Wikipedia is Wrong!FIGHT THE STUPIDS!



Wikipedia is organized and run like an asylum where the inmates are in charge, so to highlight its silliness I refer to it as Wackypedia. The Wacky inmates have overseen the creation of numerous high-profile errors, including false reports of the deaths of the comedian Sinbad (and the Sailor, too, for all I know) , Miley Cyrus, and Sen. Ted Kenedy, among many others, not to mention high-profile trashing of various other celebrities by people with axes to grind against them.

Because Wackypedia entries can be written by anyone, it is the responsibility of Wacky editors and administrators to make certain that everyone plays fair in the sandbox. But what if one of the editors or admins turns out to be the bully in the box? That, in fact, is what happens all too often because of the enormous size of "the people's encyclopedia." Those who rise to positions of influence tend to be passionate extremists of every political, philosophical, and scientific stripe, and those extremists rule their portion of the Wacky empire with feudal autocracy.

One Wacky administrator can completely control the text on any page. Let's say, for example, that a particularly insecure and self-righteous admin thinks Lloyd Pye and the Starchild Skull are detriments to society. Let's say the admin decides to create pages for both that are filled with inaccuracy and innuendo that makes them both seem like frauds and charlatans. Now, let's further assume that this particular admin links those two pages to his personal computer, so that when anyone attempts to change anything on either page, that admin will be notified by a message and with the stroke of a computer key the altered page will go right back to the way it suits the admin's bias.

The above scenario is, in fact, the exact situation with my own page and with the Starchild Skull page. Unfortunately, we can do nothing to alter his power over our fate on Wackypedia because he is fully supported by the highest echelons of power within the Wacky empire. I know because I've talked to one of them, and he assured me over the phone that I am the last person in the world he would trust to tell the truth about myself on a Wackypedia page. He felt much more comfortable accepting the absurd distortions of fact the admin "allows" onto my page and the Starchild's page.

If you wonder why more and more teachers refuse to let students use Wackypedia as a reference, this is at least one portion of the answer. It is the view from my portion of the sandbox, but I know I'm not alone. Virtually every alternative researcher of whom I'm aware has similar stories of abuse at the hands of Wacky administrators and editors. They are a corrupt, rotten-to-the-core system. Period.

Lloyd Pye's Corrections Of Wikipedia's Article

[My comments will be in this black text, enclosed in brackets. What I say is, naturally, the truth. I won’t bother with footnotes because what I write here can be found in various articles I’ve written for a wide range of alternative journals like “Nexus Magazine” and “UFO Magazine,” or that have appeared in a wide variety of forums on the internet, or in books that I’ve written. Everything I post here is true and valid, and can be verified and defended if necessary.]

Lloyd Pye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009)

 [Wackypedia only acknowledges their own sources—the journals of mainstream science. If material is offered from any “unapproved” journal or book or ebook—anything opposing their locked-in, rigid viewpoint—they consider it invalid for inclusion. Thus, the Wacky editors allow only what they want to be posted, which is often at wild variance from the truth, as is the case with my page here and pages of many other alternative researchers around the world.] 

Lloyd Pye (1946-) is an American author who is famous for advocating an ancient astronaut proposal for the origin of human life by deliberate intervention by extraterrestrial life.

[I am not famous. To a certain extent in the world of alternative knowledge I am well known for my support of the Intervention Theory of the origins of life on Earth, and especially of human origins, which did involve ancient astronauts. But I am equally well-known, if not more so, for my work with the Starchild Skull, which all indications suggest is the relic skull of a human-alien hybrid.]

He is the author of four books, including Everything You Know Is Wrong - Book One: Human Origins. 

[One of the other three print books is The Starchild Skull: Genetic Enigma or Human-Alien Hybrid? published in 2007. Using the material in that book, in 2009 I produced an eBook, Starchild Skull Essentials, which I regularly update with the latest genetic findings. The current update occurred in mid-2010.]

He also gives lectures and has made television appearances in support of his ideas on The Learning Channel, National Geographic Channel, Extra, Animal Planet, and The Richard and Judy Show in the United Kingdom.

[This is an old list that should also include my most recent TV appearances, twice on the History Channel, on UFO Hunters in 2009 and on MonsterQuest in 2010.]

