Talk:Lloyd Pye/Archive 1

Major rewrite
The entirety of this page was a carbon copy of the Lloyd Pye's biography on his website. Since this is a highly POV source (including statements such as "Pye's broad base of knowledge makes..."), it does not belong on wikipedia :-) I've retained all the of the objective biographical detail, and much of Pye's description of his own work, while correcting the grammer and simplifying. Extreme opinion such as


 * lLoyd is an articulate, consistently engaging guest on television, and on radio shows like Coast to Coast and Jeff Rense. From the beginning of this part of his career, his verbal skills combined with a natural gift for platform presentations to vault him from obscurity in late 1997 to being well-established in alternative knowledge circles by late 1998

has been removed. Other has been moved to the discussion section below the neutral introduction. I've also simplified Pye's jargon, and put "alternative knowledge" in quotations, as it is not a recognised form of knowledge or study.

I then added a criticism section to balance the unchallenged claims I've left in the introduction. Particular attention has been paid to the skull, and its apparently normal chromosome count. I also added some other material from Pye's book for addition detail.

I've also removed Pye from the "Antropologist" category, as he has made no contribution to this field.

--JonAyling 00:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this criticism is that it is totally baseless, all the claims there stated are completely wrong and the only purpose I can find in this type of information is to confused rather than encourage the reader to continue his/her research. I therefore called this criticism PSEUDO being in no way scietific and lacking all types of facts and truth.

Extensive Tests have been performed on the skull since the late 90's all showing this skull is not the skull of a deformed human or a human which possessed any sort of sickness. But again dont take my word, go and take a good look at the test's results.

I therefore encourage the reader to go and read the available information, Pye's and his so called critics and make his/her own judgment.


 * What follows bellow, the so called Criticism is a collection of pseudo-non-scientific claims, which besides looking quite incredible with pictures, are 100% baseless and unscientific.


 * Weasle words: "so-called" criticism
 * Inaccurate. Criticisms are referenced with evidence and hence are not baseless.

Removed.

A large amount of your addition consists of a tedious ad hominem attack, which is even less interesting to wikipedians than it is to myself. It adds no richness to the article, and is hence removed. Feel free to discuss this topic (in a civil manner) or make as many pointless attacks as you wish, but on the dicussion page.


 * Not to mention this critic has not even read Pye's (work). Characters such as this critic are the ones new comers to Pye's theories must be guarded against so that they can get a clear picture of what is going on and how to separate PSEUDO-Critics like this from serious men of science. Nevertheless despite pseudo critics such as this, the immense amount of data for readers who are after the truth and not after what this person says or doesn’t, is so overpowering that only a few days after a person starts digging into this mystery, he/she soon finds himself/herself uncovering one of the greatest mysteries ever. Mysteries which poor minds such as this critic and many other like him will never could even approach answering, cause they are either to afraid or too well paid.


 * This is what I recomend for anyone interested, go and read the FREE articles on Pye's website and then after you have read and find yourself in want of more, go and buy his incredible book, "Everything you know is Wrong".


 * And of course, dont bother asking Mr Critic here for his/her Book or theory becuase, yes you have guessed right, there AINT any to offer only empty words :O).

Removed.

Your examples of evidence supporting Pye's claims are backed up with no evidence, argument, or logic.


 * By the way human genes are 150-200K years old. In other words human DNA cannot be older than this, it simply cant, it is not open to debate that is just the way it works.

Everything is open to debate, especially unreferenced claims with no evidence. This is an argument from personal incredulity. Please see my reference to histones for an examples of a gene much older than this. Proteins such as Cytochrome C, the glycolytic enzymes and ATP synthetases (and many others) all have highly similar sequences in organisms as different as humans and bacteria. Humans' and chimps' genes are extremely similar (eg. Typical human and chimp homologs of proteins differ in only an average of two amino acids. About 30 percent of all human proteins are identical in sequence to the corresponding chimp protein. See chimpanzee genome project). What is your hypothesis? That humans and bacteria diverged less than 200,000 years ago? That the aliens deliberately copied the exact (arbitrary, due to the degeneracy of the genetic code) sequences, specifically to fool us? The first is obviously absurd. The second is an example of an ad hoc hypothesis and is an appeal to ignorance to protect the subject from empirical evidence.


