JOURNAL / REPORTING — TAPE #371, SIDE #2
Q: Mark Russell Bell
P: Lloyd Pye (portion of radio broadcast)
A: Art Bell (portion of radio broadcast)
M: Mark Carlotto (portion of radio broadcast)
L: Linda Moulton Howe (portion of radio broadcast)
A: Something visible.
P: But it — in a part, a small part. The creature stays fundamentally the same but some part of it adapts to the environment in some superior way.
P: Now macroevolution, on the other hand, is the change of an entire body into another form. It’s like sea worms turning into fishes, fishes turning into amphibians, amphibians turning into reptiles, reptiles turning into mammals, mammals turning into — so you see that sequence. So there you have to have wholesale changes internally. You have to have digestive systems change. You have to have breathing systems change. You have to have reproductive systems change. You have to have some major structural realignment. Now that is what is missing from the fossil record. That is what is missing from the world around us. Now if you understand, again, the span of five hundred million years that we’re talking about, there have been upwards of a billion species that have existed and, as you know, probably there’ve been five major extinctions. So there’s been a lot of wipeouts. There’s between five and ten million species alive now. So you would assume that at some point and certainly in our own existence it would be visible for us to see a gill turning into a lung or a forelimb turning into a wing or a scale turning into — something in the process of change that we could identify and say, “Ah, gradualism is in fact a real, workable thesis.”
A: And there is no evidence?
P: None that anybody can point to and say, “This in unequivocally, unarguably Darwinism/gradualism in action. There’s nothing out there that I’m aware of or I think anyone else is aware of. Now what you’ll hear — you’ll hear a lot of arguments and I’ve been getting some of these arguments from Darwinists who come to hear me speak. And they’ll jump up and say, “Well you can see the change in bacteria and microbes and —”
A: I was about to point that out.
P: — yeah. Well, you know, you can but a lot of that is just speciation, which is a species modifying itself. When you really boil it down, it nearly always can be explained in terms of microevolution. It is still fundamentally the thing that it was. It still reproduces. It still breathes. It still digests — or whatever it does, even at the microscopic level, it’s fundamentally the same. It’s not turning into something else. There’s just no record of it, Art. I know . . .
A: Okay but what about the virus level, Lloyd? If we’re talking, for example, about — since it’s in the news lately, we could clamp onto the AIDS virus and we could talk about its ability to change and to meet the drugs that are used against it and modify itself.
P: Well within the world of a virus and we’re talking they can go down as little as half a dozen genes so we’re talking something minutely small and not really alive in the sense that it can’t reproduce itself the way, you know — you could even argue that they’re not living and some people do, in as much as they need a living host in order to live. (“BUT”) Put that argument aside. It changes to another form of itself. And it has a new beak, it has a new shell, it has some new modification in its body functioning but it’s still a virus. It lives as a virus. It’s identifiable as a virus. Now you find a virus that suddenly makes the leap from being a parasite (“BEING”) needing to live off of something else. If you show a virus that can suddenly feed itself from its environment —
P: — and reproduce itself —
A: Then you have —
P: — now you’ve got macroevolution.
A: I see.
P: See what I’m saying?
A: Yes I do.
P: So there you go. And any time you break down one of their arguments the way I just broke that one down, you will inevitably find that it is microevolution that they’re foisting off as macroevolution.
A: So you’re saying Creation has too many holes in it. You’re saying Darwinism has too many holes in it.
A: You’re saying there’s a third explanation.
P: I believe that there is a third fundamental explanation for all of it. Now, as far as what we’re talking about now, the beginnings of life — that I don’t have an answer for, frankly. I do not have that worked out. All I know is that what we’re currently taught and the name of the book —
A: When you said— okay, I’m sorry. When you say —
P: — is Everything You Know Is Wrong.
A: — the beginnings of life, do you mean human life?
P: All life. Human life we can talk about later. We’re talking about all life. When you look at all life — here is the history of life on Earth. At around four billion years ago, quite unexpectedly at a time when the Earth was still very plasmic and was fundamentally nothing but a ball of lava, it had just begun to coalesce out of the primordial cloud — again, which happened at around 4.5 billion years ago. So we’re looking at a half a billion years—a long time to just say that but relatively speaking fairly short—when the Earth was horribly, horribly inhospitable. The first form of life on Earth appears and that is prokaryotic bacteria. (commercial break)
A: Lloyd, four and one-half billion years ago, what was the Earth like?