Pye's theories contradict the generally accepted scientific theory that humans evolved from earlier organisms, and as such, his theories have been criticized for being at odds with the theories currently accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

[This addresses the central core of my work, which is illustrating that abundant solid evidence exists to prove the mainstream scientific community is as wrong as it can possibly be about how humans have come to be on Earth. It also points out that a stated objective of Wackypedia is to vigorously support whatever is considered the mainstream consensus at any given time. So their utmost priority is not seeking truth but supporting the ossified ideology of mainstream science.]  


Pye was born in Houma, Louisiana. He studied psychology at Tulane University in New Orleans, before joining the U.S. Army as a military intelligence specialist.

[They pointedly fail to mention that not only did I study psychology at Tulane, I graduated in 1968 with a B.S. degree in psychology. And my work for the Army was conducting background investigations in north Georgia for anyone who needed a “Secret” clearance or higher. I had a routine tour of stateside duty.]

In addition to his other works, Pye has written two novels: A Darker Shade of Red, based on his college football career at Tulane; and Mismatch, a high-tech thriller about "phone phreaking", computer hacking, and submarine warfare.

[This is true, but they fail to mention that both books are utterly riveting.    ;-)  ]

Claims and beliefs

In his non-fiction books, Pye focuses on cryptozoology, especially hominoid cryptids such as Bigfoot and Yeti.

[This is not true and never was. My early nonfiction work, books and magazine articles, all focused on questions about the origins of life on Earth, with a special focus on human origins. Hominoids (bigfoot, yeti, etc.) figure into human origins because they are living progeny of what mainstream science calls “prehumans,” but there is nothing human about them other than they walk on two legs.]

In his book Everything You Know Is Wrong he claims that these animals are Earth's only indigenous bipedal primates, and that early hominids such as Neanderthals and Australopithecines are not the only intermediates in human evolution.

[This is only half true. I do claim that hominoids have been a part of the flora and fauna of Earth for a minimum of 20 million years, basing that claim on the work of renowned anthropologist-turned-spinal-surgeon, Dr. Aaron Filler (see his already classic book, The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species, 2007. Also, what the Wackypedia administrator who wrote my page calls “early hominids” is simply another term for “prehumans,” which I do not consider intermediate species with any labels, from Australopithecines through any of the early Homos such as Habilis, Ergaster, Erectus, and Neanderthalensis. I say all are hominoids.]

From this premise, Pye claims that early hominids could not have been the ancestors of modern humans, denying the established scientific consensus supporting common descent.[1] 

[As stated earlier, this accusation represents the core of my work. I believe the “scientific consensus,” which Wackypedia vigorously supports as a matter of formal stated policy, is not just wrong, but absurdly, laughably wrong.]

Combining his ideas with those of ancient astronaut believer Zecharia Sitchin, he proposes that deliberate genetic manipulation of existing hominid populations by alien beings produced Cro-Magnon, or modern-day, man.

[While I have great respect for the work of Zecharia Sitchin, this is a key point where our opinions differ. I believe the existing hair-covered bipedal hominoid population genetically manipulated by the aliens was the Neanderthals, and the product of that manipulation was the first Cro-Magnons, the first true hominids. Sitchin believes Homo Erectus was used to create the Neanderthals, and then interbreeding between the aliens and Neanderthals produced the Cro-Magnons.]


Back To Top


Pye, by means of accepting Sitchin's ideas, proposes that the first modern human peoples were the ancient Sumerians, whom Sitchin claims had knowledge of aspects of modern astronomy such as the existence of Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto.

[Neither Sitchin nor I propose that the first modern humans were the ancient Sumerians. Other advanced civilizations existed well before them and left many megalithic edifices all over the globe. Unfortunately, that single high culture, or variety of high cultures, was wiped out by a great flood (where the Bible got that idea) chronicled in Sumerian texts written on stone in cuneiform. Subsequently, the survivors gradually multiplied into the later culture that today we call the Sumerians. They have been accepted by mainstream historians as the first “great” civilized culture of antiquity because, literally out of nowhere, they developed over 100 “firsts” (such as the "first written language") that we attribute to a highly developed society.