 * The beautifull thing is that today's main stream scientists are quite confortable with these dates, becuase as it happens the fossile record also stands between 150,000 and 200,000 years old.

Meaningless statement: "the fossil record also 'stands' between 150,000 and 200,000 yo". The meaning of "stands" is entirely ambiguous. Humans diverged from chimpanzees around 5 millions years ago. See Human evolution.


 * This does not mean there could not have been humans older than that, of course there could, whom am I to say, but those humans were not like us. Even though they could have looked quite like us, their genes were different. This simple little statement shows how wrong this critic is, so, based on that you can figure about everything else he/she claims.

If you have any evidence that early human genes differed more from modern humans' than modern humans' do from chimpanzees', please write it up in detail with supporting references.


 * Pye's case has been proven since 2003 beyond unreasonable doughty and it shows how little the author of the statements bellow has read regarding the latest scientific papers which are available to anyone interested on the Internet or by subscribing to the several magazines available on the subject ... he results of the several TESTS which have been performed on the Skull itself.

The whole of mainstream science doubts Pye's claims, and so it is not unreasonable that an encyclopedia article should reflect this. Magazine articles are unlikely to be peer reviewed or verifiable and so are not good evidence. Scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals, or tests conducted by well regarded agencies are, however. Please do include them with in the article, but using a neutral tone and referencing every claim.


 * To bring non other than Mr Carl Sagan

That's Dr. Carl Sagan to me and you...


 * and to quote from him shows how weak, this criticism is. Carl Sagan was a well known Goverment paid debunker. A man that at the beginning of his career was the most open minded person anyone had ever seen, and the change and transfiguration which this man went through, has only led people who knew him well such Richard C Hoagland and many others to conclude he must have been aproached by some govermental agency or similar and somehow forced him to turn 180 degrees from the direction which he had been following for most of his career. A man who spent most of his life searching, and proposing life in the universe, and to see him in his later years leaves no dought about some sort of negative-intervention from which he never recovered.

No evidence or references. Conspiracy theories about Carl Sagan belong on the Carl Sagan page. Since Sagan pioneered the SETI project and was a noted and early astrobiologist, he represents an important authority, and quote given refers specifically to the claims of the sort that Pye makes. It also enriches the article and adds links to other topics concerned with extraterestrial life.

Also please SIGN your comments. Additionally, you misuse the POV-Check tag. This is only to be used when no discussion is to be found as to whether the article is disputed, or the editor is unsure how to proceed. When two editors disagree, the POV tag should be used instead. --JonAyling 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What supporters of Lloyd Pye can do
The article would benefit from more information on Pye's claims and research. Details on the tests done on the skull would be appreciated. Please attempt to keep the tone neutral; bear in mind all Pye's claims are not accepted by mainstream science, and so remain just that: claims. Please give supporting references for each piece of work or claim made for Pye's work. This will help to balance the criticism section.

--JonAyling 23:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think that we should always keep a neutral tone; the opinions of "mainstream science" (whatever that means) should not be relevant to our tone. While we're on the subject, we have exactly one photo in the current article on Lloyd Pye.  It is of an undisputedly human skull.  But for newcomers to Pye's work, the appearance of this photograph, along with the absence of a photograph of the Pye skull with which to compare, may tend to strongly suggest that the Pye skull looks like the one pictured, which in turn, it must be admitted, looks a lot closer to a normal human than does the Pye skull.  Therefore, the use of only the human skull photo threatens neutrality, because it may tend to steer anyone who hasn't seen the Pye skull toward a premature conclusion that the Pye skull is probably human.  The same people might have a lot more skepticism about that proposition if they saw the actual photo.


