PDA

View Full Version : Latest from Lloyd Pye Starchild Project



The One
8th July 2011, 12:33
How can we say we have "proof" the Starchild is alien?

Several of you, and critics, have written to me over the past several weeks asking how we can legitimately claim the Starchild Skull is "alien" if we don't have its entire genome to compare to the human genome. In fact, this very afternoon nationally syndicated radio show host Michael Medved bothered himself to excerpt the Wackypedia article about the Starchild on his show, announcing to his audience with apparent authority that Dr. Steven Novella had examined the Starchild and concluded it was a "common hydrocephalic."

Let me say that Novella is a quack who has never laid eyes on the Starchild other than photos on our website, and I don't believe he's even a doctor. As far as I know he is a scam artist of some kind passing himself off as a qualified skeptic. But qualified or not, he doesn't know anything of substance about the Starchild Skull, having written about it once, way back in 1999, and since then his horribly flawed article has been taken as gospel by mainstream scientists, Wackypedia toadies, and, now, today, Mr. Michael Medved.

That Novella article can be read in its entirety in the "Fight the Stupids" section of the Starchild Project website, along with my explanations of all the asinine errors in it. So now let's get to some new facts about the Starchild DNA testing and results that should make even "Dr." Novella and Michael Medved perhaps have second thoughts.

Valuable input from Roger Cunningham

Roger Cunningham is a good friend who recently offered me some great ammunition for dealing with critics and skeptics who insist we can't assert anything meaningful about the Starchild's DNA until we sequence its entire genome. We do understand that sequencing the entire genome is a must-do in order to make our case impervious to critics and skeptics. But we also know that from a strictly statistical standpoint, we already have enough fragments in hand to know what the final result will be---absolutely and definitely.

First, some background on Roger. He is an engineer with a degree from Georgia Tech, which has one of the best engineering programs in the U.S. While at GT and the GT Graduate School, Roger took and passed nine courses in Statistics, Probability, and Hypothesis Testing. It is important to know that in the undergraduate and graduate programs of nearly all scientists other than engineers, they take at most two such courses. This is why they tend to be totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data.

What follows might at first sound intimidating because of everyone's basic unfamiliarity with statistic analysis. But if you bear with it and read through Roger's comments, I feel sure you will understand the great value of what he is putting forth here. At a minimum, if it gets posted in enough places maybe it will give skeptics and critics reason to think twice about where we are with the Starchild Skull, and where we are so obviously taking it--straight into the history books as the world's first genuinely "alien" being.

The ABCs of statistical analysis direct from Roger Cunningham

(Quote) In Hypothesis Testing, even a .1% sample can be significant if the population being measured has few or no outside influences to cause change. DNA nucleotides and base pairs are just such a population. They exist only in and of themselves, and never change once their host, a living entity, is genetically established during the first few moments of conception and gestation.

(Quote) This is called a "Confidence Interval Test." Most scientists are not well versed in Confidence Intervals. This is why they can reject a sample that is 2% valid "because it is too small." However, in real statistics, which scientists are not trained in and receive only introductory-level courses, a verified sample of .1% to 2% can be all that is needed to prove a case, provided the Confidence Interval is sufficient.

(Quote) Because Mitochondrial DNA is so highly conserved, its Confidence Interval is AT MOST only on the order of .1% to .5%. Thus, the Starchild data needs only a 99.5% Confidence Interval threshold for its mtDNA amount to be significant. The actual 9.5% recovery (of mtDNA base pairs) provides a 90.5% Confidence Interval threshold, which can only be termed "overwhelming."

(Quote) It is completely legitimate to extrapolate that 9.5% recovery (multiplying it by a factor of 10.5) to firmly establish the Starchild as "not human." If scientists were well-trained in Statistics and Hypothesis Testing, the established 9.5% recovery would have them on their heels.

(Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.

(Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome.

(Lloyd) Anyone who feels like challenging Roger on any of this, or thanking him for sticking his neck out to try to help us in this way, he can be reached at:gray22020777@gmail.com. Don't ask me about those numbers, he's an engineer!

What it all means relative to what we do now.

First, I'm going to do what I can to salvage the damage caused by Michael Medved on his radio show, such as it might have been. I'll ask for at least a few minutes on his monthly "Full Moon" show, which I am told deals with alternative subjects. He could hardly do better than to take anything resembling a fair and objective look at the Starchild Skull.

I also intend to keep pushing hard to try to find the investor that we need to secure funding for the genome recovery and the documentary films that will show the world that the testing was done correctly and the results can be verified by any other genetics lab in the world.

Times are hard everywhere now, and even people with great wealth are waiting to see what the U.S. Congress will do about raising our country's debt ceiling. Until that issue is resolved, we all seem stalled in a holding pattern. I hope to break out of it when everyone else does, but for now it's just "wait and see." I hope you all can have the necessary patience to bear with me as I grind through yet another of the many low points in the Starchild's story.

Lloyd Pye

Flash
8th July 2011, 13:18
How can we say we have "proof" the Starchild is alien?

