The “Starchild skull”: palaeopathology meets alien abduction


Bad Arcaheology logo

By Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews

Whitley Streiber's alien

The face of the type of alien alleged to have abducted novelist Whitley Streiber, as painted by Ted Seth Jacobs

In 1987, a new image became a cultural icon: the almond-faced alien with shining black eyes that adorned the cover of Whitley Streiber’s Communion, painted by artist Ted Seth Jacobs. From that moment on, virtually every alleged encounter with alien beings reported in the English speaking world involved creatures of this type, commonly referred to as ‘Greys’. This is not the place to delve into the complex world of alien typology, but it is worth noting that Greys seem to be a largely American alien, with other regions reporting predominantly different types of creature (such as the South American preference for dwarves, the European preference for Nordics, all of which suggests a strong cultural component to the phenomenon). However, during the burgeoning of the stories of alien abduction during the 1980s and 1990s, the Grey quickly established itself as the abductor par excellence if only because the majority of abduction accounts come from North America and the USA in particular.

A Grey alien?

A Grey alien or a fake?

Photographs of Greys and other aliens are notoriously unreliable and easily faked. Many look like models (indeed, many photographs of supposed aliens touted on the web turn out to be stills taken from Hollywood films or television dramas), some are crudely retouched photographs of humans, some are misidentifications of shadows and so on, and at least one shows a dead human pilot horribly burnt following a crash (the wire rims of his spectacles are glearly visible). Photographic evidence, as so often in UFOlogy, is useless. So what other evidence might there be for their presence on earth? Not the fantasies of Erich von Däniken, who has been unable in a career spanning more than forty years, to produce a single artefact of extraterrestrial origin, despite his penchant for ascribing virtually all of humanity’s cultural achievements to assistance given by aliens. Enter the “Starchild skull”, a real enough skull that is claimed to be physical evidence for a dead alien right here on earth.

The skull is supposed to have been discovered in the 1930s by an American girl from El Paso (Texas, USA) in a mine near Copper Canyon in Mexico, about 160 km south-west of Chihuahua. After her death in the 1990s, the skull and an adult’ from the same site were given to Ray and Melanie Young who, with the assistance of Lloyd Pye, founded The Starchild Project in 1999 as Melanie, a neonatal nurse, was convinced that the skull could no be the result of ordinary human deformities. Radiocarbon dating was carried out in 2004 by Beta Analytic of Miami (FLorida, USA), which gave a determination of 900 ± 40 bp, which calibrates to Cal AD 1117 ± 59; an earlier test on the adult skull gave exactly the same result. Over the past eleven years, the Project has promoted the skull, principally to UFO and New Age groups, among which the term “star child” is used to refer to alleged human/alien hybrids or to “the next stage in human evolution”.

The so-called "Starchild skull"

The so-called ‘Starchild skull’

Such hybrids have been reported by numerous “alien abductees”, whose (usually hypnotically recovered) accounts of their abductions often refer to the aliens’ obsessive interest in their reproductive organs. Some claim to have undergone frequently painful and disturbing procedures to remove eggs and sperm; some claim to have become pregnant as a result of their treatment and subsequently to have discovered that they are no longer pregnant following a further abduction. There are accounts of abductees being shown humanoid but emotionless children during an abduction and being given impressions that these are their own offspring.

Whatever the objective reality of alien abduction experiences (and it will be no surprise that I suspect it to be a wholly subjective phenomenon), physical evidence for the existence of the aliens themselves would be a powerful support for the veracity of the abductees’ stories. So how well does the “Starchild skull” match the available descriptions of Greys? First, we have to acknowledge that we are evidently dealing with the skull of an infant (based on the eruption of maxillary teeth, it has been estimated that the individual was aged around five or six years old when it died, although if we really are dealing with an alien or even an alien/human hybrid, it is a moot point whether we can use human tooth eruption data to assign an age at death!).

A reconstruction of the appearance of the "Starchild"

A reconstruction of the appearance of the “Starchild” around the time of its death

If we assume that the dental data can be used, then we have to recognise that the development of Greys from infancy to adulthood might well involve morphological changes to the shape of the face as subcutaneous fats are redistributed. This is the “puppy fat” that gives human children rounded faces and chubby cheeks that most lose during puberty. The reconstruction shown here – made by those promoting the skull as alien, it should be noted – depicts a child of distinctly human appearance. There are problems, of course, in that we do not have a mandible with which the reconstruct the appearance of the lower part of the face, but it has to be said that the eyes are much too close together, the nose too prominent and the width of the upper part of the head proportionally much greater than would be expected if this is the skull of a genuine Grey alien. We could always argue, of course, that if it is a human/alien hybrid, then human characteristics are dominant in this individual (although this would be a post hoc rationalisation).

