Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:49, 26 November 2010

The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull allegedly found in Mexico. It is primarily notable due to claims by paranormal researchers that it is the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes it as human.

Discovery

The starchild skull came into the possession of Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, who entrusted it to Lloyd Pye in February 1999. Pye is a writer and lecturer in what he describes as the field of alternative knowledge. According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING WITH AN OPEN MIND....... THE STARCHILD vs WIKIPEDIA

Intro by Lloyd Pye: We at the Starchild Project have repeatedly tried to correct the outdated and incorrect information about the Starchild Skull presented in the article on Misplaced Pages (which I refer to by the more appropriate name “Wackypedia”). Virtually no one realizes that Misplaced Pages’s stated mission isn’t actually to provide the truth about selected subjects, it is to determine the consensus opinion of what they think most people believe to be the truth (Misplaced Pages, 2010a). In fact, Misplaced Pages rejects any form of original research (Misplaced Pages, 2010b). The astounding fact is that current Misplaced Pages “quality standards” would prevent Darwin, Einstein, Edison, and many other geniuses from contributing their original research. This is why we call them Wackypedia, and it’s why that name is so apt for the entire organization.

It is massively unfortunate that so many people worldwide consider Misplaced Pages a reliable source of information. By basing its “truth” on popular vote rather than actual facts, it distorts beyond recognition the entire purpose of science and science advocacy, of which it considers itself a bastion. This is not to say there is no truth or reliability in anything found in the mass of Misplaced Pages writings, but you can be certain that anything they feel is “alternative,” or a challenge to what they perceive as their “status quo,” will definitely be distorted beyond recognition.

Sadly, one or two Misplaced Pages administrators have made it their personal responsibility to prevent any meaningful edits to the Starchild Skull article, promptly reversing any changes back to the biased and error-filled text they prefer. Doubly sad is that this counterproductive practice is within the rights of any Misplaced Pages editor or administrator, accomplished with a single mouse click, and virtually nothing can be done to stop it. On many occasions we have made the effort to resubmit corrections to the article every time they were “undone,” however this back and forth happened so many times and in such rapid succession that the article was locked, preventing any of us from making changes. When editing was finally permitted again, the article had been reverted to its original and incorrect state, and we were forced to accept that it would require significantly more public pressure to effect any real change to the flawed article.

Corrections: (Text from Misplaced Pages will be shown in grey, text from the Starchild Project will be shown in black)

Starchild Skull

, retrieved Sept. 12, 2010

The Starchild Skull is an abnormal human skull …

This statement is wrong because its reference is a poorly researched, badly out-of-date article written for the New England Skeptical Society in 1999, reporting the results of a nuclear DNA test done on the Starchild Skull’s bone at the BOLD forensic teaching laboratory in Vancouver, B.C., which concluded that the Starchild was a human male (Novella, 1999). However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull’s paternal DNA was unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Misplaced Pages article, and since human nuclear DNA was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a “human.”

In his 2004 report, Dr. Ted Robinson referred to the Starchild Skull more appropriately as “a highly unusual human-like skull,” which is far more accurate than Misplaced Pages calling it “an abnormal human skull.”

...allegedly found in Mexico.

The story of how the Starchild Skull was found is technically hearsay because it depends entirely on the testimony of a person now dead who cannot be cross-examined. However, mitochondrial DNA analysis confirms the Starchild’s maternal haplogroup type as a typical Mesoamerican, and inorganic chemistry analysis produced a profile consistent with a person living in a high-altitude subtropical environment, similar to the Copper Canyon region of Mexico (Pye, K., 2005).

It (the Starchild Skull) is primarily notable due to claims by paranormal researchers that it is evidence of extraterrestrial contact.