Among the incredible array of things they knew but could not possibly have learned on their own was, indeed, an awareness of Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto as planets in our local solar system. This information, the Sumerians claimed, was given to them by the multiple “gods” who had created them in “a house of fashioning” (a genetics lab) many thousands of years prior to when they lived.]

The "Starchild Skull"

See also: Starchild Skull

In the late 1990s, Pye obtained a curiously shaped human child's skull from a couple in El Paso, Texas.

[“Curiously shaped” is putting it very mildly. It is unique among human-type skulls, to a degree not seen in any known case study of human deformity.]

The skull was reportedly found in a mine tunnel in northern Mexico,

[100 miles southwest of Chihuahua is technically in northwest Mexico.]

buried beside a skeleton of a morphologically typical human female adult lying exposed on the floor of the mine tunnel.

[The human female’s head was not entirely typical. Its rear showed the distinctive palm-sized area of flattening created by the practice of cradleboarding.]

The unusual skull has an enlarged though symmetrical cranium,

[Very loose terminology here. The skull is indeed unusual, but it is not enlarged all over. It is smaller than an average human cranium, the size of a small (5-foot-tall) adult, or a typical 12-year-old. Its parietal bones are distinctively enlarged, but nothing else is outsized. All of its parts, which vary strikingly from those of normal humans, are nonetheless extraordinarily symmetrical.]

and while it contains most of the complement of normal human bones, they are greatly distorted in shape, as for instance it is without an external occipital protuberance. 

[The Starchild Skull does have the usual set of human bones, but the bone itself has a biochemical signature completely unlike bone and more like tooth enamel. Also, to call them “greatly distorted in shape” is hyping it. They are different from normal human bones, yes, but not greatly so. It is better to say they have been reshaped and/or redesigned. And the lack of an external occipital protuberance (also known as “inion”) is highly significant. Every other primate species with a head attached to a neck has an inion. The Starchild has a dent where in every other primate skull there is a noticeable bump. Reach around to the center rear of the back of your own head and feel yours. The Starchild does not have one.]

Carbon 14 dating shows that the skull is 900 years old + or - 40 years.

[The human skull was C-14 dated in 1999, and the Starchild in 2004. To have such synchronicity in two different samples tested in different labs 5 years apart is considered by C-14 experts to be remarkable proof that they died together as described by the woman who claimed she found their skeletons around 1930.]

Pye proposes that the abnormal skull is the product of a human/alien crossbreeding program.

[Based on a DNA analysis by Trace Genetics in 2003, from that point I felt that the Starchild was a hybrid between a human mother and an alien father. Now, since a partial DNA analysis in early 2010, I don’t see how it can possibly be the result of a sexual encounter. From all I have been able to gather about it at this point, I think it will prove to be a product of genetic engineering 900 years ago.]

He refers to this being as a "Starchild" and the skull as the "Starchild Skull".

[Naming it “Starchild” was a mistake on my part because it raises the hackles of mainstream scientists who might have been willing to help analyze it if that didn’t mean being associated with something suggestive of UFOs and aliens. Those subjects are “third rails” within the scientific mainstream, the kind of thing that can kill a scientist’s career if they are ever caught taking such things seriously.]

Pye has subsequently arranged for funding and scientific testing in an attempt to demonstrate that the skull's genetic heritage is extraterrestrial.

[This is not true. I have been very clear since Day One that my intention was to demonstrate the truth about the Starchild Skull, whatever that truth might be. In the beginning, upon seeing it and holding it, I was convinced it had to be some kind of exotic deformity. The difference between me and most of the scientists I have approached with it, or who have heard about it, is that I have been willing to put my initial belief to test after test. Each of those produced solid evidence that it was not any kind of known deformity, so it had to be something else.]

Several tests have been performed on the skull at different labs, most funded by Pye and his supporters. Tests have included CAT scans, X-rays, radiocarbon dating by carbon 14, bone scans, scanning electron microscope analysis, mitochondrial DNA analysis, and nuclear DNA recovery.

[That last one, “nuclear DNA recovery,” lies at the heart of the problem that the Starchild Skull represents to mainstream science. The suggestion here is that its nuclear DNA has been recovered. This was not true until early 2010, well after this erroneous Wackypedia statement was posted.]