Lloyd Pye has had DNA tests performed on the skull in 1999 and 2003; a promised third test in 2009 has not yet been published, if it ever happened. The 2003 extraction of mitochondrial DNA (that inherited from the mother) showed it to belong to haplogroup C, a typical Native American type. Thus, the child’s mother was beyond doubt a Native American, not an alien. Intriguingly, the adult skull recovered with the child’s yielded mtDNA of haplogroup A, another Native American type, but which means that the skull cannot be that of the child’s mother, which would by definition have mtDNA of the same haplogroup. However, the team was unable to extract any nuclear DNA, which Pye insists is evidence that the father was not human, as nuclear DNA was extracted from the adult skull. However, there are greater difficulties in the extraction of nuclear DNA from ancient bone than in the extraction of mitochondrial DNA, so the lack of nuclear DNA from the “Starchild skull’ is not at all mysterious. What Pye does not dwell on are the 1999 DNA test, which identified both X and Y chromosomes, which show that the child was a boy; Y chromosomes can only be inherited from the father (men have an XY chromosome pair, women an XX chromosome pair), so the child’s father must have been as human as his mother.

So why does the skull look so unusual? Although Lloyd Pye quotes doctors who state that it cannot have been a pathological condition, he ignores similar skeletal remains that are clearly the result of hydrocephalus, a condition in which the skull fills with cerebrospinal fluid in and around the brain and which can be fatal. Another condition that can yield similar skeletal pathologies is progeria, in which symptoms resembling premature ageing are caused by a genetic mutation. The scientific evidence shows very clearly that the “Starchild skull” is that of a very sick human boy who probably died from the condition that caused the unusual pathological features of the skull. To promote this unfortunate Native American, whose remains are being displayed for public entertainment, is immoral, does an immense disservice to his memory and is something that under the American NAGPRA legislation is probably illegal.

About these ads
    • Goober
    • February 1st, 2010

    The only thing that needs to be said about alien abductions is “sleep paralysis with hypnic hallucinations.” Yes, there’s certainly a cultural element to it. Religious people get visitation from demons and devils, new age spiritual people get visitations from vampires and ghosts, and secular people get alien abductions. There are documented cases of people having life altering events that cause them to lose their religious faith, and who go from being visited by demons to being abducted by grey aliens.

    • JoeTheJuggler
    • February 4th, 2010

    My comment is not about this entry in particular.

    Just wanted to say how pleased I am to see the Bad Archaeology blog. Keep up the good work!

    • AndroidVageta
    • February 20th, 2010

    I am a believer that the StarChild Skull is indeed a hybrid, but your above article has me asking a few questions, both to myself and to you as well…

    I understand what you mean by the DNA testing, what you said is very true and plausible. Same with the skull being that of hydrocephalus…it would seem that from just looking at it this condition would be the case.

    However, where I disagree with you, and things that also DO go against normal human deformities are things like the fact that the eye sockets are 1/4 the depth of normal eyes, even when taken in the consideration of the child being deformed. Also, things like the fact that the bone is uniformly thinner (something that happens with hydrocephalus, but its not uniform, eg it happens in spots on the skull, not all the bone everywhere) but 2-3 times stronger. What about the fibers that are found within the bone that DOES NOT exist in any other bone material in any other species on this planet that we have found…reptile, mammal…anything. How about the fact that the spinal placement is completely abnormal and basically impossible to exist, even when deformity is taken into consideration. Inner ear bones being 50% larger to compensate for the SC’s smaller body to help with balance…a feature that would not have changed if a child was born smaller due to deformity.

    Also, add to the fact that 900 years ago (the age of the SC due to carbon testing) a child with this many deformities, if thats what they are, would have had a slim to zero chance of surviving as long as it did…most children born with the deformities you mentioned if they do live ever live past a year old.

    These are things that I ask you not to try to debunk or go against what you are saying, but simply because even I am not completely convinced that the SC skull is a human/alien hybrid. Anything that you can counter to my above statements would be much appreciated, thanks!

  1. Hi AndroidVageta

    You worry about the depth of the orbits (eye sockets), but this is partly a function of the delibrate culturally-derived flattening of the occipital bone (the back of the head) and partly a function of the child’s pathology (whether it’s hydrocephalus or some other condition).

    The thinness of the bone really isn’t unusual. Children of five or six years do have very thin crania, which are often damaged by burial.

    The fibres are more problematic. Remember that the skull was stored in unknown conditions in someone’s home for decades before it was submitted for any sort of analysis. The fibres are not necessarily to be associated with the skull: they coud come, for instance, for a cloth used to wrap it. Without further details, it’s really impossible to know how they came to be associated with the bone, how closely mixed with bone cells they are and exactly what the structure of the fibres has been determined to be. They certainly don’t sound mysterious!

