair and all living reptiles and birds have two. But now they've proven this is a false designation, because many dinosaurs were losing a pair right before the KTg event. In fact, we now know that number of temporal fenestrae depends on how the animal has to chew in its niche. They are places where muscles attach, and open when the muscle must grow very large. In the crocodile lineage they open and close all the time from ancestor to descendant.

The "mother species" of these dinosaurs who were "turning into mammals" happen to look just like armadillos, and armadillos have been proven genetically to be the most basal of all mammals. In other words, when shit hits the fan, the omnivorous generalists  with the armor who can swim, climb, and run survives. Those who shirked the armor to adapt into a niche have a good chance of perishing when the asteroids come. Why do kids ask if Glyptodont armadillos and Ankylosaurs are the same thing? because they are. The "coincidence" of a fully formed mammal springing up with no immediate ancestors in the exact same place an identicle dinosaur died out is no coincidence. There are no transitional fossils between them for that 10 million years, but there are no transitional fossils between a shrew and the glyptodont either. In fact, that 10 million year period of time between dinosaur extinction and placental mammal fossils is a time period of scant fossils everywhere. Because it was right after a mass extinction and the sea levels were so high whales were in the Himalayas!

I know this sounds far out, but I have tons of data to show it's more probable than the current model. The theory is as well supported within the bounds of Darwin's laws as the current working consensus model, and it gets rid of TONS of coincidences, or cases of unexplained "convergent evolution."

And remember Lumuria? Debunked because of Continental Drift, but they never gave us a good explanation of how the Lemurs got there. Now they have rediscovered the landmass, and are calling it Mauritius as scientific fact. But the primatologists have not caught up to the geologists, and the silly rafting hypothesis is still in the textbooks.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The only two major clades of herding, ruminating hooved animals with pairs of display horns both evolved on the same continent at the same time 100 million years ago, just as the continent began to drift away (Laurasia). These are Artiodactyl placental mammals and Ornithischian dinosaurs. The rest of the continents didn't get them until the continents began recombining 20 million years ago.

Two moles growing on a forehead in perfect symmetry and then being sexually selected into horns is so rare in the fossil record it's only happened once in 350 million years. And it happened to a reptile and a mammal at the same time, on the same continent, according to dinosaur fossils and mammals genetics. But no mammal fossil on that continent until right after the dinosaurs died out.

What, did Laurasia have a fairy that waved a wand and sprouted horns on animals? Or could they be the same animal, since they have the same skulls, the same number of fenestra, the same niche, the same number of vertebrae, the same phallangal pattern, the same everything but size.....

The Mother of All Placental Mammals Discovered: Identification of the first fossil Placental Mammal from the Cretaceous Period

No Bipedal Ancestor For Dinosaurs

Convergent Evolution between Aetosaurs, Ankylosaurs, and Armadillos Explained at Last!

Establishing Aetosaurs, Ornithischians, and Tritylodontidae as Sister Species

Here are some really old videos I made on the subject: