JOURNAL / REPORTING — TAPE #371, SIDE #1
Q: Mark Russell Bell
A: Art Bell (portion of radio broadcast)
P: Lloyd Pye (portion of radio broadcast)
Q: So I’m looking at my lecture notes from the PRS today (December 7, 1997). Jeffrey Mishlove’s topic was “Rudolph Steiner and Anthroposophy: Key to Creative Freedom.” Obadiah introduced Jeffrey by mentioning that he has joined with him and Kevin Ryerson for a planned Sacred Sites School trip to Machu Picchu, Peru in September from the 16th through the 24th. The ad in the new PRS calendar says:
Peru is one of the greatest of all power places in the world. You will feel and experience the fabled mystic land of ancient Incas during the Sept. 1998 equinox. The program brings together noted transformational leaders and teachers including local shamans. It offers knowledge, insights, and most importantly experiences that can enhance your own growth and rediscover your wisdom within. Tour is led by Gary Zukav, Jeffrey Mishlove, Kevin Ryerson and more!!!
Future Trips: March 1999-Egypt, September 1999-England
Co-Sponsors: Intuition Network & Power Places Tours
Future Trips: March 1999-Egypt, September 1999-England
Co-Sponsors: Intuition Network & Power Places Tours
Q: So apparently a funny man in a plaid jacket gave Jeffrey a flyer about Steiner as an anthroposophist. The lecturer was Dr. Mace. So Jeffrey was in his early 20s when Mace discussed “You Are A Spiritual Being” and, of course, he was quite stricken by the combination of those two words. Rudolph Steiner studied Nietzsche and did his doctoral dissertation on Nietzsche’s work. He later wrote a book on Nietzsche who developed the idea of the superman. Jeffrey spoke a little bit about Steiner as a spiritual superman, a prototype for the kind of human being we all can be. Steiner also developed Eurythmy, a style of western yoga, “poetry of the body.” So after his Nietzschean phase, he was a theosophist in Germany but then he broke from theosophy to form anthroposophy. Jeffrey slowed a slide of a large building called the Goetheana named after Goethe — a large theater with no right angles where his plays are occasionally performed. Jeffrey somehow related this building and other buildings in the area — it’s a city called Dornach in Switzerland and a community of anthroposophists. He described these homes as having “a Munchkin-like quality” — if that gives you any idea. So the feeling was that theosophists were too modeled after the Asian and Oriental traditions rather than Western Christian esoteric traditions. So Goethe talked about the primary Ur phenomenon which in Jungian terms (“CAN”) could be expressed as the archetype. Jeffrey described this essence relating the essence of poetry being the same as the essence found in nature — the same archetype. So the reason for no right angles was to create a more fluid environment. Steiner also was involved in bio-dynamic gardening based on the principle of organic gardening and homeopathic remedies. The community still produces a lot of these. So these buildings have a lot of windows with five sides. You don’t see any squares anywhere except for on some of the artwork Steiner did. There were slides of his stained glass windows that were unlike most stained glass windows in that these were large pieces of glass that had been carved into, creating various thicknesses to create images. His mystery dramas relate to equinoxes and solstices. His paintings were called “Etheric” and communicate how we’re in contact with spirit world plains. So Jeffrey talked a little bit about “guardians of the threshold” whom you have to confront as you reach the higher plain, as you gain a higher knowledge of higher worlds. He related this guardian to your own shadow, parts of ourselves we don’t want to look at: pettiness, anger, fear and manipulativeness. So whereas Jung, for example, found four important areas being thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition; Steiner found an important threeness of thinking, feeling and willing. The human mind could be said to be a battleground of three spiritual forces: the Christ being of pure love, Lucifer being an angel of light, and Aryman the demon. Someone in the audience compared this to other religious traditions, such as the Zorastrian tradition. So apparently the Lucifer, angel of light has to do with the exploration of