    The abnormal spinal position at the base of the skull is absolutely typical of pre-Columbian skeletal material showing artificial flattening of the occiput. Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History sample 327074 shows a very similar deformation, higher up the occiput than in this instance, but with very similar facial feature; its date is between AD 919 and 1130, so it’s a very good comparison for the “Starchild” skull.

    You’d be surprised at the level of care shown to disabled individuals in the past. Yes, there were some societies (such as classical Rome) where deformities were seen as divine punishment and the exposure of unwanted infants was sanctioned, but there are equally plenty of examples of severly disbled people being cared for throughout their lives. Remember, the “Starchild” had a mother and that mother probably loved him.

    I hope these points answer your questions!

      • ryan
      • June 16th, 2010

      explain why this skull is two to three times hader than are humans skulls…hmmm you say that hes was a sick native boy,but thats not true at all theyve proven that this being whoever he was was in ideal health state at the time of his death,your the one that is falsifying what is the truth…people like you make people like us that want the truth sick to are stomachs…To think youd want to cover up maybe one of the most important scientific discoverys of all time blasphemy…
      I might not have the best schooling an i am sure that there are all kinds of spelling an grammer errors in this msg but i think common sense does more to explain things than this report of hullabulu,when people take the time to research things like this an come to the conclusions drawn that almost utmost proof for you to say all that goes out the door because nature can explain everything…is a crime sir
      again excuse me for my under schooled opinion but i came to this page to learn an all i got was a mouth full of shit…..

      • What is your evidence that “this skull is two to three times hader than are humans skulls”? By what scale are you measuring it? What is the “normal” hardness of a human skull and what is the range of variability within normal? What pathologies can alter the hardness? These are not facetious questions, but things that need an answer before we can go on to look at more exotic explanations.

        Of course I say that he was sick: something made him die! Who has “proven that this being whoever he was was in ideal health state at the time of his death”? And what a silly statement! How many people are in a perfect state of health when they die? They die precisely because their health has been comprmised, whether by disease, age, trauma or some other factor.

        “To think youd want to cover up maybe one of the most important scientific discoverys of all time blasphemy”. I don’t want to over up anything. If it is a genuinely important scientific discovery, it needs to be discussed, its importance questioned and challenged so that those who believe it to be important can justify their beliefs. So far, I’ve seen none of the promoters of this skull do anything remotely like that; instead, they just insult those, like me, who are asking the awkward questions they seem unwilling to answer.

        “i am sure that there are all kinds of spelling an grammer errors in this msg”; unlike some other sceptical bloggers, I’m not going to criticise you for that! You’re making your point and I can understand it perfetly well, spelling and grammar errors or not.

        “i came to this page to learn an all i got was a mouth full of shit…” Well, now you’ve spoiled it all. What you got from my page was a sceptical take on an ecofact that has been touted as evidence for alien life on earth by people who only allow analyses to be done under their control, permitting no independent scholars access to the material. I have written nothing offensive, merely challenging. I’m sorry if it’s challenged your neat little preconceptions, but that’s part of the purpose of my writing!

    • Scott Vater
    • February 27th, 2010

    I am posting about what you said, not because I feel the need to argue with your

    statements, but to just correct the wrongs that that I, as well as doctors that have

    studied the skull, feel you have said.

    Ill be going through each statement you wrote with my own views and opinions, most of

    which can be found on the Star Child website…which although could and most likely will

    be called a biased site, but their findings I think are a little more “factual” then what

    you have written, which to me seems to be purely speculations and not based on true

    medical data that doctors have written themselves upon study of the Star Child Skull.

    First off is your explanation of the “cradle boarding” and the shallow eye sockets. This

    has been proven, and is quite apparent in pictures, that cradle boarding is a

    impossibility in this case. Cradle boarding flattens only the back of the skull, not at an

    angle and to the extend as in the Star Child skull. Not only that but the flat part of the

    skull has bumps and indentations, something that cradle boarding does not do…in every

    picture of cradle boarding that I have seen you can clearly see that the bone is

    FLAT…not bumpy or anything else for that matter. This can be seen and disproved at this

    website:

    http://www.starchildproject.com/analysis.htm

    Also, how do you explain that to cradle board a child at this degree that the board would

    have actually had to have broken skin and sit on or very near the spine. Not only this but

    the amount of flattening is way too extreme to be cradle boarding…provide me a picture

    of another skull that has undergone this amount of flattening. As far as the eye sockets

    are concerned, the sockets are about half an inch or so in depth. Normal eye sockets are

    up to 2 inches in depth on average…that means that the Star Child (SC) would have had

    his/her eyes protruding about an inch out of their skull. Also, let it be said that the

    smaller eyes could not be because of the SC apparent younger age, as your eye balls never grow.