Merriam-Webster defines paranormal as “not scientifically explainable” (2010). Thus, the word “paranormal” does not apply to the Starchild Skull because two dozen Ph.D.s in various branches of science have provided written analysis of their opinions about it. In addition, several other Ph.D.s have given opinions they will not sign for fear of retaliation by vindictive peers who “police” the rigid status-quo belief system of mainstream science. Using those signed and unsigned data and opinions, Lloyd Pye has crafted two books filled with scientifically supported arguments. The printed book The Starchild Skull (2007), and the eBook Starchild Skull Essentials (2010).

As of this writing, ongoing research has provided proof that the Starchild Skull possesses physical characteristics (Robinson et al. 2004), biochemical attributes (Pye, K. 2005), fibers and residue inside the bone (Pye, L. 2007), and DNA that have never before been found on Earth (The Starchild Project, 2010). We propose that this array of facts counts as valid evidence supporting the theory that the skull is at least partially of extraterrestrial origin.

Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes it as human.

Although Trace Genetics did recover human mitochondrial DNA from the Starchild Skull in 2003, this statement is inaccurate because it is possible to have the mitochondrial DNA (passed down through mothers) of one species and the nuclear DNA (passed down through both parents) of another species (Perdy, 2003). Therefore, human mitochondrial DNA alone does not establish the human species (Meadows, 2010). Examples of this phenomenon include the zebra/donkey hybrid “Zedonk” (BBC, 2010), the lion/tiger hybrid “Liger” (CBS, 2010), and the horse/donkey hybrid “Mule” (Perdy, 2003).

In 2003, Trace Genetics determined that nuclear DNA was impossible to recover using techniques developed up to that point in time. Therefore, it was impossible for them to establish if the Starchild Skull was entirely human or not. The citation here is the same outdated Novella article from 1999 (and its equally outdated 2006 reprint). Specifically, he references quotes from Lloyd Pye and Mark Bean regarding mitochondrial DNA, yet Mark Bean ceased working with the Starchild Project in 2000, and mitochondrial DNA was not recovered from the Starchild Skull until 2003, proving that this quote is inaccurate.

Discovery The Starchild Skull came into the possession of Ray and Melanie Young of El Paso, Texas, who entrusted it to Lloyd Pye in February 1999.

This is correct, although it references sources from 2001.

Pye is a writer and lecturer in what he describes as the field of alternative knowledge.

Pye is indeed a writer and lecturer, although he did not coin the term “alternative knowledge.” Alternative researchers like him have always been labeled by terms that describe independence of thought and action that conflicts with established dogma. Alternative knowledge, alternative science, frontier science….these are all terms by which non-mainstream research is known. In their own time, Darwin and Einstein were considered “alternative” researchers until they forced their way into their mainstream. Thus, this statement’s phrasing seems designed to trivialize Pye’s work, which is in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages’s rule of maintaining neutrality in tone (Misplaced Pages, 2010c).

According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.

This references an article from 1999, when the report of how the skull was found had no scientific evidence to support it. Since then, analysis of the staining on the skulls (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21) and inorganic chemistry (Pye, K. 2005) have combined with the synchronistic Carbon-14 dates (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218) to indicate that the provenance story is very likely true.

Analysis The skull is abnormal in several respects.

This is a considerable understatement. Dr. Kaburda concluded that the skull presents 10 standard deviations from the norm (as cited in Robinson, 2004), is comprised of bone uniformly half as thick and weighing half as much as normal human bone (Robinson 2004), but is significantly more durable (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 171-172).

A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.

This is only partly accurate. Several dentists have stated they believe the Starchild Skull to be a child in this age range (Robinson, 2004; Dr. David Sweet as cited in Pye, L. 2007, p. 148). However, other specialists unwilling to be named (Pye, L. 2007) felt that extensive wear on the crowns of the teeth (p. 126) and the extensive size of the roots indicate the skull belonged to an adult (p. 156).

However, the volume of the interior of the Starchild Skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size.

The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.