 * Further down on this page, it was suggested that we didn't have a usable photo of the Pye skull. This claim was made a year ago; if still true, I suggest the other, diseased human skull should be removed, because to show only that one is "leading the witness" to a particular conclusion about the other skull, which is not pictured. 65.32.173.99 22:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules on what is and isn't POV

 * We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.


 * By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

All of Pye's claims are controversial, and all involve a serious disupte. This should be obvious in the title of his main work: Everything You Know Is Wrong. Hence report Pye's opinions as claims, and his biography as fact.

Similarly,


 * The task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. --JonAyling 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that at one time there was a "minority view" that the earth was a sphere, not to mention that at one time Darwin, Edison, Einstein and many other geniuses' views & theories were also a "minority view" 72.38.126.138 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there wasn't a minority view that the earth was a sphere, at least not since the 3rd century BC. Neither the Church nor much later Columbus's contemporaries (except for a tiny minority) rejected that. 18:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC))


 * And as I mentioned here, Darwin's and Einstein's theories were immediately disseminated by the most highly respected scientific journals, societies and publishers of the time, where they were given serious consideration by the mainstream academic community. If Pye's theories ever rise to that level of notability, you can be sure they will be extensively covered in Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New section and more DNA data
Thank you for your additions - there is some useful material here. However, I think this time we have the opposite problem - you provide good, referenced data, which unfortunately is not really relevant to the case of Pye. The reason why Pye is interesting, and why he deserves a wiki page, is because of his own original theories on human origins (and other things) - specifically that extraterrestrial interbreeding must have been involved. You are correct to state


 * Fossil and mtDNA data suggests modern humans originated around 200,000 ya
 * The collision hypothesis for the origin of the moon

However, it is misleading to state that these "support" Pye's claims or that Pye's claims are "based" upon these. They do not run contrary to Pye's claims; however, neither does Einstein's theory of relativity or the germ theory of disease, and these cannot be said to support Pye's position. If wikipedians wish to read about mitochondrial DNA or collision theory (or the theory of relativity) then they can do so on pages devoted to those subjects - this, and the encyclopedia material included, are irrelevant to the case of Pye. Similarly, to say "Pye's work is based mostly on mainstream science" is misleading - his main original hypothesis is the involvement of extraterrestrial beings in the origin of modern humans, which is not based upon mainstream science. Furthermore, evidence from phylogenetic comparison of mitochondrial DNA and the fossil record actually stands against Pye's claims, demonstrating a probably close relationship between modern humans and earlier creatures. I've hence removed (or at least moved to discussion) most of the encyclopaedia material (and references) as it has no bearing on Pye. A more accurate description is probably something like:


 * Taking modern mainstream scientific ideas concerning the emergence of humans (about 200,000 years ago, supported by mtDNA evidence) and the collision theory of the origin of Earth's moon as a starting point, Pye theorised...


 * The Star Child skull has fascinated many people through the years, the fact that several tests have been performed on the skull at different labs around the world, and nothing has been found major enough to refute his claims, has kept the project quite alive until present. One thing has been clear since the beginning of the project, the Star child skull is not the skull of a deformed human or a human which suffered any sort of illness. Another strange property of the skull is its bone density, which is completely different from the density of human bones sick or healthy. DNA Report

is good. However, stating that "nothing has been found major enough to refute his claims" is misleading. Pye himself states that the chromosomal analysis of the starchild was "...a devastating blow to the argument that it might be a human-alien hybrid, but there was legitimate reason to be skeptical about the result." . The second genetic analysis (released recently) appears to confirm that the child was a normal Native American human (although interestingly the woman found with him was demonstrated not to be his mother). A philosophical point: it is impossible to prove something is incorrect to 100% certainty using empiricle methods. Science therefore does not "refute" theories, and it is misleading to suggest that nothing has "refuted" Pye's claims. When the balance of evidence becomes sufficient that it is perverse to continue to believe a claim is a rather subjective matter; and hence persisting in asserting that Pye's claims have not been refuted (despite the DNA evidence) is somewhat POV. It is not clear at all that the Starchild skull is not one of a deformed human - although it is interesting to note that Pye is working from the assumption that it must be, even before any evidence had been gathered. I like the reference to the bone density - more hard (no pun intended) facts like that would be appreciated.