beauty lacking in love — of the intellect: art and science. And the demon has to do with the more negative aspects. I must say—from my notes—I wasn’t too involved in this lecture. There was a beautiful wood sculpture by Steiner of an angel. There were lots of angels. They showed a photo of the tomb entrance at the building and, like Manley Hall, Steiner authored over 200 books about spirituality. So apparently he placed more importance in the blood and the etheric lifeforce rather than the nervous system or the intellect. There was a sketch of the original Goetheana — of a large mural of Christ. The idea was put across that, perhaps, the Nazis burned it down. It was all made of wood. There was also a slide shown of a woman who worked with disturbed children standing near a whale vertebra. It all has to deal with the look of objects without right angles. So apparently they do a lot of work over at the Goetheana based upon Goethe’s vision of science, studying, for example, plants — not dissecting them but letting them grow and die in-between glasses to study the roots and the evolution of the plant in this manner. They’re more concerned with the natural essence of things. So apparently Jung, who always wanted to study ancient mystics, ignored Steiner as a phony, an upstart, even though he didn’t live far away from him. Jeffrey said that Jung was more comfortable talking about ancient teachers rather than his contemporaries. He made some quip about teachers only getting respect from future generations. But I found it interesting — this talk of an etheric force in the blood. Someone talked about, during the question period, Steiner’s influence on Anton Chekov — I think the person said Michael Chekov — was it a joke, channeling-wise? And, of course, Jeffrey mentioned Saul Bellow. There was a novel by him that drew upon Steiner’s teachings. Another attendee talked about how there was a Christian community based on Steiner’s writings. The most important point of the whole lecture and question and answer period related to our thoughts and imagining as being what connects us to the spiritual realm. We can follow our own thoughts to the source, so to speak. Apparently, the book The Spear of Destiny talked about how there were some Germans who believed that Steiner was responsible for the loss of World War II. There was some kind of German general who was lost in a trance during a key moment, which led to Germany’s downfall. Someone else talked about how the color theory of Steiner’s was the same as Goethe’s but theirs were different from Newton’s because Newton was more involved with the physical aspects and measuring rather than the mind perceiving colors. So Jeffrey also pointed out that in his early years Steiner came from a very humble beginning. His father was a railway conductor. And he had clairvoyant abilities but he couldn’t talk about them to anyone. So, like Manley, he was involved somehow with the Rosicrucians even though Jeffrey made the distinction that they perhaps weren’t involved in an inner level but had a deep understanding of the philosophy. One of the ironies had to do with this whole question of Eurythmy because it has to do with motion and communication. And, of course, Jeffrey’s gestures have a lot of Eurythmy. I don’t know why. I must say he looks nothing at all like Rudolph Steiner. (“IN FACT”) The other one who I interviewed looks more like Steiner—much more like Steiner—than Jeffrey does but it’s just an interesting parallel. I just find it very disturbing that there are all these teachers everywhere and all these communities and places of learning arise around these figures and they’re all dedicated to dogma and the theoretical rather than helping our fellow man and expressing love in physical, concrete ways rather than just talking about it, which really isn’t love at all. I just think it’s so ironic. For example, Obadiah is now teaching a course on love. It’s entitled “The Path to Love” — (“I’LL”) read you the lecture titles: “The Manifoldness of Love & its main Aspects,” “The Five Dimensional Universe of Psychosocial Love,” “Devotional Mysticism,” “The Evolution of Religion and Love,” “The Unitive Impulse,” “Stages of Refinement in Love,” “Opening the Heart Chakra,” “Opening of the Supramental Center.” Doesn’t that sound like a lot of New Age gobbledygook? Where’s the substance?