These statements are all essentially true. However, the optic foramen (what they call the “optic nerve canal”) is positioned closer to the bottom of the orbit than in a normal human skull, not actually “at the bottom” as stated in the quote above (Dr. Mausolf as cited in Pye, 2007, pp. 100-105).

The back of the skull is flattened.

This statement is also true, although it neglects to mention that the flattening of the rear of the skull is natural, and not the result of artificial deformation, such as cradle-boarding (Robinson, 2004), nor of deformity such as premature suture fusion (Dr. D. Hodges as cited in Robinson, 2004).

The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.

This is fundamentally correct. More sophisticated analyses done later in 2004 by Dr. Ken Pye (no relation to Lloyd Pye) indicated that the bone of the Starchild Skull has abnormally high levels of collagen, the substance that gives tooth enamel its hardness and durability (Pye, K. as cited in Pye, L. 2007).

Dating Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild Skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both tests provided results of 900 years ± 40 years since death.

This is correct, and the missing citation is: (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218).

Hutchison-Gilford progeria, a disease which has no known treatment, produces similar skull deformations to hydrocephaly. In a vague sense of the word “similar” this is true, but the differences between both of these conditions and the Starchild Skull are so substantial as to rule them out completely (The Starchild Project, 2010b). In progeria patients, the cell nucleus has dramatically aberrant morphology (bottom, right) rather than the uniform shape typically found in healthy individuals (top, right). This is true, but totally irrelevant to the Starchild Skull.

DNA testing DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".

This quote comes from the 2006 re-dating of the 1999 Novella article, which was based on the invalid DNA test results from the BOLD lab in Canada. In 1999 the BOLD lab was a forensic teaching lab where students performed the majority of the work being done in it. The lab was not equipped in the many special ways necessary for handling samples more than 50 years old (the Starchild Skull is 900 years old).

After the lab’s student technicians contaminated its first two attempts (Pye, L. pp. 153-162), they claimed to recover nuclear DNA from a “Y” chromosome (not the “X”). However, this was only 200 picograms of material, 1/5th of the minimum amount of genetic material normally required for a valid result. This small and dubious recovery was shown to be another contamination in 2003 by Trace Genetics, a DNA lab capable of recovering ancient DNA (over 50 years old), and whose founders (Dr. Jason Eshleman and Dr. Ripan Mahli) had previously worked on the high-profile Kennewick Man skeleton (Eshleman & Mahli, 2003). Dr. Mahli and Dr. Eschleman (2003) state:

“he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time.”

That statement means it was impossible to recover nuclear DNA from the Starchild Skull using the technology available in 2003, which made it equally impossible to do so four years earlier in 1999, thereby invalidating the BOLD result as yet another contamination.

Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

This is correct and here is the missing reference: (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003).

Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.

This is true up to a point. It fails to mention the critical fact that Trace Genetics was easily able to recover both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA on the first attempt from the adult human female skull reportedly found with the Starchild Skull (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). That skull had the same general time of death as the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, p. 212), and was exposed to similar conditions post mortem (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21). Therefore, the Trace Genetics team expected the Starchild’s nuclear DNA to be similarly easy to recover, and indeed the Mitochondrial DNA did recover easily. However, in 6 full attempts no nuclear DNA could be recovered from the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 177-183).

Explanations Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly, Crouzon syndrome, congenital hydrocephalus, or potentially progeria.