    They are the same size from the time of birth to adulthood. Also, and I am no doctor here,

    but I don’t quite think that cradle boarding and the resulting pressure could cause such a

    high degree of eye socket shortening, if any at all. Also, did you notice the complete

    lack of any sinus cavities? Show me ONE example of any deformity were that person did not

    have sinus cavities…sure they may not be able to smell, but they would still have them, even if they were smaller.
    Also, on the topic of cradle boarding shortening the eye sockets, can you explain to me

    how and why the inner ear bone structure is 50% larger than a normal humans? Going by your

    theory would they not be smaller? Hum…

    http://www.starchildproject.com/xrays.htm

    The thinness of the bone is quite unusual contrary to your beliefs. Children at the age of

    five to sevens years of age (which some specialists believe that the SC could have been

    much older) is just not a possibility. The bone of the SC is thinner, yes, but it is

    UNIFORMLY thinner, not just in the cranial plates, it exists with all the parts of the

    skull…let me not forget to mention that the thinness is completely offset by the FACT

    that the bone is also 2 to 3 times stronger…2 times at the minimum and 3 times at the

    max. Not only this but bone thinness could be explained had the SC been an infant…at the

    age of 5 to 7 to adult hood the bone thinness does not differ this dramatically, if at

    all.

    http://www.starchildproject.com/residue.htm

    Next up is the red fibers. You claim that they could be from fabric or material that the

    skull could have been wrapped in to protect the skull, something that would be a valid

    argument if it were not true at all. The fibers existence would be impossible due to cloth

    residue. Why? Well, simply because the fibers are found from within the skull, past the

    outer layer of bone. Id like an explanation from you, if you can, of exactly how fibers from

    wrapping cloth could find itself INSIDE the actual bone matter? If they were on the

    exterior then your explanation could be considered, but no fibers, red or any other color

    are visible from the outside of the skull…I see no point in mentioning either that the

    fibers also seem to be very strong, even resisting cutting from the diamond coated bit in Dremel that was used

    to remove pieces of the bone for testing. I don’t know of any natural material that could

    resist this, especially ones made for use in fabrics (thinking cotton or hemp). Also, the fibers are unknown…you honestly think that these fibers wouldn’t have been identified had they come from cloth?

    http://www.starchildproject.com/fibers.htm

    For your explanation of the unusual spine position, I would greatly ask of you to show me

    a picture of sample 327074 from the NMNH if you could? As far as to whether or not this is

    a natural deformity can be argued as well. If the spinal placement was a natural deformity

    than the skull inself would not be on balance with the rest of the skull. This is medical

    fact. With the SC, and this is something I find quite intriguing, is the fact that the

    placement of the spine and where it connects to the skull, create perfect balance of the

    skull…as no sinus cavities and the shallower eye sockets provide the rest of the skull

    to be in perfect symmetrical balance, as sinus cavities and normal eye sockets would throw

    it all off balance (symmetrical deformities? Does this even exist?). Again, something that would not happen due to deformity…you can

    rebuttal, but its simply the truth, ask any medical professional…the body does not change

    itself to this degree to conform with a deformity (if changes occur at all), If that’s the case

    here, well then its the only case like it in all of medical history and just impossible.

    Lets not forget to mention the smaller jaw muscles as well as the extremely small jaw bone

    that would have existed on such a skull…another deformity as well? Among the other dozen or so that could be associated with the skull if they actually were deformities?

    Again, just let me say that I’m not trying to cause drama or a proverbial slap in the face

    with/to you, its that what you say is just impossible given these circumstances. I

    understand the point of your site and what you are set in doing…but you have to know

    that there are simply some things that just cant be dis-proven or proven with what we know

    today, and this isn’t to say that we simply don’t have the technology or that it is a limit

    to it…its just that with the SC skull its just not possible to explain because we simply

    don’t know what it is or how it came about to be. Now I know this kinda contradicts what Im saying, but honestly, I don’t care. I feel what Ive said still holds merit, even if we cant truly tell what the Star Child skull is or were it came from.

    Im sure you already have, but I would like to point your readers to the actual site and

    the link that shows what a group of 11 doctors and specialists found.

    http://www.starchildproject.com/

    http://www.starchildproject.com/reports_11Experts.htm

    • Scott Vater
    • February 27th, 2010

    In fear that my last post was hacked with the formatting of Word…Im just simply reposting to fix those incorrections, sorry!

    ———-

    I am posting about what you said, not because I feel the need to argue with your statements, but to just correct the wrongs that that I, as well as doctors that have studied the skull, feel you have said.
    Ill be going through each statement you wrote with my own views and opinions, most of which can be found on the Star Child website…which although could and most likely will be called a biased site, but their findings I think are a little more “factual” then what you have written, which to me seems to be purely speculations and not based on true medical data that doctors have written themselves upon study of the Star Child Skull.