In 1999, a chromosomal analysis of the skull was attempted by the BOLD Laboratory in Vancouver. This analysis showed that the skull's nuclear DNA responded slightly to an amelogenin primer. At only 200 picograms of DNA recovered, it was well under the usual minimum recovery value of 1000 picograms needed to make a reliable determination. However, the BOLD lab felt sufficient confidence in their result to announce that the Starchild was a fully human male child.

[Here is where the rubber meets the road with the Starchild Project and mainstream science. The BOLD lab was located at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. It was a forensic DNA lab for teaching students how to use genetic recovery techniques. It was not equipped to handle “ancient” DNA (older than 50 years), and certainly not 900 years old like the Starchild. However, in 1999 none of the half-dozen ancient DNA labs in the world would touch the Starchild, so we gambled that BOLD might possibly tell us if our skull’s nuclear DNA was available for a later full recovery, or if it was hopelessly degraded.

The first two attempts at recovery were botched by the students who performed the lab’s routine procedures. They contaminated each sample, thus rendering the large bone sample that were taken for each test useless. On the third attempt they were desperate to produce a result and, lo and behold, they did! It was a woefully inadequate 200 picogram finding (the equipment at that time required a  1,000 picogram minimum sample in order to calculate an accurate result) that nobody should have accepted as valid. Nonetheless, mainstream science forcefully fell in behind the BOLD result, as they still do as of this writing, insisting that the BOLD result was the be-all, end-all of DNA testing on the Starchild Skull, and that everything else relative to later DNA analysis should be disregarded. ]


Back To Top


Because Pye was unconvinced by the BOLD Lab analysis, he arranged for a more detailed analysis of mitochondrial DNA extracted from both the skull of the purported Starchild and the adult female skeleton found with it. The results of this analysis from Trace Genetics became available in 2003. Human mtDNA was extracted from both the skull of the purported Starchild and that of the adult female found nearby. Nuclear DNA was also extracted from the adult female in two PCR reactions.

[The above is true except for the last part. There was only one extraction of the nuclear DNA of the human, and it came quite easily on the first attempt, which showed that very little degradation had occurred in 900 years in a mine tunnel.]

The lab reported that both the Starchild Skull and adult female had mtDNA consistent with Native American origin, haplogroup C and haplogroup A, respectively, which also excluded a "mother-offspring relationship between the two individuals".[2] 

[This is poorly written and therefore confusing, but it is fundamentally true. The Starchild and the human female found with it were not mother and child, as many of us felt would eventually prove to be the case. This is how true science works. You just keep trying and making mistakes until your mistakes lead to answers.]

This demonstrates that the Starchild's mother was human, as mtDNA is passed to offspring maternally.

[Not only its mother, but her mother and her mother’s mother, etc., were human.]

Pye claims that the lack of nuclear DNA from the Starchild skull but not from the adult supports his hypothesis.[2][dead link]

[Again, this is very confusing. As stated above, the adult female’s nuclear DNA (nuDNA) was recovered quite easily on the first attempt, showing up bright and clear in the gel sheets, indicating minimal degradation during 900 years in a mine tunnel. However, the Starchild’s nuDNA could not be recovered in six attempts. Because by then it was known that the Starchild’s mtDNA had proved its mother was human, if the father had been human, too, then the human-only primers in use in 2003, and in 1999 for that matter, should have easily recovered it. That they did not do so was a powerful proof that while the Starchild’s mother was human, its father was non-human.

This was a breakthrough development that lit up a neon sign around the Starchild pointing to a partially “alien” genetic heritage. It did not provide the absolute proof that the recovery of its full genome could provide, but it clearly indicated what that recovery would indicate whenever we found a way to make it happen.] 

Carbon dating of the skull shows that the skull is likely to be around 900 years old. This is consistent with the remains' apparent Native American origin suggested by the DNA evidence.

[The carbon dating result is much more specific than the word “likely” suggests. And only the mtDNA suggests the Starchild is of “Native American origin.” The all-important nuDNA will clarify the most critical aspects of its genetic heritage.]