All of these deformities and many others have been investigated as possible explanations for the Starchild Skull, and none of them match the attributes of the skull (The Starchild Project, 2010b). Cradleboarding and all other artificial deformation techniques leave evidence on the surface of the skull bone, and no such evidence is present on the surface of the Starchild Skull. Thus, Dr. Robinson (2004) concluded that “the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial.” Hydrocephaly (also called “congenital hydrocephalus”) is a condition where excess cerebrospinal fluid in the cranium causes internal pressure that pushes outward against the skull, expanding any unfused sutures to give the skull an "inflated" shape (MedicineNet, 2010). According to Dr. Bachynsky and Dr. Robinson (cited in Robinson, 2004) the sutures in the Starchild Skull were unfused and healthy at the time of death, with no expansion present at the suture lines. Thus, the Starchild’s unusual shape could not have been caused by internal pressure or the sutures would be expanded. Dr. Bachynsky specifically ruled out hydrocephaly in his examination of the skull (Robinson, 2004). Brachycephaly simply means a skull that is abnormally wide, and is a possible symptom of multiple illnesses, deformities, and disorders. Therefore, it isn’t any kind of explanation for morphology; it is only an observation of a physical trait (Kelly, 2010). Crouzon Syndrome is a condition where symptoms include the complete premature fusion (obliteration) of two or more cranial sutures (Matusiak & Szybejko-Machaj, 2010). In 2003 Dr. Bachynsky, a radiological expert, concluded unequivocally that there was no abnormal or premature fusion of any of the Starchild Skull’s sutures (as cited in Robinson, 2004). Therefore, Crouzon Syndrome is impossible as an explanation. Progeria (also called Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome) is a fatal condition that causes the appearance of premature aging in children (Progeria Research Foundation, 2010). In Progeria, bones can become thinner and weaker, and premature fusion of sutures can cause abnormal skull shape, which in turn gives the lower face and eyes an unusual appearance (Medline Plus, 2010). One of the primary symptoms of Progeria is open fontanelles on the top of the head, the “soft spot” on a baby’s head (UM Medical, 2010). This condition is not present in the Starchild Skull (Robinson, 2003). The Starchild Skull’s bone is thinner than normal, but instead of being more brittle, as is caused by Progeria, it is observed to be much stronger than normal human bone (Pye, L. 2007, p. 176). Progeria does not remove the inion, change the location of the optic foramens, change the shape of the hardest sections of bone while leaving the weak sutures untouched, or increase the collagen content of bone (UM Medical, 2010), all features of the Starchild Skull (Pye 2010b). The only symptom that Progeria has in common with the Starchild Skull is “micrognathia,” an abnormally small jaw (UM Medical, 2010), leaving all of the other unusual features of the Starchild unexplained, and making Progeria a thoroughly incorrect diagnosis.

Paranormal interest The skull has been of significant interest with those interested in ufology and extraterrestrial visitation.

This is true, and that fact has often hampered efforts to have the skull evaluated by mainstream researchers. Nonetheless, perseverance has allowed the Starchild Project to gather a respected team of highly credentialed experts who have gone on record with their findings (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 111-112).

Some contend that it is the skull of an alien or a human-alien hybrid as the shape of the skull bears similarities to the common representation of aliens known as "Greys".

The Starchild Project no longer suggests the Starchild Skull might have belonged to a pure alien. The DNA test of 2003 found it has human maternal lineage, which confirmed that it cannot be a pure alien (Eschleman & Mahli 2003; Pye, L. 2007, pp. 125, 134, 155). However, a strong possibility remains that it will be proved to be a human-alien hybrid.

Proponents of a paranormal explanation for the skull's origin reject plausible scientific hypotheses involving non-paranormal causes.

This is flatly untrue. We consistently and continuously search for any provable explanation for the Starchild Skull, and we do so with complete disregard of whether the cause is “normal” or “paranormal.” Many mainstream scientists dismiss the work of the Starchild Project as “unscientific” because we allow for the possibility that the skull may be a human-alien hybrid. To those people we say, “Check your history books.”

Most of what is known as “science” today started as a theory that was then proven, or has not yet been disproven and so is treated as fact by those whose interests are served by the assumption. These unproved but near universally accepted theories include cosmology’s Big Bang, biology’s evolution-by-mutation, and much of the work of Pythagoras, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking.

We believe it would be irresponsible for us to close any avenue of exploration until hard evidence exists to justify doing so. We carry an obligation to continue to theorize that the Starchild Skull may be the result of alien interference, and to continue trying to prove ourselves wrong at every turn. That is how the truest scientific method is utilized.