    First off is your explanation of the “cradle boarding” and the shallow eye sockets. This has been proven, and is quite apparent in pictures, that cradle boarding is a impossibility in this case. Cradle boarding flattens only the back of the skull, not at an angle and to the extend as in the Star Child skull. Not only that but the flat part of the skull has bumps and indentations, something that cradle boarding does not do…in every picture of cradle boarding that I have seen you can clearly see that the bone is FLAT…not bumpy or anything else for that matter. This can be seen and disproved at this website:

    http://www.starchildproject.com/analysis.htm

    Also, how do you explain that to cradle board a child at this degree that the board would have actually had to have broken skin and sit on or very near the spine. Not only this but the amount of flattening is way too extreme to be cradle boarding…provide me a picture of another skull that has undergone this amount of flattening. As far as the eye sockets are concerned, the sockets are about half an inch or so in depth. Normal eye sockets are up to 2 inches in depth on average…that means that the Star Child (SC) would have had his/her eyes protruding about an inch out of their skull. Also, let it be said that the smaller eyes could not be because of the SC apparent younger age, as your eye balls never grow. They are the same size from the time of birth to adulthood. Also, and I am no doctor here, but I don’t quite think that cradle boarding and the resulting pressure could cause such a high degree of eye socket shortening, if any at all. Also, did you notice the complete lack of any sinus cavities? Show me ONE example of any deformity were that person did not have sinus cavities…sure they may not be able to smell, but they would still have them, even if they were smaller. Also, on the topic of cradle boarding shortening the eye sockets, can you explain to me how and why the inner ear bone structure is 50% larger than a normal humans? Going by your theory would they not be smaller? Hum…

    http://www.starchildproject.com/xrays.htm

    The thinness of the bone is quite unusual contrary to your beliefs. Children at the age of five to sevens years of age (which some specialists believe that the SC could have been much older) is just not a possibility. The bone of the SC is thinner, yes, but it is UNIFORMLY thinner, not just in the cranial plates, it exists with all the parts of the skull…let me not forget to mention that the thinness is completely offset by the FACT that the bone is also 2 to 3 times stronger…2 times at the minimum and 3 times at the max. Not only this but bone thinness could be explained had the SC been an infant…at the age of 5 to 7 to adult hood the bone thinness does not differ this dramatically, if at all.

    http://www.starchildproject.com/residue.htm

    Next up is the red fibers. You claim that they could be from fabric or material that the skull could have been wrapped in to protect the skull, something that would be a valid argument if it were not true at all. The fibers existence would be impossible due to cloth residue. Why? Well, simply because the fibers are found from within the skull, past the outer layer of bone. Id like an explanation from you, if you can, of exactly how fibers from wrapping cloth could find itself INSIDE the actual bone matter? If they were on the exterior then your explanation could be considered, but no fibers, red or any other color are visible from the outside of the skull…I see no point in mentioning either that the fibers also seem to be very strong, even resisting cutting from the diamond coated bit in Dremel that was used to remove pieces of the bone for testing. I don’t know of any natural material that could resist this, especially ones made for use in fabrics (thinking cotton or hemp). Also, the fibers are unknown…you honestly think that these fibers wouldn’t have been identified had they come from cloth?

    http://www.starchildproject.com/fibers.htm

    For your explanation of the unusual spine position, I would greatly ask of you to show me a picture of sample 327074 from the NMNH if you could? As far as to whether or not this is a natural deformity can be argued as well. If the spinal placement was a natural deformity than the skull inself would not be on balance with the rest of the skull. This is medical fact. With the SC, and this is something I find quite intriguing, is the fact that the placement of the spine and where it connects to the skull, create perfect balance of the skull…as no sinus cavities and the shallower eye sockets provide the rest of the skull to be in perfect symmetrical balance, as sinus cavities and normal eye sockets would throw it all off balance (symmetrical deformities? Does this even exist?). Again, something that would not happen due to deformity…you can rebuttal, but its simply the truth, ask any medical professional…the body does not change itself to this degree to conform with a deformity (if changes occur at all), If that’s the case here, well then its the only case like it in all of medical history and just impossible. Lets not forget to mention the smaller jaw muscles as well as the extremely small jaw bone that would have existed on such a skull…another deformity as well? Among the other dozen or so that could be associated with the skull if they actually were deformities?