 * The most accepted theories about he formation of the Earth and the early solar system all support Pye's work

No, they only do not disagree with it - this is quite different from support. Since we've currently not got any actual claims respecting the origin of the moon or solar system, all of this stuff is quite out of place in the article - so is moved here, at least for now.


 * In fact most main stream scientists now agree, the Earth as we know it today is a Half Planet.

The meaning of this is somewhat cryptic. Presumably you are referring to the loss of mass the Earth would have experienced after collision in the genesis of the moon. Either way, as it stands it has little to do with Pye.

Ok, so what's to be done:


 * To enrich the article, we need lots more of specific claims by Pye. Don't worry too much if you can't get any supporting references for these - we'll worry about that later. Try to list all the things that Pye claims - and quotes from Pye (website or his books) would be great if possible to illustrate each point.
 * More biographical details. Wiki likes to have dates of birth (which we haven't got) - and other details that can't be found on his website bio would be appreciated.
 * I'm going to create a new section - "Evidence for and against Pye's claims". This will be a non-criticism section simply listing all the studies performed so far, and their results. The more opinionated quotes, and theorising will stay in the criticism section. Try to find more examples of studies (like the bone-density one), and write them up with references (but there's no need to quote extensively from other encyclopeadias on well-established facts).

On this matter I'm going to add to the evidence section the latest mtDNA results, published on Pye's website. The results are rather negative/neutral, as can be observed on Pye's site, and appear to demonstrate that the child was a normal Native American human. If I can find a responding quote from Pye, I'll include it.

I'm also going to take down the disputed POV banner - it's been almost a week now and I've had nobody willing to discuss these matters with me on this page. If you wish to start discussing Pye issues, then feel free to put it back up if you still feel the article does not reflect a neutral POV. --JonAyling 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I certainly aprove of the attempt to describe a scientific test of the skull and back it up with evidence, I'm afraid I've looked at the link given, and nowhere does it have any reference to the density of the skull. Indeed, it appears as if the extraction of the teeth and DNA isolation were completely routine. Neither can I find any density studies on Pye's website (but maybe I'm not looking hard enough). Please back up the claim of extraordinary density with a reference, or it can't be considered evidence. Also, if you can, get numbers for the measured density of the skull, and the density range of normal human skulls. --JonAyling 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite of bio
It's come to our attention that the image of the Starchild skull has not been released into the public domain - it's therefore been removed. Also, it seems that large amounts of the bio still bear quite a resemblance to Pye's bio on his website - this is a hangover from the time this page used to only contain a carbon copy of this. I've therefore rewriten the entire bio and work section, to completely remove Pye's wording. I've kept useful information such as birth date and university, and attempted to rewrite the page in more logical style. If any copyvio concerns remain, then please alert me and they shall be pooped. --JonAyling 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes: Moved and reformatted novel info (out of the "Claims" section). Changed hominoids to the more precise hominids. Removed superfluous wikilinks, added new relevant links. Removed unreferenced note about a future event. Porlob (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Starchild skull 1.jpg
The image File:Starchild skull 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pye's Human Genesis Theory is closely based on Zecharia Sitchen
That is, humanity was the product of an alien genetic intervention, in which some of the DNA content of an earth born pre-human hominid and some of the DNA material of the extraterrestrials, a race called the Annunaki by the Sumerians, were spliced together for the purpose of creating a race of servant workers which the Annunaki needed to help them with gold mining efforts as well as with other physical chores on earth. The Annunaki were driven to mine gold on earth in order to use gold in powder form in their upper atmosphere to deal with an ecological crisis on Nibiru. Pye contends, following the Sumerian cosmology (and Sitchen) that the home planet of the Annunaki (Nibiru) and of the earth proto-planet which they called Tiamat, collided and an exchange of atmospheres, and biological material native to the geologically older Nibiru were exchanged in the collision and this lead to a similar bio-chemical foundation for the life that later developed on both planets. The important point to realize is that Pye asserts that modern descendants of early hominids still roam earth in places remote to human traffic, these are the basis for the sightings of Almas, Sasquatch, Yeti and Agogwe around the globe. The hominids survived but were forced to the less desirable climates and regions as human settlements expanded. And contrary to the Wiki article on Pye, Pye contends that the hominids were a contributing element in humanities creation. Pye presents a very compelling analysis of human and hominid patterns of foot fall, track identification and the morphology of the hominid and human foot, to show how geologically ancient hominid tracks and modern hominid tracks can be linked, and how they differ from human tracks. Pye presents a very compelling analysis of human and hominid skeletons and reasonably concludes that a few dozen missing links would have to be found to map the linkage between and early hominids and man, and he states that these missing links will never be found because humanity was an artificial creation by the Annunaki. Hominids and the late primates have 48 chromosomes, while humans have 46, and Pye posits that the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes of the hominids were spliced together to allow editing within the DNA strands from hominids and Annunaki to take place, and Pye shows a photographic comparison of human and primate chromosones and the 2nd human chromosome does appear to be a splicing together of the hominid 2nd and 3rd chromosome. 72.181.167.105 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)leschwartz

