It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:59 AM
I tried a search on this video and came up clean so here it is...

The evidence is mounting up so fast that its almost impossible to ignore! Here is a video by Lloyd Pye titled "12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates" and ties it in with alien genetic manipulation...enjoy!

-Taken from a 9 part presentation found here

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:40 AM
Thanks for posting this video, there is often a shortage of sound information on this topic.

Although some of the conclusions Mr. Pye comes to are not true (and I suspect he knows this) I am glad to see the other side of this argument from a non-religious perspective. The Theory of Evolution is one of yesterday's postulates that has become today's scientific dogma, but will soon be one of tomorrow's historic misunderstandings. Do not let anyone "educate" you in the name of authority that you evolved from the great apes, in some non-demonstrable manner, into the physical form you find yourself today. Unfortunately, that exact thing will continue (even in this thread) until humanity has a better understanding of the games in which we are all involved.

It all begins with rejecting the assumption that we are only our bodies.


posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:43 AM
Interesting arguments.

I will admit, I have to agree with his analysis of the information.

However, I question the assumption that they want to breed with us. Is there alien DNA that we can compare this with?

What if aliens have 80 chromosomes? Or 20?
No way to know without a sample.

What if they have a vastly different alien form of "DNA" that is not like Earth life's.

We do not have enough information to make this assumption readily yet.

However, I agree that the genetic manipulation theory has many convincing road signs pointing directly towards it.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:04 AM
My son was reading a new nature book set he got from a sale, I believe they where old time magazine nature books. There happened to be one all about this same subject. Well he read the whole thing and came to me with a puzzled and seriously upset look on his face....I asked him what was wrong.
He wanted to know how we evolved from apes if they are still here with us?
What did their mom's not eat enough good food when they where pregnant?
Now mind you my son is a very bright boy and overly high in the IQ area but it took me a moment to figure out he was ready to challenge the publisher/writter's. I am used to hearing people argue over it all the time, it never just never got presented to me in such a way as he did. I guess I was really surprised he was going to challege someone he knew was wrong about something so soon. So they better watch out for his letter's he will not stop writting them till he get's an answer as to why they believe this and are trying to make other's believe it too.

The book's where obviously for children younger than him and it upset him that nothing he was reading was presented in a thoughtful manner or "true" science based as they where saying in any aspect. To him they where lying to little kid's and knew it because he could see it etc..
I went and read the book and they presented a whole section in the wrong context.(intentional? I am not sure still out on that.) I am hoping to save them his wrath and explain that the editor just didn't do his job properly; but that he had my permission to fire away!
I just went and checked the date, they aren't as old as I had thought! They are from the early 90's....
Oye now I have to buy more stamp's and envelope's ; I may even help him on this one.

+8 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:16 AM
Evolution doesn't say man came from the great apes, it says man and ape came from a common ancestor. Come'on now, you really didn't know that or it's just easier to argue against saying that man came from ape? I have to say that the theme of ATS is deny ignorance.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by damwel
Evolution doesn't say man came from the great apes, it says man and ape came from a common ancestor. Come'on now, you really didn't know that or it's just easier to argue against saying that man came from ape? I have to say that the theme of ATS is deny ignorance.

I agree, thats how evolutionary trees work according to logical reasoning.

But, how many chromosomes did our common ancestor have?

How did the number change exactly? Modern science admits there are no sure answers to this anomaly. Therefore discussion about the possibilities is relevant to anthropology or genetics, because if you can prove exactly how this happened, you will probably win a Nobel prize.

So how did the chromosomes fuse? Any ideas are welcome and I will surely consider them. I am still searching for the answer like anyone else.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:37 AM
Lloyd Pye strikes me as one more shuckster in the crazy world we call we Ufology. He's a self-described 'anthropologist' without qualifications. That in itself doesn't bother me...there's a wealth of academic literature we can draw on to support our ideas. That he's never read anything available is demonstrated by his insistence on unsupported claims.

What bothers me is his cherry-picking approach to science. An example is the skull he believes is an alien hybrid. It's been repeatedly identified as human (featuring X and Y chromosomes). It's also been identified as a recognizably deformed example of brachyphely. None of which stops him from touting the thing around and selling books.

