So you couldn't be bothered to read the article and his figures but that sure didn't stop you from offering your uninformed opinion.
Actually I did. He should stick to being a professional Lord because he flunks statistics. (not saying it is astronomical odds, but he is off by a half dozen zeroes).
I read the article. The guy's not much of a statistician - he includes estimated figures for the probability of each anomaly, but doesn't even pretend to include a rationale/justification for each probability. That alone makes his "figures", in a word, nonsense.