    Again, just let me say that I’m not trying to cause drama or a proverbial slap in the face with/to you, its that what you say is just impossible given these circumstances. I understand the point of your site and what you are set in doing…but you have to know that there are simply some things that just cant be dis-proven or proven with what we know today, and this isn’t to say that we simply don’t have the technology or that it is a limit to it…its just that with the SC skull its just not possible to explain because we simply don’t know what it is or how it came about to be. Now I know this kinda contradicts what Im saying, but honestly, I don’t care. I feel what Ive said still holds merit, even if we cant truly tell what the Star Child skull is or were it came from.

    Im sure you already have, but I would like to point your readers to the actual site and
    the link that shows what a group of 11 doctors and specialists found.

    http://www.starchildproject.com/

    http://www.starchildproject.com/reports_11Experts.htm

    • docster
    • March 14th, 2010

    Infants and children suffering from hydrocephalus, typically have a round almost spherical shaped skulls as the fluid easily separates and expands the sutures.

    The Starchild skull is slightly heart shaped. The skull expands on both sides of the saggital suture. Examination of this suture shows that it is not fused and so could not restrict the expansion if it were caused by a build up of cerebral spinal fluid. This suggests that the shape of the skull was not caused by spinal fluid.
    ————————————–
    there is no evidence of “culturally-derived flattening” as this would cause a certain textured smoothness. this is absent with the star child skull.

    cradle boarding;
    Usually an infant was bound by string or fabric to a board with the head facing forward, the angle of sight horizontal and the neck slightly hyper-flexed (raised) to make breathing easy and unobstructed.
    But if we rotate the Starchild’s skull to align with the flat area of the skull we see that the eyes look down and, more importantly, the neck is tilted in such a way that the airway would be blocked.
    Although there does appear to be a somewhat flat surface at the rear of the Starchild’s skull, a close examination reveals it to be natural with many undulating features not normally seen in a cradle boarded skull.
    ————————————–
    Hydrocephalus does not usually distort the shape of the eyes or bony orbits. Indeed children with this disorder have normal looking faces.
    ————————————–
    The deformed skull had no trace of frontal sinuses, not even vestigial bumps indicating where its sinuses might have attempted to grow. This is considered extremely unusual. Considered vital for screening dust and particles from reaching the lungs, only about 5% of humans are born without frontal sinuses.
    ————————————–
    some of the fibers were woven into the matrix of the bone. also a thinner fiber was found emerging from a cancellous hole. if you go onto the starchildproject.com and look at the magnified images, there is no way that i can see of, of how to place those fibers into the skull as shown.

    aswell as some sort of red residue compound is also present.
    yet no-one tests them.

    so some people want to know, but others clearly dont.
    suprise, suprise. thats 21st.C science for you. damned if you do, and damned if you dont.

    • Scott V.
    • June 29th, 2010

    Hey Keith, this is in response to your post that you made today.

    I was just curious as to your thoughts on all the other matters of the skull that you seemed to not want to defend or rebuttal such as:

    The eye socket depth (skull was not a product of hydrocephalus)…and this is something that is quite obvious…whether you believe the studies done on the skull, it shares no common traits of hydrocephalus.

    The fact that the back of the skull was NOT a product of cradle boarding as apparent by the fact that the flatness is NOT flat (its quite bumpy) as well as it not being directly on the back of the skill as all examples of cradle boarding are.

    That the spinal cord placement is exactly in the middle balance point of the skull (something that no deformation has ever done…EVER.)

    The unknown and 100% completely unique red fibers that are found INSIDE the bone that would be impossible to place there my any means…again, this is not a deformity, this is completely unique to the Star Child skull and is not observed in ANY other creature on this planet.

    The lack of NO sinus cavities and the ability of the skull to have adapted to this…

    I mean, YOU leave to many of the questions and basically FACTS that many people here including myself have presented to you in regards to the over all uniqueness of this skull. Its not a matter of whether or not you believe them or not, its a matter of fact in the cases presented above.

    So I ask you again…what is your take on the fact that everything you mentioned in your article is completely wrong and (unlike my arguments) hold no merit or evidence what so ever?

    I want to know YOUR thoughts on everything I have just written above. It almost seems like you are avoiding the questions and just want to keep believing your own lies.

    • Finn
    • July 30th, 2010

    @Scott: Prbably the best thing you could do to help you with your questions is to actually go to university and get an education in science. I am serious Scott. You seem to me to have absolutely no ability or desire to critically appraise information that you have swallowed whole. Instead, you parrot this rubbish and demand answers that you should be capable of answering yourself were you to have that education.

    This “Starchild” skull has NEVER been shown using any scientific means available, to be anything but human. There is no indication that DNA analysis demonstrates anything else and certainly nothing “alien”.

    Sorry to burst that bubble of yours, but as I say, investing in a good education can make all the difference.

      • Scott
      • July 30th, 2010

      Are you seriously that dense Finn? Have you read any of my posts above? Have you read up on the SC Skull at all? If so you’d realize that you are the one that seems to have the need to educate yourself.