He's been 'trying to finance' a conclusive DNA test for over ten years now! Basically, he's refused to accept the early tests that conflicted with his dreams and has been taking people's money for as long as he can get away with it...

His twelve points are nonsense and appeal to people who'd prefer 'any' theory as long as it's not evolution. "Well if God dint create us...them darn aliens musta dunnit!" Who created the aliens? More aliens?!

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 08:56 AM
Yea, it cant be hidden for all time..

I cant understand why people want to be monkey this bad. ?

I hate monkeys, I never liked them and I remember in schoold the first time the teacher said we were monkey men, I got mad..

Just from an evo stand point, hould'nt the other monkeys have been some kind of an animal except for an monkey?

And calling the man a liar because he aint on an governmental payroll is just redicules. That is why people like this dont get Funds, it has to be kept a secret, hence the Darwin scam who got his fundings from the Masons, so clearly you see what is going on here !???

[edit on 29/7/2009 by ChemBreather]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by damwel

Alas, that is what we are taught in school. "Man comes from the apes". And i bet that's the same thing Xoxo Stacie's son has read in his book.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:06 AM
reply to post by muzzleflash

Maybe if we want to compare the genes with alien genes, it seems it is allready here, 223 different ones too... Match it up !

Harvard University’s Stone Age Laboratory and their Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, have been engaged from the beginning of the ’human genome project’ with the possibility of the human race being a hybrid of primitive man and an extraterrestrial race.

The scientific world has ’officially’ scorned such notions until a group of scientists from Harvard published their findings in the highly respected ‘NATURE’ Journal., The head of the Molecular Anthropology Lab at Harvard and other highly placed researchers have now ‘officially’ announced what the ‘new monumental understandings’ and findings more than imply. When the Doctor was asked what led to the discovery she replied ‘DNA. Yep, DNA. The Human Genome Project’s discovery of ‘Alien genes’ in ‘us’. Yup!!

There are 223 genes in the human DNA code that are not found in any other living organisms on Earth…really. This raises the question. Where did those 223 unaccounted genes come from? It is more possible that a race of advanced beings visited this planet thousands of years ago and spliced those 233 genes into our ancestor's DNA? You already know, this is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Today's scientists are already doing similar kinds of genetic manipulation experiments (what the chemtrails are trying to do is based on much the same premise).

But…this discovery raises the very intriguing question How did we end up in physical bodies whose DNA contains these 223 unexplained genes and what are we doing with such a body here on planet Earth? The creation stories of Native American/Indian people say 'We come from the stars'. Evidence of Indian contact with ETs has been carved on rocks and hides, choreographed in sacred dances, and beaded on wampum belts over many thousands of years. In Mayan temple rituals, in the tobacco blessing, in crop circle formations and petroglyph inscriptions, the contact continues." It continues also by saying that there is "a unifying 'Sky Elder' theme found in virtually every American Indian culture detailing a Pan-American genesis story of shared communication with ET’s./'Sweeps'


Mod Edit: Added ex tags.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Gemwolf]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

Can you explain to us what do you mean his 12 points are "nonsense"?

I'm not being sarcastic! I really need to understand. Thanks

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:39 AM
Down Syndrome people are born with an extra copy of a chromosome (21). Does that make them not human? They have 47 instead of 46.

The common ancestor humans share with apes is millions of years old. Surely that allows enough time for a certain amount of mutations in our genetic makeup that would distinguish us as being different to apes.


[edit on 29/7/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by theufologist
reply to post by Kandinsky

Can you explain to us what do you mean his 12 points are "nonsense"?

I'm not being sarcastic! I really need to understand. Thanks

Me too, and Im not being sarcastic ..

Chimps are actually frightened of water, and will drown with hardly a struggle or even thrashing. Humans relish the water, and even require more water to drink than other ‘land’ animals. Humans need to drink more water than any Savannah animal. In fact, humans require HUGE amounts of water. This fact alone suggests an entirely different genetic makeup then ANY other land species. We now know that the ‘Savannah’ theory of Human evolution is in disrepute. Our ancestors did not live in open Savannahs...but probably more in the deep forests and near water.
Source here Irishufology

So this has to count for some thing..