P: Four and one-half billion years ago, the Earth was just coalescing out of the primordial cloud. It had taken its shape—the sun had ignited—but it was basically a seething mass of lava and about five hundred million years later at around four billion years it was essentially the same but it was well into the cooling process. So we had some hardening crust. We had some steam. We had some water. It was beginning to cool down. And that’s four billion years ago is when life first came out — it might help if we go over what we’re all taught. I was taught this thirty/forty years ago and everyone’s been taught this since. We’re all taught that life began in the early primordial seas when we had oceans. (“E”) I’m sure everyone out there listening will remember that — that somehow inorganic molecules floating around in that pre-biotic soup or pre-biotic sea found themselves somehow on a kind of chemical yellow brick road that allowed them to skip along, linking electrons and forming themselves into ever more complex inorganic molecules until somehow they reached a magic threshold and were struck by—I was taught—a lightning bolt.
A: That’s right.
P: People were taught other things — that somehow triggered them into a living thing, swirled them into a living thing. A lightning bolt hits them and whammo, you have this alive creature. Now that has been, inasmuch as the very largest single group of inorganic molecules compares to the very smallest conceivable — like we were talking about a virus — very smallest conceivable actually living thing that wasn’t a virus that actually could reproduce and could seed itself out of its environment. The very largest inorganic molecule compares to the very smallest living thing the way a small rural village would compare to New York City in terms of complexity.
P: There’s just no way that that happened. It has been analogized thusly by saying that the likelihood of that — it’s called spontaneous animation — the real, true likelihood of spontaneous animation is equivalent to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.
P: So it didn’t happen that way. The odds on it are just so astronomical. But over and above the fact that it couldn’t happen the way we’re taught, it didn’t happen because everyone that knows anything about this knows that the first life form to actually appear on Earth was a bacteria, not a virus or virus-level living thing. A very advanced creature, relatively speaking, a single-celled bacteria none-the-less but without a nucleus so it’s called a prokaryotic bacteria. Now they exist today, four billion years later, in fundamentally the same forms that they existed in when they first came.
A: Basically unchanged.
P: Basically unchanged. Blue-green algae, schizoma bacteria — there are some other kinds as well. What’s interesting about it not one (“KIND”) — everyone would assume, (“WELL”) “Yeah well when life started, surely it was one kind.” They have recently found out within the last decade that two kinds came; not one — two. The archae and the true bacteria. So that a big shock, needless to say, that what they had assumed for a very long tine was one kind of creature when they got able to break it down at its DNA level. They found that, “Whoa, we’ve got two things here. Not one. Two.” And that’s your first living life form. (“THEY”) They have maybe several hundred strands of DNA. They were filled with ribosomes, which are in fact the size of viruses, so they were hundreds of times bigger than viruses. (“SO”) This is a well-advanced creature that comes to Earth. So that tells us right away that the first life to come to Earth certainly did not develop here. There was no time for it. Certainly, it couldn’t have gotten to that level of complexity in only five hundred million years in nothing basically but lava as an incubator. So it just didn’t happen. Now . . .
A: But, see, there are those who would say, “Now you are arguing creation.”
P: Well no, I’m just saying —
P: — that it did — life did not come here the way we are taught. That’s all I’m all really saying. I’m saying that it — (“IT”) it did come here obviously from someplace else and wherever it came from, it existed millions, billions of years earlier than when we first appeared on Earth. That’s all I’m saying. Where it came from — where that first spark of life came from, to make that first thing, no one could say. I can’t say and (nor) anyone else can and I’m waiting for the day that someone can make a case that is convincing. That does leave the door open . . .
A: Are you saying that all things then came from that first thing?
P: Yes. That is the indication that we have because we all share the same genetic code — all plant, all animals. When you break it down to the gene level, you can take genes from a plant and put them in our bodies and they’ll function. You can take genes from our bodies and put them in plants and they’ll function. So we are share the same basic genetic code so yes, we all spring from a common life source. So that would argue for some — there is a mechanism. The bottom line for my case is this — there is a mechanism out there, Art. There is. I don’t know what it is. Nobody else does. What I’m saying is what we’re being taught is inaccurate.
A: But —
P: We haven’t looked far enough. We do not have the answer.
A: Okay. (“BUT”) You seem to argue against yourself in some cases because you suggest — okay, something came here from elsewhere — (“RI”) a fairly complex something from which all things sprang.
A: Now that would indicate some sort of definite evolutionary process. You’re only arguing the difference in the beginning.