Edit of the Starchild Skull section
Was; 'The unusual skull has an enlarged though symmetrical cranium, and while it contains most of the complement of normal human bones, they are greatly distorted in shape, as for instance it is without an external occipital protuberance. ' To; The starchild skull is symmetrical and has a cranial volume of 1600 cc, compared to the average human cranial volume of 1400 cc. While the Starchild skull has analogs of the majority of the same components of a human skull, there are marked differences. For instance in the Starchild skull there is now brow ridge, and the cranial bone itself is lighter and stronger than that of a human skull. The Starchild skull is laced thru with fibrous strands that are not found within human bones. The presence of vein impressions on the inside of the Starchild cranial bone would not be seen in a human skull which suffered from hydroencephally. There are no sinus cavities in the Starchild skull, and the placement for the attachments of the muscles of the maxilla are proportional to the size and shape of the skull and of the size and shape of the Starchild maxilla. The depth of the eye socket and the placement of the optic foramen in the Starchild differ greatly from that of a human skull while in cases of hydroencephally the eye sockets of the human hydroencephallic skull remain cone shaped and deep. While in the Starchild skull the eye sockets are circular, shallow, and are placed narrowly on the front of the skull. In the human, and human hydroecephallic skull the eye sockets are oval, further separated in placement and wrap around to the zygomatic arch. In the human and human hydroencpehallic skull the zygomatic arch is significantly larger and more robust than that of the zygomatic arch of the Starchild skull.'72.181.167.105 (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)leschwartz

I am not going to let the biases and lack of real information stand in this article
I will be back and I will re-enter the factual material that has been edited out several times now as many times as I need to do so.

Clearly the individual doing the removal of content has never read Pye's books, or Sitchen.

And the article as it stands reeks of bias and ignorance.

The only reason to remove the material I have added now several times is the hopeless attempt to keep people as uninformed about what Pye's work is about as is the ignorant individual who keeps removing this material.

