Belitionlee: Lloyd Pye Comments On Our Recent Starchild Project Post

I received an email from Lloyd Pye this morning in reference to my post Starchild Project DNA Results: Skull Possibly From New Earthly Species. Lloyd wanted to clarify certain comments included in the post:

Lon:

Good job with promoting the latest from the Starchild Skull research. The first part is excellent, the quote from the summary and the call to action. However, your comment about the "MonsterQuest" show requires a bit of clarification.

The "expert" who spoke on that show is Dr. Susan Myster, Ph.D., an associate professor of anthropology and director of forensic sciences at the Hamline University college of liberal arts in Saint Paul, MN. She is not a geneticist, as you state in your comment.

As you probably know, prior to the recent "Ancient Aliens" series, TV shows were more or less bound to the unwritten but firmly enforced "Sphinx Rule," that meant no "alternative" theory could be seriously posited on national TV without an obligatory mainstream "expert" on the show to ridicule and/or dismiss the alternative theory as complete hogwash. If you've ever wondered why such people come on those shoes, that's why--it's an unwritten rule that came into existence after the classic "Mystery of the Sphinx" in 1993, in which the "weathering of the Sphinx" theory was put on national TV without a strong mainstream counter voice to tell unwary viewers that from their perspective it was all hogwash and they should no believe it. Thus, hundreds of outraged Egyptologists and other conservative scientists cowed the networks into agreeing to never let it happen again, and it hasn't until "Ancient Aliens." How that show got their exemption from that rule, I do not know, but they obviously did.

In any case, on the day we shot with Dr. Myster the rule was still in full effect. Before the filming of our segment in El Paso, we shared a congenial lunch in which she informed me that she had learned nothing at all about the Starchild prior to seeing it that day because she had been told they wanted her unvarnished original opinion. I told her that could only be that it was a "cradleboarded hydrocephalic" because that was what virtually every "expert" who laid eyes on it would automatically say. Why? Because they live and die by what they call "Occam's Razor," which is to always expound the simplest, most obvious answer to any confounding problem and then stick with that. One more problem out of the way, bring on the next one!

At lunch I explained how it could not possibly be either cradleboarded (utterly impossible), nor hydrocephalic (also utterly impossible). So by the end of the lunch she knew a helluva lot about what it could and couldn't be. But when it was time to film, she knew what her role was and she played it. I understood then and I understand now. These are expensive events to arrange. The whole day of shooting, all the arrangements, all the flights and expenses, would have had to go down the toilet if, after knowing the truth, she had been unwilling to go on camera and say what they had brought her there to say. She was being paid to do a certain job, and she did it. Nobody can fault her for that.

Just because an "expert" says something, that does not mean it is true, nor even that they believe it to be true. We all act on certain motives, and sometimes those motives are at odds with our knowledge or our basic morality. We all find ourselves stuck between such rocks and hard places, and we have to live with the decisions and actions we make at those times. Maybe in hindsight Dr. Myster would take back some of what she said. Maybe when the Starchild's entire genome is recovered and there can no longer be any doubt about its alien genetic heritage, she will regret that she went on camera to say the things she said.

Maybe, too, the dozen or so other "experts" who have slammed the Starchild on camera doing various other shows (National Geographic, UFO Hunters, etc.) will come to regret doing so. But we all have to understand and accept that there is a kind of "game" being played between those in the mainstream trying desperately to defend their various paradigms against those of us who are on the other side of the field trying to upend and replace those paridigms. It's a tough game and both sides are playing to win, so sometimes the rules of fair play get bent or broken in that process. It's all part of the game, but in the end the best arguments supported by the most truth WILL prevail. That is inevitable.

Lloyd followed up after I replied to his email:

You do great work and I follow it regularly.

Do be careful, though, with posting old material about the Starchild. It seems to change regularly, and I'm always up front about the changes and errors that get corrected. If older material is posted, sometimes it's been corrected. Something like the Starchild is so far out on the cutting edge, there is no way we can know the truth about every aspect of it at any given time. That's what we're always working toward, though, sharper and sharper refinements to get to the ultimate truth about it.

Since the DNA result in 2003, which was more than adequate for its time, we thought the Starchild most certainly had a human mother. That was what the result said. But early this year we found out that the 2003 test was not refined enough, and in fact the mother was NOT human! Whooooaaah! What a turn of events! But on the upside, now we don't have to jump through intellectual hoops to try to explain how a human mother produces an offspring with NO human physical traits. How could that happen? How could Dad so totally dominate the pairing? It never really made sense, but we had to live with it.

Now, with the new refinement that confirms the Starchild is a "pure" alien in the sense that both parents were alien, we are on much firmer ground. But don't misunderstand, there is still a great deal of human-LIKE DNA in it, just as chimps have 97% human DNA, gorillas have 95%, rats have 70% and mice have 65%. Certain biochemical functions are similar in ALL species on Earth, so if we can accept that the life functions on Earth are ubiquitous throughout the universe (which is my personal belief based on the incredible complexity of it, I can't imagine it being created twice or more times), then ALL of the species in, say, the bar scene in "Star Wars" will have the same biochemical processes as we do, so we will ALL share large chunks of what we now call "human" DNA but which, in the fullness of time, will come to be known as "life" DNA.

Lloyd Pye

NOTE: "Just because an "expert" says something, that does not mean it is true, nor even that they believe it to be true." An absolute true statement. I sincerely welcome comments from those people mentioned in "Phantoms and Monsters"...Lon

Spirit Rescue International™
Providing no-cost professional spiritual help, personal support and guidance
Take the first step towards genuine peace of mind

The Spirit Rescue International™ Haunted Help Forum
*Join Our Group On Facebook*

ANOMALIST BOOKS
Works on maverick science, unexplained mysteries, unorthodox theories, strange talents, and unexpected discoveries. Please check out their excellent and diverse catalog