In fact, this very afternoon nationally syndicated radio show host Michael Medved bothered himself to excerpt the Wackypedia article about the Starchild on his show, announcing to his audience with apparent authority that Dr. Steven Novella had examined the Starchild and concluded it was a "common hydrocephalic."

Valuable input from Roger Cunningham

The ABCs of statistical analysis direct from Roger Cunningham

(Quote) In Hypothesis Testing, even a .1% sample can be significant if the population being measured has few or no outside influences to cause change. DNA nucleotides and base pairs are just such a population. They exist only in and of themselves, and never change once their host, a living entity, is genetically established during the first few moments of conception and gestation.

(Quote) This is called a "Confidence Interval Test." Most scientists are not well versed in Confidence Intervals. This is why they can reject a sample that is 2% valid "because it is too small." However, in real statistics, which scientists are not trained in and receive only introductory-level courses, a verified sample of .1% to 2% can be all that is needed to prove a case, provided the Confidence Interval is sufficient.

(Quote) Because Mitochondrial DNA is so highly conserved, its Confidence Interval is AT MOST only on the order of .1% to .5%. Thus, the Starchild data needs only a 99.5% Confidence Interval threshold for its mtDNA amount to be significant. The actual 9.5% recovery (of mtDNA base pairs) provides a 90.5% Confidence Interval threshold, which can only be termed "overwhelming."

(Quote) It is completely legitimate to extrapolate that 9.5% recovery (multiplying it by a factor of 10.5) to firmly establish the Starchild as "not human." If scientists were well-trained in Statistics and Hypothesis Testing, the established 9.5% recovery would have them on their heels.

(Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.

(Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome.

(Lloyd) Anyone who feels like challenging Roger on any of this, or thanking him for sticking his neck out to try to help us in this way, he can be reached at:gray22020777@gmail.com. Don't ask me about those numbers, he's an engineer!

Lloyd Pye

I have been following the Starchild for a while. I know nothing about Michael Medved but before calling the Starchild a pure hydrocephalic skull, i would look at it in depth. Just on the skull biological analysis, the anormalities compared with any human skull are so numerous, relying on data already retrieved, that it cannot be only hydrocephaly.

The molecular structure and bone density is extremely different from regular human, in hydrocephaly the nolecular bone structure woulb be the same as any of us. The fontanelle is inexisting in starchild while in hydrocephals it is there as in any human. The overall shape of the brain is as well different from hycrocephals.

Only based on these I would pursue in the direction taken by Lord Pie. HOWEVER:

As for the statistical anaylisis, Lord Pye is sport on on the way researchers calculate probabilities using confidence levels. And it looks good for the Starchild.

However, where I do not conquer with Lord Pye, is when he says that scientist know nothing about statistical analysis and do not know about confidence levels. These comments make me doubt Lord Pye himself.

I only had 2 courses in statistics at University levels (bachelor in America/license in Europe) and these were taught to the potential ressearchers to be (us, the students). ALL RESERACHERS know about these statiscal matehmatics, it is one of the corner stone of reasearch analysis.

Why would Lord Pye not know that these calculations are in fact low level calculations taught very early in science courses. This does not make sense to me. But also, at the same time, it definitively put a sinking stone in Medved argument.

I don't like to find such discrepancies in someone that I trusted all along and made scientific sense. I do not know what to do with it for the moment.

My final comment: Lord Pye, don't even answer to studid comments from people who need a topic for their probably blatantly depleted of real content radio show. Pursue your genetic analysis and it will lead to to definite proof. Although the statistical analysis you showed us would be enough for anyone slightly versed in science. (and believe me, science is not my stronghold)

The One
8th July 2011, 13:48
However, where I do not conquer with Lord Pye, is when he says that scientist know nothing about statistical analysis and do not know about confidence levels. These comments make me doubt Lord Pye himself.

I only had 2 courses in statistics at University levels (bachelor in America/license in Europe) and these were taught to the potential ressearchers to be (us, the students). ALL RESERACHERS know about these statiscal matehmatics, it is one of the corner stone of reasearch analysis.

Why would Lord Pye not know that these calculations are in fact low level calculations taught very early in science courses. This does not make sense to me. But also, at the same time, it definitively put a sinking stone in Medved argument.

I don't like to find such discrepancies in someone that I trusted all along and made scientific sense. I do not know what to do with it for the moment.

My final commebt: Lord Pye, don't even answer to studid commenet from people who need a topic for their probably blatalntly depleted of real content radio show. Pursue your genetic analysis and it will lead to to definite proof. Although the statistical analysis you showed us would be enough for anyone slightly versed in science. (and believe me, science is not my stronghold)


Why would Lord Pye not know that these calculations are in fact low level calculations taught very early in science courses. This does not make sense to me. But also, at the same time, it definitively put a sinking stone in Medved argument

I have had many coversations with Lloyd and he's been able to answer all my questions .Any doubt you might have Flash please contact him on this email and he will respond to any questions that you would like answering lloydpye@gmail.com

ceetee9
8th July 2011, 15:41
However, where I do not conquer with Lord Pye, is when he says that scientist know nothing about statistical analysis and do not know about confidence levels. These comments make me doubt Lord Pye himself.