[edit on 29/7/2009 by ChemBreather]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Yes, and besides, I've recently been struck by the fact that man is the only living being on Earth who must ARTIFICIALLY PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE WEATHER (!!!). Isn't that striking!

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:07 AM
I pretty much think there are two possibilities regarding "potential genetic manipulation."

1a) I tend to gravitate towards the "The majority of Earth species are produced from natural selection"

And that only a few cases could be argued to be that of direct DNA manipulation. But we still need more time to determine if this is exactly the case.

1b) I think this guy is on the "This is a giant billion year old laboratory" side of the issue. At least he seemed to gravitate towards that. Believing that all biological life on Earth is an alien creation, however I question that yet admit both points of speculation could be possible.

2)One thing that the guy definitely had right though, was that modern science has a ton of new tricks to learn, and that some things we think are fact could be totally wrong. We are at the beginning of the Information Age, and there are many things beyond us humans of today that will prove tomorrow.

3)I think at least 35-45% of what this guy says is possibly accurate, and that says better than a lot of "professional" people who think they know it all and have since closed their mind to anything questioning it.

4)I have never seen Bigfoot either, but I am very open to the mundane possibility of it. It's just a primate, not really a big deal if you ask me. I do not understand why people deny the possibility so strongly. What is so fancy about a big primate?

5)History is mostly speculation based on small shreds of evidence, and as time passes we will find more evidence and pieces of the puzzle.

6)You condemned the guy for selling something like a book or whatever, but how did I lose $? I just watched his presentation for free, and have a library nearby that collects books to borrow for free.

If your local library does not have a copy of a book you seek to read, ask them to order one. Often times they will.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Originally posted by ChemBreather


Do you have a name to go with that?
I'm not being funny about it, but I've read where people say such a thing and you eventually trace it back, and its either not exactly someone from the institute, not exactly what they said, or both. For a scientist to state this, then they would have to have a alien base line to compare it to.

As for the 223 human genes that are in no other living organism on Earth, it's a strange thing to point out, but we share between 50-60% of our DNA with bananas. How much of banana DNA is found in no other living organism?

[edit on 29/7/09 by Daisy-Lola]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM

Originally posted by damwel
Evolution doesn't say man came from the great apes, it says man and ape came from a common ancestor. Come'on now, you really didn't know that or it's just easier to argue against saying that man came from ape? I have to say that the theme of ATS is deny ignorance.

Its well known excue for lack of "the missing link"

Anyway if it was not a Big Ape of today it was anyway a Big Ape of the past )

So please find that Big Ape Missing Link
Maybe they are hidding in the politicians ranks???...

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by Daisy-Lola

I agree but just because a Harvard guy said something, does not make it a fact. However we would hope people with those credentials would be open to speculation and theory, while at the same time taking evidence into consideration and asking as many questions as possible and looking for answers.

Also, if it is indeed true (I don't have the figures) that we share so much DNA with bananas, that wouldn't it be likely that most other animals do as well? I have been under the assumption that plants probably came first, and then animals developed later on, but I admit that may not be perfectly accurate, although it does make some sense.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:02 AM
I've always wondered how humanity can continue to pass 100% fatal childhood genetic disorders through the generations and Pye makes some good arguments, but I'd prefer to stick to easier to quantify UFO material than speculate on the origins of human DNA.

We may have been or continue to be some type of modified slave race to a space faring species, but lets find out specifically what many credible people see and report on each year with several great documented cases before we wonder about some type of ET genesis of mankind.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Chimps are actually frightened of water, and will drown with hardly a struggle or even thrashing.

Not true. SOME Apes cannot swim and avoid water, some in fact love it. It has less to do with the species than the individual and his group. In fact I remember reading a study where a group of chimps were observed swimming short distances, but haven't been able to dig it up. I'll post it if i find it.