( . . . )
Q: So Stephan Hoeller’s got his Wednesday night course and Pierre Grimes has his Tuesday night course. He’s giving a “Buddhist Series” in this catalog and Stephan’s addressing the “Wisdom of the Gnostic Gospels: The Basic Course in the Teaching of the Gnostics (Continued).” Eric Knauss has a “Palmistry Series.” John Maxwell Taylor’s back for his 20-character one-man-play “Forever Jung.” And, of course, there’s a special event with Kevin Ryerson entitled “Channeling: A Sacred Science?” It says “Introduction by Jeffrey Mishlove, Ph.D., Slide Presentation by Shawn Shelton, Power Places Tours.” I guess this is somehow in connection with this new Power Places Tours franchise of the PRS. I guess they get free trips out of it or something. What’s really disgusting is that every week they suggest a $5 donation. Well I see one week, Manley P. Hall Day, celebrating the founder’s birthday — it says “@ $10.” Actually it doesn’t really say — (“WELL”) it says “Donation” on top so you don’t really have to pay that but I just find it a little pathetic that they’re choosing to charge more money one week — I guess it’s because they serve refreshments in the library that day and have to pay for them that way. Edgar Mitchell’s going to be the guest — that Apollo astronaut. It says, “Generous Donation Appreciated.”
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: WHEN I ATTENED THIS PRS MANLEY HALL DAY, THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED THAT SAID $10 MINIMUM DONATION. OTHER PRS $10 ATTRACTIONS FOR THE SUNDAY 11 A.M. LECTURE SERIES HAVE INCLUDED DON CAMPBELL AND JUDITH ORLOFF.)
Q: So I see on Fridays someone by the name of Cynthia Withers has a “Beginners Astrology Class.” Kay Herron teaches her “The Nature of the Soul” on Saturdays from 10 to 12 noon. There’s also “Tai Chi Chuan” taught by Alan Francis. That’s a form of Taoist yoga and internal martial art — “a peaceful method of attaining harmony of mind, body and spirit. Held in the courtyard.” It also says “News Flash — Don Campbell, Dean of Sound Healers, Saturday, April 4 and Sunday, April 5. Change Your Life With Music.” They have Saturday “The Healing Power of Music,” Sunday “The Philosophical Nature of Soul & Sound” and a workshop “The Mysteries of the Voice.” One of the people speaking in this quarter. Well I guess the PRS really is the modern-day equivalent of the old mystery schools but people still don’t really know much about love, if you ask me. I still think that love is a verb and not a noun. I even saw a book with that title at the bookstore. By the way, after that last tape side finished, we were talking a little bit about that article about secret misogyny in Russia and Laura and I agreed that it really isn’t much of a secret throughout the world now, is it?
( . . . )
Q: So I didn’t do shopping for my mother today even though she must soon be needing supplies. I don’t know what she’s going to do — if she’s going to call me or she’s going to have the store deliver or what. I told her she’d have to go see the retirement hotel just to see it. I just wanted her to see what she’s missing and then I would do the shopping. She said her foot still hurts and it’s been bad for such a long time now that I don’t think it’s ever going to get better. I think it’s probably one of those diabetic problems that won’t heal.
( . . . )
Q: So I’m wondering — I’m visiting Stan Deyo’s website and it’s called “Noah’s Ark” and he’s got “Noah’s Comments” dated 2 November 1997. Does he think he’s the reincarnation of Noah? Anyway, I’m going to leave him a book/website referral on his Email. I also sent one to Charles Kagel. So I didn’t share any excerpts from Lloyd Pye’s appearance on Art Bell’s show and apparently Mighael wants me to provide them because when I turned on the Saturday night show, which is a repeat — hoping they might have the portion of Hoagland’s appearance that I missed — they had a portion of Pye’s show, I believe, and then again tonight when I turned it on to check they had it again so I went ahead and recorded it and I’ll share with you some portions. A lot of the information I was already aware of and maybe that’s why I didn’t think it was integral but it does put together a lot of good information very succinctly, some of it based upon the work of others such as Ivan T. Sanderson and Zecharia Sitchin. Anyway, it is good research so here are some excerpts from this appearance by Lloyd Pye on “Coast to Coast AM.”
( . . . )
A: And he has written a book called Everything You Know Is Wrong. (laughs) All about human evolution . . . (Pye) graduated from I guess it’s Amite High School in Amite, Louisiana. Am I getting that name wrong?
P: Actually, you are. It’s called Amite (pronounced Ameet).
A: Amite.
P: Close enough.