I doubt that the individual even read the material I added, or considered its validity, and presumes he has the right to keep people ignorant along the lines of his own biases without even considering fairly representing the views of the person he attempts to write about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.167.105 (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this author intended the work to be a in the nature of a 'hit piece' against Pye, without regard for the views, the source of the views, the public work Pye has presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.167.105 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this, when you write about someone and their work, become familiar with it first before you attempt to apply criticism of it.

lhs_emf@pacbell.net

72.181.167.105 (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)leschwartz


 * You have my support leschwartz! Portillo (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of material from lead
I added a bit to the lead to reflect the criticism section in the body of the article. Portillo deleted it without comment. I would like to know what the problem with this addition was. The lead must reflect all of the article, even the criticism. Auntie E. 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New Lloyd Pye Video should have an effect on the content here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moEYqLdupIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.47.127 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Starchild information needs to be cut down
Much of this article is about the Starchild skull. This article should briefly summarize Pye's involvement with and relationship with the skull, but most of the discussion of the skull itself should really be in the skull article. Porlob (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now done this. -Porlob (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cut down again. All of the deleted material is already in the starchild skull article. GDallimore (Talk) 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Wikipedia editors should not be pulling together data to disprove Pye's theories. This article is a mess citing Pye's postings about how his Wikipedia article if full of misstatements. Just bad and in need of a massive overhaul.Active Banana    (bananaphone  16:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the page of his site pertaining to Wiki, Pye replies directly to how his claims are presented on Wiki. Citing these is directly relevant, since it is a fact about him that he has defended his views, and the nature of this defence should be outlined. I'd also point out that to say "This article is a mess citing Pye's postings about how his Wikipedia article if [sic] full of misstatements" is a bit too harsh; there are only two or three quotes from Pye's page about Wiki, and in any case, they are relevant to the claims discussed. LPilarski (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * his views about wikipedia and more particularly his views about his article in wikipedia are meaningless and completely inconsequential. they have not been covered by any reliable source. wikipedia is not nearly important enough that just because someone mentions wikipedia that we need to include it within wikipedia. navel gazing self aggrandizing cruft of the worst kind - particularly when wikipedia editors then use that to bash a living person. horrrible horrible article. Active Banana    (bananaphone  22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your objections above are all about not including Pye's opinions about Wikipedia. Fine; none of the material in the article relates to his opinions about Wikipedia. All of the quotes presently up there relate do him outlining/explaining his claims.LPilarski (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to an "attack " of his ideas on Wikipedia. Thats just attempting to disguise a feedbackloop Active Banana    (bananaphone  17:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit." Not quite the same thing; the material in the article does not draw on what Pye says in favour of the original edit. On his page he seeks to clarify his views. If the Wiki article is to accurately report what he thinks, then what he says about what he thinks is relevant. If we were to follow the rest of the advice ("Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented is true") then we'd have to remove all mention of Pye's opinions on Wiki.LPilarski (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the Starchild stuff, Pye's claims haven't gotten much of any notice in reliable secondary sources, so there was no need to even mention them, much less exhaustively debunk them with original research. If a claim of Pye's is sourced to the primary source of Pye himself, it doesn't belong here unless it is reported by a secondary source. I left in a few unremarkable details from his autobio such as birthplace and university but have otherwise removed all opinions sourced soley to Pye's own website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr.Pye has stated on the television show, Shatner's Wierd or What, that DNA tests done in 2011, show that neither parent of the Star Child were human. This show aired in February 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.120.232 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merging
I suggest merging this article with the Star Child article. Lloyd Pye is not really notable outside of the Star child. The citations in this article are very weak. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this is a viable idea. LLoyd Pye did write a novel that got a review (mini) in the New York Times (February 5, 1978 page BR4 'Worlds of Men' by Seymour Blicker); pretty much a pan; but still. Lloyd is as notable as quite a few others in, so drawing the line at Pye likely is not justified. The unsupported Star Child material has been removed from this bio. That leaves the 'Star Child' article as the only Wikipedia repository. If any merge sense made sense, it would be a merge of all the articles covering subjects like Star Child. But that's not going to happen. Just look at all the edits today (16DEC2013) to this article and consider the reaction to either merge! - Neonorange (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the right thing to do, although I'd give it a little longer to see if any significant obituaries turn up. Should the merged article be titled Lloyd Pye or Starchild skull? --McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm ambivalent and think both articles can survive perfectly well - both topics are barely noteworthy, though very slim. However, the merge would certainly make maintenance easier. Pye certainly seems more noteable, so merging the skull article into this one would be the solution, I think, as that article is and always will be very stubby. Also, the skull is only really prominent because of pye's obession (delusion?). GDallimore (Talk) 12:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If the Starchild Skull died with Pye, then a merge would be sensible. However the skull "project" has been passed on to others so it appears the Skull will now have a life of its own quite independent from Pye. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @LuckyLouie, I would recommend the Lloyd Pye page into the Starchild page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Neonorange: ""Lloyd Pye did write a novel that got a review (mini) in the New York Times"