P: Well no, there are two parts to it. There’s the beginning and I’m saying that we don’t know, I don’t know, no one knows and, certainly, the possibility of a designed Creation is not out the window. Something happened but in hearing how unlikely this spontaneous animation, whether on this planet or some other planet ten billion years earlier, still you’ve got the problem of the tornado through the junkyard. How do you explain — molecules are molecules the universe over, it should be. So how do you go from inorganic molecules ti an organic life form containing millions of different inorganic molecules magically arranged so that they function as a living thing. I don’t know. Nobody knows. And all I’m saying is what we’re taught is not correct. It didn’t happen as simplistically as we’re taught. Now we’re taught that because it’s simple. Because it’s simple. And so they — (“YOU KNOW”) everybody just takes it, “Oh. Okay. That’s what happened.” And then we move on.
A: But you argue, though, that there can be no natural process of evolution that accounts for our presence.
P: No, I don’t even argue that either.
A: You don’t?
P: What I’m saying is — no. No. There is a mechanism. Life does progress into higher forms. But what I’m saying is that on Earth, if you just read the fossil record for what happened, here’s what happens. When things are wiped out — we’ve had five major extinctions with collisions with asteroids or whatever, comets maybe, but something in the five separate occasions in the history of Earth that we are very well aware of has wiped out between 80 and 90% of all life on the planet. And that’s like wiping the slate clean in terms of the fossil record. And the fossil records gives us a very accurate account of what’s happened.
A: Well I was certainly aware of the supposed KT event.
P: Well that’s the last one at sixty-five million years ago. The Cretaceous extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs but there have been four others prior to that.
A: What are those?
P: One is called the Triassic — that was the first one big one. The Permian at 225 wiped out most of — like 90/95% but the point is at the end of each time, here’s what you get in the fossil record. You have a few thousand years where nothing happens. It’s just sort of nothing going on. Earth is allowed to sort of re-stabilize itself and then suddenly species begin to appear like popcorn. Just like they did in the first time they came which was the Cambrian explosion. And then — biologists really have to dance around the Cambrian explosion and all these other things because what happens in this. Suddenly in a very, very short time, the ecological dimensions are being refilled by fully formed, ready-to-go males/females, predators/prey, armor, fangs — whatever. At every level they come whole cloth, ready to go, ready to reproduce. And what I call it in the book — what I say and I know that this may get a chuckle out of you — I say it’s like cosmic dump trucks are out there. And they get the word that, “Hey, Earth needs a new batch of life.”
A: Now you’re back to creationism. (laughs)
P: Well, (“FOOL”) not necessarily. It could be that we’re being managed, that we’re like an aquarium.
A: Well I didn’t say by whom. I just said creationism.
P: Well there you go. And that moves into the latter parts of the book. But that’s right — by whom. If the cosmic dump trucks are real and if you read the fossil record fairly and objectively, that’s about all you can conclude because what the scientists try to say is that there’s something called punctuated equilibrium. This is how they try to attach an addendum to Darwinism. Darwinism, understand, is the gradual increase of everything from simplicity toward ever-higher complexity.
P: Well it’s obvious to anybody that reads the fossil record that that didn’t happen. That that does not happen. What actually happens is these births, these absolute explosions of life forms — fully-formed life forms on Earth when required. So what they try to say is that there is like an alternate theory or an addendum called punctuated equilibrium.
A: It’s like all the fish in the aquarium die and suddenly somebody goes out and buys a whole bunch and puts them back into the aquarium.
P: Exactly — new batch of fish, new kinds, everything, and it’s like, “Oh wow, look at this.” And the way they explain it: “Well punctuated equilibrium has happened to this aquarium.” Suddenly life knows. It just knows that it’s time to hit the accelerator and start expanding exponentially all over the place, all at once, everywhere, into every ecological niche. (“THAT”) The survivors, whatever they are, somehow begin to absolutely disobey every rule of Darwinism and they begin to turn themselves into multitudes of creatures. Not just the next step up. (“BUT”) All at once — becoming ten, fifteen, twenty different things — (“THE”) the survivors. It’s the only way to explain what happens. Well you know — “That doesn’t make sense. That’s not believable.” But, again, well you know, they have to say something. They have to come up with something. They have to fill that hole so they have filled that hole in the logic with punctuated equilibrium. But the truth is cosmic dump trucks make more sense — (“THEY WANT MORE”) more intrinsic sense than punctuated equilibrium does. And I’m not trying to really sell the cosmic dump truck idea. I’m just pointing out that what we’re told is not accurate, doesn’t make sense and is really not believable when you look at it very closely.