A: Figures. Alright — went on to college at Tulane. You were a punter and a running back. Any comments on the game last night?
P: Which one?
A: Oh Green Bay.
P: Oh. (laughs) No, that’s okay. I don’t want to cause trouble right away. I think it was a great game. Let it go at that.
A: Really? Intriguing. Alright. And then you got a B.S. in psychology.
P: Right.
A: And then somehow you went into the military and got involved in intelligence work.
P: Yeah.
A: There really is military intelligence.
P: No, there is not.
A: (laughs)
P: I experienced it. There is not. Of course, now I’m already in trouble.
A: Well that’s alright. This is the very home of trouble. Lloyd, don’t let it bother you.
P: Okay.
A: Then somehow you got involved — how did you — you began to study Zecharia Sitchin?
P: Actually I didn’t find him until about 1990, unfortunately. I was, like everyone else, trying to make a living and he’s not nearly as well-known as he should be, I think, for a number of reasons. But, for whatever reason, I was looking in the wrong places and didn’t find him until 1990. But I had done so much research to that point on hominoids that as soon as I found him I knew that I was going to be able to construct a new theory of evolution based on my own work — my own extensive work in hominoids and his work in ancient Sumeria.
A: A hominoid is?
P: Hominoids are the creatures and the upright hair-covered primates that people see all around the world on a regular basis. Bigfoot/Sasquatch — we’re all familiar with here. The Abominable Snowman/Yeti in the Himalayas. And there are two other kinds that are dominant in other parts of the world that we’re not as familiar with in the west but which are equally prevalent in their areas.
A: Different names, same creature?
P: No. Different creatures. There are four fundamentally different hominoid creatures out there. The Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a giant seven to ten feet tall, weighing 700 to 1000 pounds. The Abominable Snowman is called man-size but they’re basically six to seven feet tall. They weigh 300 to 600 pounds but they’re very primitive as these creatures go. They’re by far the most primitive and their range is restricted to the Himalayas, which is as big as the United States so they have plenty of room to roam in. The other three are able to move about a lot better and they do. The third kind is called Almas because they dominate in the mountains of Southern Russia, the Pamirs and the Caucasus and that’s what they’re called in that area but they exist in other parts of the world as well. The Almas and the Bigfoot/Sasquatch-type, the giant kind — both live in very heavy montane forests, the deepest, densest forest that we have on the planet. That’s where they tend to live.
A: Do you consider there to be enough evidence of the existence of these creatures to be talking of them as you are? As though they are a proven fact?
P: Well the evidence is really overwhelming actually if you dig down into it. When they were first being discovered in the early ’50s through into the middle ’60s, let’s say, they were taken pretty seriously. The study was done by some anthropologists, zoologists — Ivan Sanderson being probably the most prominent of that group. But during that time, stories would be written that were in mainstream media of that time — books, magazines. It would be equal to, say, Playboy today. They have stories in Time, Newsweek, Life. They were taken seriously. And then when scientists began to be put on the hot seat, more or less, in being required to explain what these things were and how they could be out there and how they fit into the scheme of things, they began to be shuffled more and more off into the tabloids where they have languished ever since. But, yes, the evidence, is overwhelming to anyone who looks at it with even a remotely open mind. I mean we can go over some of it during the course of our talk but there’s really no doubt in my mind and I think no doubt in the mind of anyone who reads, well, just part three of my book will do it. But if you do any serious research into this subject, there’s absolutely no question that they’re out there, they have been there, that they are in fact the native indigenous upright walking primate on the planet Earth.
A: Let us go back now to the beginning and, when I say that, I mean quite literally in our discussion.
P: Okay.
A: It serves me up a little list of questions that I should ask you here and one is very, very good. What is wrong with creationism? Darwinism? In other words, you apparently have arguments against both of these —
P: Well actually not —
A: I’m almost afraid to use — theories? What would you call them?
P: Well they’re theories, of course, and I don’t just have —
A: Now you’re in trouble.