Very weak. That alone is not demonstrate notability.

"Lloyd is as notable as quite a few others in, so drawing the line at Pye likely is not justified."

This is cited as One of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a good reason. WP policy is only as good as it is enforced. Most of these pages have not been given full notability review, and many would likely fail. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I  support  merging Pye into Starchild skull. I am not seeing any notability here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In reply to Harizotoh9
 * I provided a reliable source for notability
 * Precedents are the sources WP essays, otherwise, what? personal opinions?
 * The posed question is merge, not a simple delete; do you think Star child skull warrants more copy?
 * The two articles barely have two reliable sources to rub together; the book review and the DNA results
 * I favor object criteria and consider WP:Fringe should make it easier on deletionists to, if anything, merge to Pye
 * I'm in favor of whatever keeps the article(s) verifiable and stable. - Neonorange (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose With some time and additional material added I no longer think this article should be merged. Pye is notable as an author as well as for his "starchild" theory. He has an entry in Contemporary Authors his book was reviewed in The New York Times Book Review, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe (as well as Deseret News and West Coast Review of Books); cited in The Continuum Encyclopedia of American Literature. His history at Tulane University is mentioned on their official sports website. The Pensacola Times mentioned his book. All together this establishes enough notability for Pye as an author/footballer. Also as has been mentioned above starchild continues beyond Pye now. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Current "research" results
I reverted an recent edit using the starchild project website as a source. If this information is to be included it requires third party reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Citations for "He claimed it was the relic of a human-alien hybrid, although DNA testing showed it to be from a human male."
I recently added citations for the following sentence in the lead: "He claimed it was the relic of a human-alien hybrid, although DNA testing showed it to be from a human male." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_Pye&diff=prev&oldid=591765382 (+478; reference text only, nothing added to body of article) These citations and the previously in place sentence were promptly deleted (-538) by an anonymous user with no reason given. I have reverted the edits. Seeing as the only edit I made was to add citations to substantiate the aforementioned sentence, it seems possible that deletions may be vandalism by a biased/invested individual. If not, could this individual come forward and explain why he/she feels this sentence (and citations) should be deleted? FWIW, I favor merging this article with starchild skull. Blacksun1942 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that they will. I would have reinstated your edit if you hadn't already done that. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * while the citations are there, there is actually no conclusive evidence that this was a human male, so to claim it was is an extreme in the opposite direction. You can use words like pseudoscience and make claims under the name of science, but it doesn't validate anything to do so and makes you as cooky as the ones claiming it is a starchild. The truth is, it is inconclusive at this moment, while the starchild skull does contain human DNA, it does not automatically make it conclusive that it was a human male. 50.47.124.96 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I have read, the DNA testing is still not completed, though what has been does show a percentage of human DNA. However, a 1% difference in DNA can be a very huge deal, and what has actually been tested is only .001%. The genome needs to be mapped. It is not fair to state that it shows evidence of only being human, which this seems to do. That is totally misleading, for anyone who does not understand this about DNA. Quote: "From the Starchild's nuDNA genome, our geneticist recovered and sequenced several dozen fragments that totaled well over 30,000 base pairs (bp). Though seemingly a large number, it is a woefully small percentage of the 3+ billion bp total (.001%). Nonetheless, those several dozen fragments tell a compelling story about the Starchild Skull's DNA."--Craxd (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of these paragraphs have good logic; We cannot say it is 100% human, because we have only found tiny DNA fragments, each of which cast some doubt on any relation to humans. Also, the structure of the skull cannot serve a human well; if anything, any human that had a skull EXACTLY like the starchild skull would die much younger than 5 years of age. The BOLD lab report is simply being used to justify gross stupidity. ErednebE