They contend that it has other abnormalities such as the thickness, density, and strength of the bone that support their beliefs.

This is true, but it is far from complete as a list of the characteristics that have led to the theory that the Starchild Skull may be something other than entirely human. It should be noted that the author of this “Wackypedia” article fails to use a neutral unbiased tone, calling our theories “beliefs” and their theories “plausible scientific hypotheses,” a clear violation of Misplaced Pages’s guidelines (2010c).

Summation by Lloyd Pye: I hope anyone who reads this has no trouble seeing or understanding how unfairly the Starchild Project’s efforts have been treated at the hands of Misplaced Pages and its biased editors and administrators. As much as I would like to argue that they are victims of the errors that they inaccurately reference, I think their continual "undoing" of our corrections and those of our supporters indicates that this is a concerted effort on their part. They obviously don't want the truth about what we're doing to be reported on Misplaced Pages for reasons we can only speculate, but which I theorize about in my article Why Science Is Wrong.

The bottom line is this: we have references that meet their requirements (with the possible exception of the new DNA results, which have not been formally reported), we have highly credentialed and respected doctors and specialists who have authored reports about the skull, and there is no valid reason for their continued refusal to allow the evidence from these reports to be included in the article. I encourage anyone with Misplaced Pages skills to help us correct this article*, and all of you to spread the word about this injustice.

• Before any of you attempt corrections, please make sure that you are versed in the rules that they have for tone and style, because if people start making changes without proper phrasing, referencing etc. Misplaced Pages will lock the article and then no one can do anything with it for as much as several months. I also recommend that you use a dummy account, what Misplaced Pages calls "sock puppeting" to avoid having your primary account suspended should "they" take offense at your edits and block you.

Misplaced Pages References 1. a b http://www.theness.com/the-starchild-project/

2. Pye, Lloyd 'Starchild Project'

3. Pye, Lloyd. "TERRIBLE TWO'S : Summary of the first Two Years". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.

4. a b McCoy, Max (November 1999). "Star Child". Fortean Times (127): 42–45.

5. Brown, Matthew. "A Report on Maxilla and Dental X-Rays". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.

6. Robinson, Ted J.. "A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.

7. Trace Genetics "Report on the DNA analysis from skeletal remains from two skulls"

8. Phoenix, Jack (Early 2005 (special)). "Unconvention 2004". Fortean Times (191): 28–30.

9. Chow, Adelina (2006). "The Mystery of the Starchild Skull". World-Mysteries.com. Retrieved 2006-10-01.

This page was last modified on 3 September 2010 at 22:01.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Misplaced Pages® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

STARCHILD PROJECT REFERENCES

BBC (July 30, 2010). Rare Zedonk Born at US Wildlife Reserve. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10813703

Eshleman, J.A. & Malhi, R.S. (2003). Report On The DNA Analysis From Skeletal Remains From Two Skulls. Trace Genetics. Retrieved from http://www.starchildproject.com/dna.htm

Jimenez, N. (Aug. 17, 2010). Liger Cubs Illegally Bred? CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-20013891-10391705.html

Kelly, K. (Jan. 30, 2010).What is Brachycephaly? Brachycephaly Info. Retrieved from http://www.brachycephaly.info/

Matusiak, L. & Szybejko-Machaj, G. (Aug. 13, 2010). Crouzon Syndrome. eMedicine. Retrieved from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1117749-overview

Meadows, R. (July 20, 2010). Genetic Mismatches Between Nuclei and Mitochondria Make Yeast Hybrids Sterile. PLoS Biology 8(7): e1000433. Retrieved from http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000433

MedicineNet.com (Aug 2010). Hydrocephalus. MedicineNet.com. Retrieved from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/external+hydrocephalus

Medline Plus (Aug. 19, 2010) Progeria. Medline Plus. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001657.htm