A: Hmm. So what would be your best guess? Do you have one?
P: No. I really — it’s the old thing about the more you know, the more you know you don’t. (“KNOW”) And the more I study, the more I look at it — the more baffled and confused I am. It looks to me if I just give a guess, if I just throw this out, it looks to me as if maybe we are being managed like a giant aquarium. Just given the facts as I see them and as I read them, that’s how it looks. And I mean that goes all the way back, which really kind of sends a chill up your spine, given what we’re going to talk about later vis-a-vis how we came to be here.
A: The missing link.
P: Okay, here we go. (“UM”) If you forget all what we’ve just talked about — the beginnings of life and all that; and you move into humanity. How did we get here? (“LET’S”) Let’s talk about that. What we’re told by anthropologists is that we developed from a series of creatures that lived on Earth that are called pre-humans. That’s what they call them. There are two fundamental kinds. There are the australopithecine and then there are the early Homos. Now Homo in scientific terms means man so that explains why they’re trying to signify that we’re becoming more men. The australopithecines start at around four million years ago. Forget four billion when life came. Now we’re down to four million. And that starts with australopithecine afarensis, which is the kind that Lucy — we all have heard about Lucy. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds.
A: Sure. Sure.
P: The fossil found by Donald Johanson in the Afar region of Ethiopia in 1974. So that group — and then there’s Australopithecus Africanus. And then there’s robustus and there’s boisei. They’re two fundamental divisions there. Africanus and afarensis are fundamentally upright, walking chimpanzees. Their heads are basically chimpanzees. Robustus and boisei are upright, walking gorillas. They have the wider faces, the longer faces. They have sagittal crests on the top of their heads. That’s that ridge of bone that gorillas have — all the big chewing muscles. So you have upright — at four million years ago, you have two sets of creatures: the upright, walking chimps; the upright, walking gorillas. But we know that they were upright, walking because we have Lucy’s pelvis. We have her hipbone. We have her knee joint. All of which are very human and at 3.5 million years ago, we have the tracks left at the ash fall at Laetoli in Tanzania of the two hominids walking across this ash fall. A volcano had laid out a layer of ash. They walked across it. It looks like a male and a female — a larger set and a smaller set walking side by side. And then more ashes came our of the volcano, covered those and miraculously Mary Leakey and her team found them in 1978. So we know at 3.5 million years ago, fully upright — Lucy is at 3.2 — fully upright. So the creature that we supposedly evolved from becomes upright at some point in time between eight million years and five million years ago. That’s what we’re taught. That there’s a branching between a true apelike creature that is our common ancestor and part of the branch goes off and becomes gorillas and chimpanzees and orangutan and baboons. And the other branch is us. And the first twig on that branch — (“IS THE”) Australopithecus afarensis Lucy group. But they don’t look human. They’re very distinctly not human. They have much more robust bones than we have. They have heads that, again, looks like chimps. Their arms are much longer than ours and hang down around their knees.
A: Do we know yet anything about their DNA?
P: No. We do not — they’ve not sequenced that DNA.
A: No recoverable —
P: No recovery yet. No. (“YEAH”) Now at around two million years ago and these are very general terms — but at around you go from four million years for two million years, let’s say, the australopithecines dominate. And then we begin to appear — the Homos. We have Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo archaid, Homo neanderthalensis which is Neanderthal man. And then you have Cro-Magnon man — basically modern man appearing at a hundred and twenty thousand years ago. So you have these four Homos—habilis, erectus, archaic and Neanderthal—and then suddenly whammo at a hundred and twenty thousand years ago you have something, us, that looks absolutely nothing like them. You have a really nice sequence, in fact, from the australopithecine into the Homos. You see their brains growing but everything looks fundamentally the same on except their brains growing bigger. Microevolution. Their heads are all fundamentally the same shape. Here’s what it looks like. You’ve all seen the pictures, I’m sure, in National Geographic and elsewhere. They have no foreheads. Their foreheads slant back from their brow ridges. Their brow ridges are huge, thick — (“JUST”) just like a gorilla or a chimp. Huge brow ridges. Large, round, night-vision eyes. You get those large, round night-vision eyes because you need more rods in your retinas so you’re going to get those big — and those are, in fact, primate eyes.
A: Alright, here’s a good place to break it off.
( . . . )
Q: So this subject came up on “Dreamland” tonight when Dr. Mark Carlotto was being interviewed. He’s well-known for his book about the face on Mars and other Martian anomalies.