 * i was always highly interested in this starchild skull and if you take the 2h to listen what he says, it is pretty obvious that is "as good as proven" that this skull was not from 100% human being. with tools that are used everyday allover the globe to open skulls for a surgery, it was impossible to work as they should have done. i'd really like to know why this should be human, talk to those who claim that on something they seem to know that i don't know. as the article is right now, it's dishonoring a dead man, tho mankind always used to let the deads have their rest & peace. it was his lifework to prove the reality of the starchild, why would someone just say "nope" and put it on wikipedia? afaik, that's called vandalism. --2A02:8070:A184:A500:2407:7540:B199:59DD (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * a little throwafter - i just had a look at that "#4" - and that is actually just stupid propagandism. the guy who wrote that is clearly ignoring what lloyd pye did when he claims that pye & bean would have not even thought about "waterheads" and similiar stuff, but they did, as you see on the starchild page. besides of that, on that page aswell as citationed, that author is just saying "no i don't believe in their theory". the theory is that extraterrestrials would have affected the DNA. this may be done over the testicles of the man aswell as over the embryo in the mother's body and if i understood it right, they believed in the last one. that mythical DNA tests showed ONLY that the starchild had aswell female X- as male Y-chromosomes, so everything it does really proof is that this was a boy made out of female and male, probably humans. but this doesn't exclude the HYBRID thing, which does mean that it was somehow human, but with genetics that are not used on earth - maybe written with a futuristical computerthing. so, you have that guy citationed that just does not want to believe, he got no evidence for anything he's saying, he's just talking. if this is how wikipedia articles are founded, well, i better start a blog to use it as reference, since references can come from everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A184:A500:2407:7540:B199:59DD (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Starchild skull
The statement "DNA tests show that the skull is from a human male" is biased and does not tell the whole truth. The latest DNA tests have indicated non-human originated genes. See http://www.starchildproject.com/dna-testing/2012-starchild-skull-genetics-abstract. This chapter should be completely removed to article Starchild skull because it is out-of-context in this biography article of Lloyd Pye. --84.250.19.32 (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is an interview at Red Ice Creations a reliable source for saying that Amy Vickers was Pye's wife?
The interview is at but I haven't looked at it. His obituary here doesn't mention a wife. Nor does his autobiograpy on his website. I have seen sources that say that an Amy Vickers was his wife but none of them passed WP:RS. Not mentioned in this video obit.. She's involved in the project but I can't confirm she is CEO. I can't confirm much about her, eg her education. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Naming someone as Pye's wife really requires a high standard of WP:V. Blogs and forum comments aren't sufficient. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * She seems quite convinced she was his wife, the interviewer seems to already know she was his wife and does not query that. A better source would be nice I suppose but a wife is too significant to be left out of a biography (IMHO) (WP:SOCIALMEDIA may apply here as it is Amy Vickers talking about herself.) Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that adding a statement about a wife is too significant not to demand reliable sources = are you actually disagreeing with that? She may well have been his wife, but sources? Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your objections are numerous and ever changing. Initially you objected that the source did not justify the "archaeologist" epithet, which I agreed with since the source only said "she was a student of archeology at the time of meeting Pye" but now you reject everything the source says. My position is that a better source would be nice but a wife is too significant to omit unless you genuinely disbelieve the source. Do you disbelieve? Have you listened to the program? Darmot and gilad (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You've got two editors who think that we need a higher standard of source. My belief is immaterial. And it was only after digging a bit deeper that I realised there was a serious sourcing problem. But you can always appeal this at WP:RSN, but at the moment you have two experienced editors disagreeing with you. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)