Skeptics note that the skull of a person suffering from hydrocephalus is very similar to the Starchild skull.

 [Any skeptics who say hydrocephalics and the Starchild are comparable know nothing about either. A hydrocephalic suffers from water on or in the brain itself. It creates great pressure inside the head, which causes it to expand outward in all directions, though rarely with good symmetry. The Starchild Skull, though quite different from a normal human skull, has exceptional symmetry all over.

In addition, it has a crease along its rear sagittal suture between its two expanded parietal bones. Such a crease would not be in a hydrocephalic unless the suture was prematurely fused. A CAT-scan performed in 1999 clearly showed that none of the Starchild’s sutures were fused at the time of death. In addition, a dozen mainstream scientists were part of a study published in 2004 that concluded the Starchild could not have been a victim of hydrocephaly. Period. Finis.]   

Pye's ideas have been subject to criticism by the scientific skepticism movement, generally citing a lack of any compelling evidence for the grander claims, and the dubious status of the smaller.

[Yes, my ideas are a flagrant challenge to mainstream science dogma, so their skeptics have no choice but to try to diminish the caliber of my work. My grander claims are indeed bolstered by plenty of mainstream scientific data, which is easy to confirm in my books Everything You Know Is Wrong, and The Starchild Skull. Of course, no skeptic would ever waste time trying to verify what I’ve written to determine if I’ve provided sufficient scientific proof. This, in fact, is how I have made my reputation in the alternative community, by being a researcher who utilizes confirmed scientific data as much as possible in my work.]


Back To Top


One example is the unusual skull mentioned above, which Pye proposes is the product of a human/alien crossbreeding program.

[This is indeed a fairly “grand claim,” which I back up with a printed book full of evidence, and an eBook with the latest DNA evidence to support the claim.]

Steven Novella of the New England Skeptical Society suggested in 1999 that the odd shape is caused by congenital hydrocephalus, a comparatively common affliction rarely noticed in developed countries due to its ease of treatment.

[We’ve already addressed the issue of hydrocephaly above, and also in more detail on the Starchild Project website. But I should add that the Steven Novella article was written late in 1999, shortly after the BOLD Lab of Canada had announced their finding of the Starchild Skull being a human male. To this day, skeptics and critics use the Novella article as their gospel of doubt when it comes to the Starchild, yet virtually nothing in it remains correct, and in fact was not correct when it was written, we just didn’t know enough then. He attacked us when we were only beginning to learn what we were dealing with, and his attack stands today as science’s main rebuttal to our current claims.]

Pye claims that 900 years ago, when the Starchild was born, congenital hydrocephalus would very likely have caused death long before its teeth had a chance to erupt and then be heavily worn by use.

[This is true. 900 years ago hydrocephaly would have been an early death sentence for any child born with it. Only the shunting techniques developed in recent times allows hydrocephalics to live beyond infancy. Also, and more to the point, had a baby been born with any number of deformities of the kinds skeptics and the Wacky editors try to assign to the Starchild, it would no doubt have been summarily done away with and the parents would have tried again. There was no room in primitive societies for deformed babies. They were simply not kept.]

Novella points out that if a child suffered from untreated hydrocephalus until age four or five, their skull would display distortions in almost every feature. All of the proper bones, prominences, holes, and sutures would be present, as they are in the Starchild skull (except for its missing inion on the occipital), but they would be deformed and displaced, as they are in the Starchild skull. Some cases of hydrocephalus can build up over time, so a child with this disorder could survive several years, and if untreated (today hydrocephalus is treatable with surgery to drain the fluid) would probably die at several years of age.

[Most of this has already been covered, but a few points need to be mentioned. Yes, hydrocephaly can take various forms and degrees, so it could have been mild enough to allow the Starchild to live well into childhood. However, if it were such a mild case, then distortion of the skull and distortion of cognitive skills would have been minimal, certainly not enough to cause parents of 900 years ago to simply get rid of their faulty copy and try again the next year.

Also, Novella’s claim that the bones and holes and sutures would be distorted into the places they are found in the Starchild if it were a hydrocephalic is not true. Hydrocephaly would not double the size of the inner ears, or thin the bone uniformly rather than in the expanded cranium, or remove the brow ridges, or remove the “dip” from forehead to nose, among many other such differences.