P: — arguments against them. They have arguments against each other. As you know, they go and have been going nose to nose and toe to toe for a very long time now and I think that the fact that they’re both able to shoot such gaping holes in each other is a strong indication that they’re both fundamentally flawed. I think if either one of them was absolutely correct, it would be like one of them would be more or less like Einstein’s theory of relativity where there’s just absolutely no question, no challenge. No one argues the point. The fact that creationists — if you’ve ever read creationists’ literature, you’d be surprised at how good some of it is. Now not all of it, of course, but some of it —
A: Oh I know.
P: — particularly attacking the Darwinian paradigm is very good. And it makes a lot of sense in a — I personally believe a lot of what they have to say. Especially as it deals with macroevolution versus microevolution, which we can discuss in more detail. Now as far as what the Darwinists can do to the creationists in terms of the timeline of Earth, they just more or less flatten them because the creationists — so many of them are stuck on that six days’ creation six thousand years ago and really all you have to do is look at the Grand Canyon or know that the peak of Mt. Everest is marine limestone to know that the Earth is vastly older than six thousand years ago. So the fact that they’re able to shoot such holes in each other leaves, I think, an opening for a third alternative and that’s what I’ve tried to (“YOU KNOW”) provide and I believe that I am.
A: Well let’s say it. What are the major problems — you’ve mentioned a couple with creationism.
P: Well with creationism it’s just the fact that what —
A: The hard science — (“THE HARD”)
P: Yeah, the hard science answers that they have to the idea of six — you know, that the whole, entire universe would be formed whole and intact within six days, no changes, no addendums. It’s obvious that that’s not exactly what happened and, as far as six thousand years ago, that is not what it says in the Bible but Bishop James Usher in the 17th Century calculated the who-begat-whos in the Bible and came up with a — so and so begat so and so who lived for so many years. (“SO”)
A: If you add up all the begattans, you get to a certain number of years.
P: Yeah and ironically the six thousand year anniversary was this past October so that has come to be taken literally as gospel even though it was written by a man — calculated by one guy in the 17th Century. So that, again for the reason that I just quoted, is pretty easy, I think, to knock a hole in or knock down. I don’t think it’s arguable.
A: Well you know you’d get lots of argument about it but for the sake of this one let’s say, “Okay, fine.”
P: Okay.
A: Let’s move to Darwinism. Now Darwinism is pretty much supported by hard science. The process of evolution.
P: Well, you know, they tell us that and it’s very easy to just listen to the din and the drum of it and just come to shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh yeah well I guess they’re right because there are so many of them saying it” but —
A: Well where are the holes?
P: The problem with it is this. There are two words you need to understand. Microevolution and macroevolution.
A: Okay, define them for us.
P: Alright. Microevolution is what Darwin actually found in the Galapagos. Now it’s this — he noticed that on the different islands that he visited, in several of the animals but two in particular — in finches which have come to be known as Darwin’s Finches and in the giant tortoises that you see. He noticed that the finches that lived on the different islands had adapted themselves to eating different foods that were dominant on the islands. They would eat fruits. They would eat insects. They would eat seeds. And their beaks had been altered to accommodate that diet — longer, thinner, shorter, fatter, really heavy for the seeds. Now they’re still finches. They’re still fundamentally the same finch that flew out from South America however many million years ago—two or three million years ago—and founded the line of finches that became Darwin’s Finches. But the beak changes were so noticeable that it gave him the idea. And then he noticed with the tortoises that there were two fundamental kinds: those that browsed on bushes that grew close to the ground had shells that came down the way normal turtles do and met close to the bottom shell; the tortoises that browsed on bushes that grew up (“YOU KNOW”) a couple feet—three or feet in the air—they had these big notches in the front of their shells so that their neck could rise up. And he looked at that and he said now wait a minute. We’re —
( . . . )
Q: So Stephan Hoeller’s got his Wednesday night course and Pierre Grimes has his Tuesday night course. He’s giving a “Buddhist Series” in this catalog and Stephan’s addressing the “Wisdom of the Gnostic Gospels: The Basic Course in the Teaching of the Gnostics (Continued).” Eric Knauss has a “Palmistry Series.” John Maxwell Taylor’s back for his 20-character one-man-play “Forever Jung.” And, of course, there’s a special event with Kevin Ryerson entitled “Channeling: A Sacred Science?” It says “Introduction by Jeffrey Mishlove, Ph.D., Slide Presentation by Shawn Shelton, Power Places Tours.” I guess this is somehow in connection with this new Power Places Tours franchise of the PRS. I guess they get free trips out of it or something. What’s really disgusting is that every week they suggest a $5 donation. Well I see one week, Manley P. Hall Day, celebrating the founder’s birthday — it says “@ $10.” Actually it doesn’t really say — (“WELL”) it says “Donation” on top so you don’t really have to pay that but I just find it a little pathetic that they’re choosing to charge more money one week — I guess it’s because they serve refreshments in the library that day and have to pay for them that way. Edgar Mitchell’s going to be the guest — that Apollo astronaut. It says, “Generous Donation Appreciated.”
(TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: WHEN I ATTENED THIS PRS MANLEY HALL DAY, THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED THAT SAID $10 MINIMUM DONATION. OTHER PRS $10 ATTRACTIONS FOR THE SUNDAY 11 A.M. LECTURE SERIES HAVE INCLUDED DON CAMPBELL AND JUDITH ORLOFF.)
Q: So I see on Fridays someone by the name of Cynthia Withers has a “Beginners Astrology Class.” Kay Herron teaches her “The Nature of the Soul” on Saturdays from 10 to 12 noon. There’s also “Tai Chi Chuan” taught by Alan Francis. That’s a form of Taoist yoga and internal martial art — “a peaceful method of attaining harmony of mind, body and spirit. Held in the courtyard.” It also says “News Flash — Don Campbell, Dean of Sound Healers, Saturday, April 4 and Sunday, April 5. Change Your Life With Music.” They have Saturday “The Healing Power of Music,” Sunday “The Philosophical Nature of Soul & Sound” and a workshop “The Mysteries of the Voice.” One of the people speaking in this quarter. Well I guess the PRS really is the modern-day equivalent of the old mystery schools but people still don’t really know much about love, if you ask me. I still think that love is a verb and not a noun. I even saw a book with that title at the bookstore. By the way, after that last tape side finished, we were talking a little bit about that article about secret misogyny in Russia and Laura and I agreed that it really isn’t much of a secret throughout the world now, is it?
( . . . )
Q: So I didn’t do shopping for my mother today even though she must soon be needing supplies. I don’t know what she’s going to do — if she’s going to call me or she’s going to have the store deliver or what. I told her she’d have to go see the retirement hotel just to see it. I just wanted her to see what she’s missing and then I would do the shopping. She said her foot still hurts and it’s been bad for such a long time now that I don’t think it’s ever going to get better. I think it’s probably one of those diabetic problems that won’t heal.
( . . . )
Q: So I’m wondering — I’m visiting Stan Deyo’s website and it’s called “Noah’s Ark” and he’s got “Noah’s Comments” dated 2 November 1997. Does he think he’s the reincarnation of Noah? Anyway, I’m going to leave him a book/website referral on his Email. I also sent one to Charles Kagel. So I didn’t share any excerpts from Lloyd Pye’s appearance on Art Bell’s show and apparently Mighael wants me to provide them because when I turned on the Saturday night show, which is a repeat — hoping they might have the portion of Hoagland’s appearance that I missed — they had a portion of Pye’s show, I believe, and then again tonight when I turned it on to check they had it again so I went ahead and recorded it and I’ll share with you some portions. A lot of the information I was already aware of and maybe that’s why I didn’t think it was integral but it does put together a lot of good information very succinctly, some of it based upon the work of others such as Ivan T. Sanderson and Zecharia Sitchin. Anyway, it is good research so here are some excerpts from this appearance by Lloyd Pye on “Coast to Coast AM.”