      No current deformity fits the profile of the SC Skull in any aspect…sure it looks like a hydrocephaly but it is not…and I say this not because I think Im a pro or anything, but the SC Skull does NOT fit in with this deformity at all…as the skull is not rounded, the gaps in the plates of the skull have formed together and the skull shape itself is not anywhere near as round as a hydrocephaly skull is. Cradle boarding? Nope…again, this does not fit the SC skull at all…in anyway shape or form…the flatness is NOT flat, its at an angle to the point that the board would have had to puncture the flesh of the neck and rest against the spine…umm…no…

      Not only that, but if the skull is a deformity there would have to be at least…lets see here…eye sockets, spine position, no sinuses, large brain cavity, thinner-stronger bone material, unknown (doesnt exist in any other animal ever found) red fibers…thats what…6 different deformities in one skull? Impossible…especially considering the fact that everything is symmetrical, which NEVER happens with a deformity, especially one that involves the skull…and SO many of them.

      There’s much more to say, but I said it all above in all my other posts.

      So in closing, if you are going to indirectly insult someones intelligence on a subject “Finn” at least PLEASE know what you are talking about first.

    • Finn
    • July 30th, 2010

    Thanks Keith….another who appreciates the energy spent….”Sunlight is the best disinfectant” (Louis Brandeis)

    • Finn
    • August 16th, 2010

    Dear Scott,

    I will reiterate what I have said just in case it was overlooked, and perhaps re-craft some of the wording.

    You seem to lack a background in science. I say this based on your apparent inability or unwillingness to engage in the scientific method at its most remedial level. You are unable to provide irrefutable evidence that this skull is of “alien” origin. Science dictates that BEFORE conclusions are made, the evidence is acquired and assessed, and then, and only then, is the conclusion considered. Pye has repeatedly made the conclusions before the evidence is in, or, when the evidence has refuted his conclusions, he has simply disregarded this evidence (see Sweet, 1999, for DNA results). You seem to parrot these same conclusions without being critical of this extremely flawed methodology. It is from this that I must question the scientific education of anyone who does not take exception to these types of charades.

    What you need to do is to rule out the most plausible explanation first. That is, rule out that this skull is human, with an odd-shaped skull. The reason why the skull has this shape is not the primary issue. The primary issue is however, the claim that this skull is not human, but instead, the result of some sort of “hybridization” between two life forms. The underlying problems of genetic compatability between human DNA that has evolved on Earth, and whatever kind of reproductive methods that “aliens” might use aside, you simply fail to provide the ‘goods’.

    Once again, you do not demonstrate an education in science or level of critical thinking that is expected of undergraduate students at reputatable universities. I suggest that this level of thinking should be prerequisite to such scientific examination of this skull.

    Can I ask that you either try harder to produce the evidence, or agree that such claims should be retracted altogether?

    • Francis Dec
    • August 23rd, 2010

    Latest on skull.

    The skull’s composition as like tooth enamel is a real poser.

    • KL
    • September 17th, 2010

    Recently dicovered microbes that survive by eating through nothing but rock are a real poser…….but they ain’t alien!

    Creatures that live in schorching hot undersea vents are a real poser …..but they aint alien!

    Nature conjurs up many posers….but they need not be ET aliens!

    • John
    • January 1st, 2011

    The you tube link shows dna testing that cannot i.d. parts of it against the main database for humans.

    This might be nothing but I would suggest that conclusions are far from over yet.

    Is that not what science dictates?

    • Finn
    • January 5th, 2011

    Dear John,

    The database that the Starchild skull is being compared to does not contain every human genome on the planet, so to draw conclusions based on so-called “differences” is simply incorrect.

    Also, the inter-human variability of our genome is estimated to be 0.1%, which means that if there are ~3billion base pairs, then 0.01 x 3 billion (30million) represent the allowable difference between humans for them to remain “human” insofar as DNA is concerned.

    I have never seen any mention of Pye taking this into account. Funny, that pesky science thing…always never where you want it to be right when you want it to be there…..

    • Hans
    • March 24th, 2011

    @Finn When you say the inter-human variability of the genome is about 0.1% does that not imply that 99.9% is the same? Wouldn’t the odds that a tested sample falls within the 0.1% be 1 in 1000? And if you then test 6 different samples, that, following your reasoning, all seem to have come from this 0.1%, wouldn’t that change the odds to 1 in 1000x1000x1000x1000x1000x1000 or 1 in a trillion for that to happen by chance? So, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that 6 samples failed to give a positive if this skull is fully human, especially considering that the samples taken from the adult human female did not present such difficulties. If I am drawing the wrong conclusion can you point out where I have made a mistake?