Novella’s claims are complete garbage, which I’ve been saying since his article was written. He’s simply a skeptic doing his job, which is to minimize interest in the Starchild Skull by impugning my work regarding it. Notice, though, how lightly the Wacky editor skims over the undeniable fact that the Starchild Skull has no inion. This separates it from every other primate on planet Earth, a fact which would seem to warrant more than a parenthetical aside.]

The concept of (proto) humans interbreeding with aliens has been brought into question. All life on earth is remarkably closely related on a molecular biological scale - as demonstrated by the universal role of DNA, RNA, translation, and the genetic code. Although DNA and proteins could be supposed to be prerequisites for any form of complex organic life, the arbitrary nature of the genetic code suggests, but in no way proves, that completely independently evolved alien life would have an entirely different code.

[This idea of “different genetic codes everywhere” is nothing more than a presumption by people like Wacky editors. To say the genetic code of life on Earth is “arbitrary” shows a profound lack of respect for its complexity and its precision. It is equally valid to suggest—as I and others do—that such a vastly complex code could not possibly have developed more than once, and that all life in the universe, which I assume exists in abundance, has at its core the same four nucleotides functioning in the same way they do here on Earth. In fact, I contend that not a particle of life actually began on Earth, as mainstream science and its toadies insist that everyone should believe. I think every species here was brought from elsewhere, or developed here by genetic manipulation for specific purposes. This idea makes up a large part of my human origins work.]

Hence, alien "genes" might not be compatible with the human protein expression apparatus, in which case cross breeding could not occur. However, in vitro conception between different species remains a possibility. On this subject, Carl Sagan has remarked that during a normal sexual encounter "humans are more likely to interbreed with a petunia" than an alien species.[citation needed]

[I often find it hard to try to dignify Carl Sagan’s frequent intellectual drivel with appropriate responses, and this crack about the petunia was one of his worst lapses in taste and judgment. Nonetheless, I will let it slide and focus on what I suggested above, which is that the idea of multiple genetic codes of life seems extraordinarily improbable given its mind-boggling complexity. And if we dare to acknowledge that obvious improbability, then suddenly all life springs from the same fountain, and all forms of life can be genetically manipulated to blend with others to create an infinite variety of species—as infinite and mysterious as the universe that contains it and nurtures it and, in my view, disperses it.]  

Furthermore, humans and other organisms are extremely closely related on the genetic scale: for example, humans share between 97% and 99% of their genomic DNA sequence with chimpanzees, and about 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein (see Chimpanzee Genome Project).

[This seems an outstanding defense of the idea that all life in the universe springs from the same basic genetic code, especially “higher” life forms.]

Phylogenetic comparisons of mitochondrial and ribosomal DNA across species ranging from humans to bacteria verify the evolutionary relationships suggested by the fossil record. Current genetic evidence therefore suggests an intimate genetic relationship between humans and other terrestrial organisms, and provides a strong contrary argument to Pye's claims of alien interbreeding.

[This is true only if it can ever be proven that multiple genetic life codes have indeed been created in other parts of the universe. This is not the way to bet. It is much more likely that the “intimate genetic relationship” noted above is, in fact, widespread throughout the universe, and that everything on Earth shares every aspect of a single life code because it is ubiquitous throughout the universe.]

 Pye counters by saying that humans have only 46 chromosomes, while all other higher primates have 48, which does not sound to him like natural evolution at work. This has recently been explained as the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, see Ken Miller.

[This has been explained away by Kenneth Miller and others, but not actually explained in a manner that can be considered logical and believable. The second and third of the higher primate chromosomes have indeed been fused within the chromosomal package of humans to give us 46 chromosomal spaces instead of 48, even though we retain the full amount of genomic material contained in 48. I covered this fusion extensively in my 1997 book Everything You Know Is Wrong, coming to a very different conclusion.

 Why? Why would nature perform this astounding bit of genetic magic to create us? Better yet, how could nature perform such a miracle of microscopic fusion? Could it have been completely unguided, by sheer chance? Again, not the way to bet because the telomeres at the ends of the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes have to be precisely removed so that when the two truncated remainders are put back together to form one whole, each part will function as if they were still separate!