( . . . )
A: And he has written a book called Everything You Know Is Wrong. (laughs) All about human evolution . . . (Pye) graduated from I guess it’s Amite High School in Amite, Louisiana. Am I getting that name wrong?
P: Actually, you are. It’s called Amite (pronounced Ameet).
A: Amite.
P: Close enough.
A: Figures. Alright — went on to college at Tulane. You were a punter and a running back. Any comments on the game last night?
P: Which one?
A: Oh Green Bay.
P: Oh. (laughs) No, that’s okay. I don’t want to cause trouble right away. I think it was a great game. Let it go at that.
A: Really? Intriguing. Alright. And then you got a B.S. in psychology.
P: Right.
A: And then somehow you went into the military and got involved in intelligence work.
P: Yeah.
A: There really is military intelligence.
P: No, there is not.
A: (laughs)
P: I experienced it. There is not. Of course, now I’m already in trouble.
A: Well that’s alright. This is the very home of trouble. Lloyd, don’t let it bother you.
P: Okay.
A: Then somehow you got involved — how did you — you began to study Zecharia Sitchin?
P: Actually I didn’t find him until about 1990, unfortunately. I was, like everyone else, trying to make a living and he’s not nearly as well-known as he should be, I think, for a number of reasons. But, for whatever reason, I was looking in the wrong places and didn’t find him until 1990. But I had done so much research to that point on hominoids that as soon as I found him I knew that I was going to be able to construct a new theory of evolution based on my own work — my own extensive work in hominoids and his work in ancient Sumeria.
A: A hominoid is?
P: Hominoids are the creatures and the upright hair-covered primates that people see all around the world on a regular basis. Bigfoot/Sasquatch — we’re all familiar with here. The Abominable Snowman/Yeti in the Himalayas. And there are two other kinds that are dominant in other parts of the world that we’re not as familiar with in the west but which are equally prevalent in their areas.
A: Different names, same creature?
P: No. Different creatures. There are four fundamentally different hominoid creatures out there. The Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a giant seven to ten feet tall, weighing 700 to 1000 pounds. The Abominable Snowman is called man-size but they’re basically six to seven feet tall. They weigh 300 to 600 pounds but they’re very primitive as these creatures go. They’re by far the most primitive and their range is restricted to the Himalayas, which is as big as the United States so they have plenty of room to roam in. The other three are able to move about a lot better and they do. The third kind is called Almas because they dominate in the mountains of Southern Russia, the Pamirs and the Caucasus and that’s what they’re called in that area but they exist in other parts of the world as well. The Almas and the Bigfoot/Sasquatch-type, the giant kind — both live in very heavy montane forests, the deepest, densest forest that we have on the planet. That’s where they tend to live.
A: Do you consider there to be enough evidence of the existence of these creatures to be talking of them as you are? As though they are a proven fact?
P: Well the evidence is really overwhelming actually if you dig down into it. When they were first being discovered in the early ’50s through into the middle ’60s, let’s say, they were taken pretty seriously. The study was done by some anthropologists, zoologists — Ivan Sanderson being probably the most prominent of that group. But during that time, stories would be written that were in mainstream media of that time — books, magazines. It would be equal to, say, Playboy today. They have stories in Time, Newsweek, Life. They were taken seriously. And then when scientists began to be put on the hot seat, more or less, in being required to explain what these things were and how they could be out there and how they fit into the scheme of things, they began to be shuffled more and more off into the tabloids where they have languished ever since. But, yes, the evidence, is overwhelming to anyone who looks at it with even a remotely open mind. I mean we can go over some of it during the course of our talk but there’s really no doubt in my mind and I think no doubt in the mind of anyone who reads, well, just part three of my book will do it. But if you do any serious research into this subject, there’s absolutely no question that they’re out there, they have been there, that they are in fact the native indigenous upright walking primate on the planet Earth.
A: Let us go back now to the beginning and, when I say that, I mean quite literally in our discussion.
P: Okay.
A: It serves me up a little list of questions that I should ask you here and one is very, very good. What is wrong with creationism? Darwinism? In other words, you apparently have arguments against both of these —
P: Well actually not —
A: I’m almost afraid to use — theories? What would you call them?