Orangutans spear fishing:

This little chimp sure hates the water

1) BONES - Much thinner and lighter.
2) MUSCLES - 5 to 10 times weaker.
3) SKIN - not well adapted to direct sunlight.
4) ADIPOSE TISSUE - 10 times as much.
5) BODY HAIR - less and patterns reversed.
6) HEAD HAIR & NAILS - Must be trimmed.
7) SKULLS & BRAIN - Not in the same ballpark.
8) LOCOMOTION - Most obvious difference.
9) SPEECH - throats completely redesigned.
10) SEX - no sign of typical estrous cycles.
11) GENETIC DISORDERS - over 4000.
12) CHROMOSOMES - Reduced to 46 from 48.

1,2 & 4
Human beings evolved to become more and more dependent on their brains than on physical strength in order to be successful when hunting. If you look at our evolutionary ancestors, they consistently gain brain mass and lose muscle mass. The most valuable survival tool to a human being is not how strong he is, but how clever he is and how good he is at making and using tools. As a result, this was selected for. Bear in mind the body is on an energy budget, and large brains take up massive amounts of energy. If we were as strong as a gorilla and as smart as we are now, we would need tremendous amounts of food (or incredible digestive systems), and probably would have to eat so frequently that every waking moment was dedicated to hunting.

This is entirely false. Dark human skin is amazingly well adapted to direct sunlight - people with extremely dark skin are almost immune to skin cancer and sunburn. It is only white skin that is poorly adapted to direct sunlight - and there is an evolutionary reason for this. White skin came into being in northern Europe, where winters are long and dark. Human skin requires sunlight to manufacture vitamin D, and this became very difficult in European winters. Lack of vitamin D leads to diseases like rickets. Lighter skin allows more of the sparse sunlight to penetrate the outer layers of skin, and thus allows enough vitamin D to be produced. Of course, its a tremendous disadvantage when said light skinned person decides to travel to the tropics.

5 & 6
Hair patterns are entirely a result of selective breeding as far as I know. What is considered attractive nets the most mates, and thus over time more people have the qualities perceived as attractive. There may be more to this but it really isn't a strong argument so I'm not going to spend a lot of time dwelling on it. We also aren't hairless - all humans have hair over their entire bodies - and ALL apes have thinner hair than most mammals. We just took it to another level.

Humans are also not the only animals with hair and nails that continuously grow, as opposed to growing to a certain length and stopping. There are several breeds of domestic dogs who have hair that grows in exactly the same way as human hair, and requires frequent trimming (unless you want to be the proud owner of a tribble
). I'm not well versed in the subject but as far as I know it is simply a genetic mutation that wasn't particularly good or bad and stuck around as a result. Human nails are not a problem at all evolutionarily because they would never get too long - they would simply break frequently. Annoying sure, but not a disadvantage.

7 & 8
This really is a poor argument. human brain size and locomotion has such a well defined and well documented history over the ages. Look at the fossil record of our ancestors - the steps and stages are very clear. I don't see the point to go into much detail with this, if you don't believe me there is so much data on the topic easily available that I encourage you to look it up for yourself.

The human larynx actually isn't tremendously different from that of other animals. It is a less significant change than, say, walking upright. The changes also make perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. We are social, intelligence-based hunters. We make tools and form complex societies. It only makes sense that our communication would become more and more intricate and complex over time, and that our vocal capabilities would evolve alongside this.

You should also bear in mind that our ability to communicate is actually pretty middle of the road. Dolphin and whale "language" is vastly more complex than human speech.


Oh, we still have it. It's just slightly different and we call it the menstrual cycle. If you want to read about the really tiny little differences between the two:

EVERY animal has genetic disorders. Thousands of them. His argument that it is impossible for genetic disorders that kill the affected before reproduction is possible to exist unless they are a result of genetic manipulation is downright laughable. Most genetic disorders require the person to have two copies of the defective gene before it is active. In other words, if both parents have the recessive gene - the child has a 25% chance of not being a carrier, 50% chance of being a carrier, and 25% chance of actually suffering from the disease. There are no genetic diseases that kill the carrier before reproduction is possible and only require one copy of the gene for the exact reasons he outlines - they cannot be passed on. Genetic DAMAGE (such as from radiation) is a different story, because the source is external.

We don't have less genetic data. All that happened in our case is two chromosomes merged into a larger one. There really is nothing more to it.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in