 Not even Mother Nature’s Mother’s Mother could be that lucky. The great origin of life quote from Fred Hoyle applies here, too: The chance of it happening with such incredible precision equals that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jetliner. Science has a desperate need to pretend such an improbability could happen because it serves their larger purpose of protecting evolution against its religious-based detractors. In no way do I support religion or religious positions in this argument about how life first appeared and functions on Earth. I think their dogma about it is every bit as wrong as scientific dogma.]

 A comparison of mitochondrial DNA sequences from humans, Neandertals and chimps demonstrates the relatedness of all three species, and the intermediacy of Neandertals.

 [The first part is true, but the intermediacy of Neanderthals is not necessarily true. In four years of recovering and sequencing the Neanderthal genome, the scientists doing it have not yet announced how many chromosomes they had. If it was 48, as I believe will be the case, they were much more like upright walking primates than humans. If they had 46, then the argument is much stronger that they were intermediate between chimps and humans. But 48 chromosomes not only binds Neanderthals to all the other higher primates, it removes any chance that humans evolved on Earth according to mainstream ideology. Perhaps this is why their chromosome count hasn’t yet been announced, they’re still trying to figure out how to “explain away” this paradigm-busting piece of bad news.]

Pye's claim that Neandertals and other early hominids were not related to humans is viewed as incorrect by the scientific community.

[See above. It simply comes down to the chromosome count. If that is 48, then Neanderthals were upright walking primates. If it’s 46, they might well have been some form of primitive human ancestor. Only one position can be correct, theirs or mine, and time will inevitably resolve the debate.]

Extraction of mitochondrial DNA from the original German Neandertal fossil, and comparison to modern humans and chimpanzees demonstrated that the Neandertal sequence was effectively intermediate between humans and chimps.[3] Moreover, Neandertals were sufficiently different from them to be recognised as a separate species.

[Again, it comes down to the chromosome count. If 48, they can’t be considered remotely close to humans. If 46, they stand much closer to humans than to chimps. As I said above, only one position in this debate can be correct.]

A number of the supposedly unanswered mysteries that Pye poses in his book Everything You Know Is Wrong have also been criticised. For example:

§                     Pye claims "humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains". This long-standing myth originated with phrenology.[4] Brain imaging methods appear to refute the 10% brain use statement. For example, positron emission tomography (PET) scans show that much of the brain is active during many different tasks.[5]

 [10% is an arbitrary figure. It could be as little as 5% or as much as 15%, or more. However, we are definitely well short of being able to utilize the full capacity of what we all carry around inside our heads. All we have to do is consider the wide array of savants in history to know that humans carry within their brains the ability to perform astounding feats in terms of memory, music, art, math, etc. The range of ability is unique to each individual who suffers the loss of their “normal” limited range of intellect, but in doing so gain entrance to some small sliver of the part of our brains that is sealed off from our everyday use by means we don’t yet acknowledge, much less understand.

My research indicates that all humans have every savant’s ability housed within our massively supercharged brains, but we are not yet able to access the “forbidden zone.” Someday, though, we will learn how that zone was sealed off, and we will be able to change whatever was done to us, thereby providing full use of the fantastic organ housed within our craniums.]

§                     Pye claims that the human genetic array as it exists today is "only 150,000 to 200,000 years old". In fact, certain human genes such as those encoding histones are common to all eukaryotes and identical to many other primates' histone genes, and are more than 1.8 billion years old.

[This is skating on the head of a pin in its finest form. My reference is to the human mitochondrial DNA studies that consistently show that humans as we are today do not appear on planet Earth until around 200,000 years ago. The reference above is from an old essay I wrote back when 150,000 years was the lower end of the range of possibility. Now our age is solidly fixed at around 200,000 years ago, so let’s go with that for now.

Let’s also mention that certain parts of virtually every living creature have aspects that go back in time billions of years on Earth, and who knows how many billions of years in other places? We are only just beginning to figure out many of the mysteries of life itself, of life on Earth, and of human life. It is my stated opinion and belief that virtually all of the large mainstream “truths” they so robustly support now will, in time, be proved to be as simplistic and ignorance-based as were the opinions of Flat-Earthers 300 years ago.]