I only had 2 courses in statistics at University levels (bachelor in America/license in Europe) and these were taught to the potential ressearchers to be (us, the students). ALL RESERACHERS know about these statiscal matehmatics, it is one of the corner stone of reasearch analysis.

Why would Lord Pye not know that these calculations are in fact low level calculations taught very early in science courses. This does not make sense to me. But also, at the same time, it definitively put a sinking stone in Medved argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lord Pye did acknowledge that scientists are trained in statistical analysis, just minimally.
While at GT and the GT Graduate School, Roger took and passed nine courses in Statistics, Probability, and Hypothesis Testing. It is important to know that in the undergraduate and graduate programs of nearly all scientists other than engineers, they take at most two such courses. This is why they tend to be totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data. I think the point he was trying to make is that Mr. Cunningham was trained in 9 courses vs. 2; therefore he should be more qualified at statistical analysis. Whether this makes scientists "totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data" or not, is debatable.

Flash
8th July 2011, 16:02
However, where I do not conquer with Lord Pye, is when he says that scientist know nothing about statistical analysis and do not know about confidence levels. These comments make me doubt Lord Pye himself.

I only had 2 courses in statistics at University levels (bachelor in America/license in Europe) and these were taught to the potential ressearchers to be (us, the students). ALL RESERACHERS know about these statiscal matehmatics, it is one of the corner stone of reasearch analysis.

Why would Lord Pye not know that these calculations are in fact low level calculations taught very early in science courses. This does not make sense to me. But also, at the same time, it definitively put a sinking stone in Medved argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lord Pye did acknowledge that scientists are trained in statistical analysis, just minimally.
While at GT and the GT Graduate School, Roger took and passed nine courses in Statistics, Probability, and Hypothesis Testing. It is important to know that in the undergraduate and graduate programs of nearly all scientists other than engineers, they take at most two such courses. This is why they tend to be totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data. I think the point he was trying to make is that Mr. Cunningham was trained in 9 courses vs. 2; therefore he should be more qualified at statistical analysis. Whether this makes scientists "totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data" or not, is debatable.

you jmissed my point: Lord Pye says scientists do not understand statistical analysis. Then he proceed to explain the confidence level.

What I am saying is that ALL RESEARCHERS do understand the basic statistics he explains, they all have had at least one or two course, ABC courses, where it is explained and taught. No need for 9 courses, the minimal requirement suffice to understand.

So scientists DO understand these statistical analysis, if they don't it is because they did not pass their stat courses and therefore are not scientists.

In fact, this is the argument I would use if I were him.

Paul
8th July 2011, 16:26
What I am saying is that ALL RESEARCHERS do understand the basic statistics he explains, they all have had at least one or two course, ABC courses, where it is explained and taught. No need for 9 courses, the minimal requirement suffice to understand.

So scientists DO understand these statistical analysis, if they don't it is because they did not pass their stat courses and therefore are not scientists.

Taking, and even passing, a statistics course may not mean that one understands statistics very well. Understanding held over decades is not the same as a bit of forced memorization over a period of a few weeks or months.

I took a stat course, as part of my math major. Unlike most of the math courses I took, which only had other math majors in it, the stat course was required for several other disciplines. The research psych students in particular were grateful that the professor was an easy going type who made it possible for almost anyone to pass if they just trudged along.

Flash
8th July 2011, 16:40
What I am saying is that ALL RESEARCHERS do understand the basic statistics he explains, they all have had at least one or two course, ABC courses, where it is explained and taught. No need for 9 courses, the minimal requirement suffice to understand.

So scientists DO understand these statistical analysis, if they don't it is because they did not pass their stat courses and therefore are not scientists.

Taking, and even passing, a statistics course may not mean that one understands statistics very well. Understanding held over decades is not the same as a bit of forced memorization over a period of a few weeks or months.

I took a stat course, as part of my math major. Unlike most of the math courses I took, which only had other math majors in it, the stat course was required for several other disciplines. The research psych students in particular were grateful that the professor was an easy going type who made it possible for almost anyone to pass if they just trudged along.

So sad to read this Paul, leveling down the learning for the use of the more or less "lazy" majority. We just had to study and understand, no choice for the exam, and we all passed, putting in it some work.

And math is not my cup of tea, I was studying in English not speaking it at all at the time and the professor was Texan (could not make up what he was saying, because of the southern drowl.) and I was working full time, studying full time. I just plainly studied. And understood.

It makes me sad that science goes down that way, this is why Asian are on top of us in North America by now.

That was in behavioral psychology by the way.

So, it might be true, they do not understand the science of it even if they are scientists (I sincerely think that Asian and Europeans will be amazed at these comments).

How can we debunk high level scientists and computer people very savvy in scinece and math as well as computers, working for PTB, if basic science is not understood by non PTB scientists.

Paul
8th July 2011, 17:07
So sad to read this Paul, leveling down the learning for the use of the more or less "lazy" majority.
What's worse, I went to one of the more demanding colleges, and this was several decades ago. From what I hear has gotten worse since.