Merriam-Webster Online. (2010). Paranormal. Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paranormal

Novella, Steven (1999, re-dated 2006).The Starchild Project. The New England Skeptical Society. Retrieved from http://www.theness.com/the-starchild-project

Progeria Research Foundation (2010). About Progeria. Progeria Research Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.progeriaresearch.org/about_progeria.html

Purdy, S. (2003). A Donkey is Not a Horse: The Differences From a Practical Veterinary Standpoint. Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences University of Massachusetts Amherst. Retrieved from http://www.umass.edu/vasci/faculty/purdy/A%20Donkey%20is%20Not%20a%20Horse_files/frame.htm

Pye, K. (2005). Summary of Inorganic Chemistry Analysis of Starchild Bone. Printed as Appendix III The Starchild Skull, Lloyd Pye, Bell Lap Books, 2007.

Pye, L (2007). The Starchild Skull: Genetic Enigma or Human-Alien Hybrid?. Bell Lap Books.

Robinson, T. et al. (25 Sept. 2004). A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull. The Starchild Project. Retrieved from http://www.starchildproject.com/Reports_Robinson.html

The Starchild Project (Sept. 2010a). Preliminary DNA Findings 2010. The Starchild Project. Retrieved from http://www.starchildproject.com/DNA2010.htm

The Starchild Project (Sept. 2010b). Is The Starchild Skull A Deformity? The Starchild Project. Retrieved from http://www.starchildproject.com/deformity.htm

The Starchild Project (Sept. 2010b).Was The Starchild Skull Cradleboarded? The Starchild Project. Retrieved from http://www.starchildproject.com/cradleboarding.htm

UM Medical Center (2010) Progeria. University of Maryland Medical Center. Retrieved from http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001657sym.htm

Misplaced Pages (Sept. 14, 2010c). Misplaced Pages: Neutral Point Of View. Misplaced Pages The 💕. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Misplaced Pages (Sept. 15, 2010a). Misplaced Pages: Consensus. Misplaced Pages The 💕. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus

Misplaced Pages (Sept. 16, 2010b). Misplaced Pages: No Original Research. Misplaced Pages The 💕. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Note from Lloyd Pye:

The Starchild Project is sincerely interested in finding answers about this skull, and we welcome legitimate input from all sources. If you are aware of a condition you think explains the Starchild Skull, please email information about any case study, report, or other medical or scientific data about the condition. We appreciate suggestions, but without reliable data to reference we cannot make a proper investigation.

Analysis

The skull is abnormal in several respects. A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age. However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses. The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.

Dating

Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both tests provided results of 900 years ± 40 years since death.

DNA testing

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes". Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. The adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace Genetics obtained nuclear DNA, which contains chromosomes from both the father and the mother, from the adult female, but was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA of the father from the Starchild skull, despite conducting six consecutive tests.

Explanations

Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features, apart from the alien-hybrid hypothesis, include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly and Crouzon syndrome.

References

1. Pye, Lloyd 'Starchild Project'
2. Pye, Lloyd. "TERRIBLE TWO'S : Summary of the first Two Years". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
3. ^ McCoy, Max (November 1999). "Star Child". Fortean Times (127): 42–45.
4. Brown, Matthew. "A Report on Maxilla and Dental X-Rays". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
5. Robinson, Ted J. "A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull". Starchild Project. Retrieved 2009-08-26.
6. (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218)
7. http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/
8. Trace Genetics "Report on the DNA analysis from skeletal remains from two skulls"
9. Phoenix, Jack (Early 2005 (special)). "Unconvention 2004". Fortean Times (191): 28–30. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
10. Chow, Adelina (2006). "The Mystery of the Starchild Skull". World-Mysteries.com. Retrieved 2006-10-01.

• Extraterrestrial life
• UFO-related phenomena
• Skull
• Ancient astronaut speculation
• Pseudoarchaeology
• Human remains (archaeological)