P: Well they’re theories, of course, and I don’t just have —
A: Now you’re in trouble.
P: — arguments against them. They have arguments against each other. As you know, they go and have been going nose to nose and toe to toe for a very long time now and I think that the fact that they’re both able to shoot such gaping holes in each other is a strong indication that they’re both fundamentally flawed. I think if either one of them was absolutely correct, it would be like one of them would be more or less like Einstein’s theory of relativity where there’s just absolutely no question, no challenge. No one argues the point. The fact that creationists — if you’ve ever read creationists’ literature, you’d be surprised at how good some of it is. Now not all of it, of course, but some of it —
A: Oh I know.
P: — particularly attacking the Darwinian paradigm is very good. And it makes a lot of sense in a — I personally believe a lot of what they have to say. Especially as it deals with macroevolution versus microevolution, which we can discuss in more detail. Now as far as what the Darwinists can do to the creationists in terms of the timeline of Earth, they just more or less flatten them because the creationists — so many of them are stuck on that six days’ creation six thousand years ago and really all you have to do is look at the Grand Canyon or know that the peak of Mt. Everest is marine limestone to know that the Earth is vastly older than six thousand years ago. So the fact that they’re able to shoot such holes in each other leaves, I think, an opening for a third alternative and that’s what I’ve tried to (“YOU KNOW”) provide and I believe that I am.
A: Well let’s say it. What are the major problems — you’ve mentioned a couple with creationism.
P: Well with creationism it’s just the fact that what —
A: The hard science — (“THE HARD”)
P: Yeah, the hard science answers that they have to the idea of six — you know, that the whole, entire universe would be formed whole and intact within six days, no changes, no addendums. It’s obvious that that’s not exactly what happened and, as far as six thousand years ago, that is not what it says in the Bible but Bishop James Usher in the 17th Century calculated the who-begat-whos in the Bible and came up with a — so and so begat so and so who lived for so many years. (“SO”)
A: If you add up all the begattans, you get to a certain number of years.
P: Yeah and ironically the six thousand year anniversary was this past October so that has come to be taken literally as gospel even though it was written by a man — calculated by one guy in the 17th Century. So that, again for the reason that I just quoted, is pretty easy, I think, to knock a hole in or knock down. I don’t think it’s arguable.
A: Well you know you’d get lots of argument about it but for the sake of this one let’s say, “Okay, fine.”
P: Okay.
A: Let’s move to Darwinism. Now Darwinism is pretty much supported by hard science. The process of evolution.
P: Well, you know, they tell us that and it’s very easy to just listen to the din and the drum of it and just come to shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh yeah well I guess they’re right because there are so many of them saying it” but —
A: Well where are the holes?
P: The problem with it is this. There are two words you need to understand. Microevolution and macroevolution.
A: Okay, define them for us.
P: Alright. Microevolution is what Darwin actually found in the Galapagos. Now it’s this — he noticed that on the different islands that he visited, in several of the animals but two in particular — in finches which have come to be known as Darwin’s Finches and in the giant tortoises that you see. He noticed that the finches that lived on the different islands had adapted themselves to eating different foods that were dominant on the islands. They would eat fruits. They would eat insects. They would eat seeds. And their beaks had been altered to accommodate that diet — longer, thinner, shorter, fatter, really heavy for the seeds. Now they’re still finches. They’re still fundamentally the same finch that flew out from South America however many million years ago—two or three million years ago—and founded the line of finches that became Darwin’s Finches. But the beak changes were so noticeable that it gave him the idea. And then he noticed with the tortoises that there were two fundamental kinds: those that browsed on bushes that grew close to the ground had shells that came down the way normal turtles do and met close to the bottom shell; the tortoises that browsed on bushes that grew up (“YOU KNOW”) a couple feet—three or feet in the air—they had these big notches in the front of their shells so that their neck could rise up. And he looked at that and he said now wait a minute. We’re —
.gif)