Back To Top



§                     A Darker Shade of Red

§                     Mismatch

§                     Everything You Know is Wrong - Book One: Human Evolution

§                     The Starchild Skull

[This should include a new eBook, Starchild Skull Essentials, 2009 and updated with new genetic testing information in 2010.]



1.      ^ Larson, Edward J. (2004). Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory. Modern Library. ISBN 978-0679642886.

2.      ^ a b[dead link][1]

3.      ^ Krings et al, Cell 1997

4.      ^ [2]

5.      ^ [3]

External links

Lloyd Pye's websites

§                     Lloyd Pye's website

§                     Lloyd Pye's Starchild Project

§                     Lloyd Pye's Official YouTube Channel

Third party sources

§                     Steven Novella (2006). "The NESS » The Starchild Project". New England Skeptical Society. Retrieved 2009-11-20.


·        This page was last modified on 13 September 2010 at 12:07.

·         Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the 
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Back To Top

Bookmark and Share


Everything You Know Is Wrong

More Info






Starchild Skull Paperback by Lloyd Pye

Limited number of FIRST EDITION copies remaining

More Info




Life on the bottom will make you see RED.

More Info






Get Your
Phreak On.

More Info











Want more dirt on why the main-stream pushes alternative science under the rug?

Check out Lloyd Pye's new article "Why Science Is Wrong"

























Starchild Skull Paperback by Lloyd Pye

Don't miss out on the book that remains the most COMPLETE repository of information about the Starchild Skull.

More Info










Duped By Wikipedia - High Profile Hoaxes

In 2009 newspaper obituaries all over the world reported a quote from French composer Maurice Jarre, who died at the end of March, 2010.

The quote was posted on Wikipedia shortly after his death and then reprinted everywhere from the Guardian in the UK to newspapers in Australia.  The quote was later revealed to be a hoax written by Shane Fitzgerald, a final-year undergraduate student studying sociology and economics at University College Dublin.




On September 15, 2010, the New York Times reported that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had hyped the hunting and taxidermy prowess of Judge Vinson, a senior judge on the Federal District Court in Pensacola. Limbaugh reported that Vinson once killed three brown bears and mounted their heads over his courtroom door to “instill the fear of God into the accused.”

This information had been posted on Wikipedia by a prankster listed as "Pensacolian," and even included a phony footnote.

Although it is impossible to know the intentions of the mystery poster, the result seems to be a black eye to the credibility of Limbaugh's research department.





An almost entirely fictitious article about Julius Freed, namesake of the "Orange Julius" (a sweet, frothy, fruit drink), which included fanciful information such as his invention of a shower for his racing pigeons, remained unchallenged on Wikipedia for almost 5 years. During that time, the phony "facts" were discovered by an advertising firm working for Dairy Queen, an American fast food chain that now owns Orange Julius. The unsuspecting ad firm inadvertently used the hoax material as the basis for a 2007 ad campaign, creating a video (click HERE to watch) about Julius Freed’s life, using all the "facts" from the Wikipedia article.

Said creative director Riley Kane:
"Our assignment was to push the original Orange Julius and we went to Wikipedia and found out about how he invented the pigeon shower… We couldn’t make anything that good up, so we decided to base the film on the real facts."





In 2005 John Siegenthaler Sr, a USA Today journalist, was accused of involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, his former employer. The false report remained on Wikipedia for 132 days.





Fake celebrity scandals on Wikipedia have included:


Tony Blair was inaccurately described as having posters of Adolf Hitler on his bedroom walls as a teenager.


USA Senator Edward Kennedy was falsely reported as having died during President Obama’s inauguration.


Singer Miley Cyrus was also falsely reported dead, in her case during September of 2009.


Russell Crowe was incorrectly reported dead on June 2010.





The bottom line? Don't trust what you read on Wikipedia. The site can be a useful STARTING point for research, but trusting what it says without additional verification can be an embarrassing and costly mistake!

Updated Sept. 24, 2010   |   Terms   |   Privacy    

© Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Original materials on this site remain the property of Lloyd Pye, and may not be reproduced without his expressed permission.