M: . . . about fifteen to sixteen pieces of evidence that we’ve accumulated. What happens is you put it all together and you get an extraordinary amount of evidence. Physically, you start of with a million-to-one odds against the artificial hypothesis. In the literature that’s a good number to use for an extraordinary claim for that says your biased one in a million against — a million-to-one against. And then we added all this evidence from these different sources — the different sixteen sources of evidence about the face and these other objects in this area. We end up getting numbers between a hundred and a hundred thousand-to-one in favor of the hypothesis.
L: That it was artificial?
L: What about the fort?
M: The fort — I’ve always kind of found that almost as interesting if not more interesting than the face because it’s so angular and it really looks like a building — a structure of some sort. And I’ve actually been able to do a rendering from the side — in other words, a side view. And you really get the sense of a pyramid collapsing into what now looks like the fort. And so I think it’s possible that these structures are artificial, that the fort might have been a collapsed pyramid and that the pyramid next to the fort might, in fact, be hollow. (“WHEN”) When I was measuring these objects, each one of them — the face and the fortress, the pyramid . . . (some parts of interview are hard to distinguish), you can draw a line between them and you can actually do averages . . . you’re not depicting an arbitrary point in the city square — drawing a line to the south of the face and getting an angle and actually take all these measurements and average them. And you can come up with an orientation. In fact, the angle that I’ve got differs only about one degree from the current summer solstice alignment direction on Mars and this one degree translates into a bientrical argument based on that . . . of Mars and breaks into about a 33,000-year age. But it would — as young, as early as 33,000 years ago, the summer solstice sunrise would’ve been in a line with these objects. And 33,000 years ago is a very interesting number because this is during that period where Neanderthals died out on Earth and Homo sapiens emerged. (“AN[D]”) And that’s really where we — where modern man (“BB”) came of age. There was a tremendous growth in consciousness and we really became who we are now. And it’s a mystery how that happened . . .
L: Because we are not related to Neanderthal.
M: We’re not. There’s no —
L: No genetic connection.
M: — no genetic connection. It’s becoming more and more of an enigma.
M: The one thing I wanted to close this with is that you have in Cydonia, you have — you’re seeing a pyramid that has one face oriented — Earth side . . . south. And then you have this arrangement of objects lined up in a sort of north of east direction by 33.1 degrees north of east. I have found two other sites on Mars that have the same sort of structure. They have — one of the sites has a pyramidal landform with a south face . . . and they have at least one other structure that is oriented in this general — the same general north of east direction. One side is about a hundred/two hundred kilometers. It’s southwest of another one at about 500 kilometers to the southwest. And so this is telling me that this arrangement may be very significant. It’s also telling me it’s probably not geological. It’s not just some sort of fault local to the area but that we’ve got these sites that are quite some distance away that seem to have other properties in common with it.
L: And the same orientation is marked out as well.
M: Yeah. And so let’s assume that, you know, when you start talking about this . . . a site that they’re not afraid to talk about it. These people need to come out the closet and look around — and the world’s changed. And most people believe in the existence of extra-terrestrials and folks are not threatened by it. I think most people are more concerned with the government covering it up than the truth if they want to know what the truth is.
L: (commenting upon end of taped interview) And I couldn’t agree with him more on that final comment. I think we are ready to know whatever the government knows about Mars. And “Dreamland” listeners can see Dr. Carlotto’s analysis on the Internet by doing a search for ‘the Martian enigmas.’ That’s how you get to his work.
( . . . )
Q: Today on the cover of the Los Angeles Times is a color photo of an emaciated six-month-old sea lion, one of many dying on San Miguel Island, struggling along the beach. Six thousand pups have died on one island alone. They’re blaming it on El Nino. People just ignore things like this. They’d rather read about The Spice Girls in the Sunday Calendar. I’ve never seen them before or heard any of their songs but it turns out that they got their names—their nicknames anyway—from a pop magazine. So they got channeled names too without realizing it. Or maybe they do realize it now. Who knows? I don’t really know why the world needs a female version of the Village People but I guess they’ve made a lot of money. In England, anyway. Their fans are eleven or twelve years old with girls heavily outnumbering boys, of course. It says most are British but some have come from as far afield as Germany, Spain, even Japan just for the privilege of sitting in the audience in this magnificent multi-tiered Victorian-era concert hall. David Britten wrote this article entitled “The Life of Spice”: “Amid the Beetle-esque frenzy, managerial turmoil and slow sales of their new album, the girls just want to have fun.”