    • Finn
    • April 23rd, 2011

    Dear Hans,

    Your mistake:
    a) You have no data to make the assumptions you have made. Data has never been presented. Where does “6 different samples” come from? b) I am referring to “variability” (or variance, in statistical parley), which is how such tests are conducted. It is easier to look for differences if you have a known sample, so you use the variability within-samples as a measure of how close or how far off they are from the known entity. The error in logic comes from assuming that the NIH database has ever known genome and therefore, that it can be used as a comparator when used in this regard. This is an error in methodology and it is incorrect. That is my point previously. Didn’t you read this or just not understand?
    I have never seen any such presentation of data of any sort….have you?. I have seen ridiculous screenshots of something that I am told is important, but that is not how science works. We (the scientific community) wishes to see the data and methods in order to be able to replicate the experiment by an independent source and then see where we stand. This process is called “peer-review”. There has never been a single publication of any data by a single person of scientific credibility in any respected journal on this planet. Why do you think?

    You have no idea what you are talking about. That is exactly the problem. Science is hard and few people have any idea, so it is easy for such ignorance to muddy the waters and allow for people to be ripped off or for cults to become established.

    Try getting a biological science degree from good university and then going on to a graduate level of study in genetics. I guarantee that you would present a very different argument under these conditions.

      • roo
      • June 8th, 2012

      its really funny to me knowing that scientists spend 20-25 years studying, reading and analyzing, for what?? science is all speculation and theory! There is no concrete evidence in science ,except for DNA and chemistry. So basically, scientist read so many books from scientists before them and so on and so on and so on, that they start to believe all the theories because of all the reading, and then they decide to publish something based on someone else’s theory ,maybe ad a point or two and whala! they publish something. What a joke and a waste of time and life. Yes its very interesting to learn and be knowledgeable, I am interested in astrology, genetics, women and going to the cabin once in a while to have some fun with my female friends, get a life my friend, the type of science you are in is a waste of time and has all been published before. Why doesn’t science stop speculating and come up with real evidence on many issues, when one compares science and the alien intervention theory one with common sense (which does exist you know) would just look at all the ancient evidence, that we could see with our eyes, touch with our hands, etc. Things like monolithic structures , cave paintings, under water cities,pyramids and much more that are thousands and tens of thousands of years old. Why do we have a human history record only going back aprox 4000 years??? when in fact most of these structures are older than that. (you know all this stuff) Goes to prove that science once again has no common sense, but since scientist have to study for 20-25 years and continuous learning they have to come up with an elaborate theory answer to justify their time of study. Listen finn the people who believe in aliens have more concrete evidence than science has to disprove it, all you can say is thats impossible because my books tell me so. Good luck Finn, I would change professions if I were you. Oh one more thing don’t reply stating you make a lot of money,its all funding for you. Haven’t you realized thats why it takes you 20 -25 years, science never has an answer, after all the funding 20-25 years your still in the same spot, you will just need more funding now for the new scientists for their next 25 years of reading and studying just like you and so on and so on, etc.Science just reinvents technologies of old. Why doesn’t science start writing on cave walls to see if maybe just maybe, 2500 years from now scientists will discover your work and realize that science of this time was so advanced , they will say ,they new everything we are studying today, how is that possible.

    • Nick Jennings
    • November 7th, 2011

    @Finn – After reading through this post, and more interestingly, the comments, it seems you have a habit of trying to prove that this skull is a deformed baby, by ignoring the scientific data being collected on the skull with the argument that “X” doesn’t make it an alien. (where X is any interesting scientific piece of information gathered on the skull).

    Whether or not the skull is alien, does – in no way – change the fact that there are MANY oddities surrounding this skull.

    You obviously know a great deal about science, much more than anyone else in this thread, and you’ve tactfully been able to avoid actually having to prove any of that knowledge by avoiding discussing, or disproving, the points. Instead you’ve decided to help encourage an open dialogue only after everyone else goes to school and gets a science degree. Which apparently is a requirement for discussing interesting phenomena.

    I’d suggest you stop trying to make yourself feel smart and instead have a friendly debate about actual points people have brought up.

    • Allie
    • December 21st, 2011

    Perhaps someone already mentioned this, but don’t you think it’s possible that the DNA base pairs are not present in a current human population simply because the starchild’s genotype did not survive? You don’t need to be a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist to see that the phenotype of this child is not sustainable for a human being. The neck to head ratio would have required the child to have extra support, as the muscles in a toddler’s neck are unable to hold such a weight. Its birth probably killed its mother, as 900 years ago the technology necessary to prevent bleed-out after a C-section did not exist. It also appears to have died between the age of 3 and 5 years, which means that it never had the chance (as an individual organism) to pass along its DNA. As neither the mother of the child nor the child itself were likely to pass along their DNA, it seems a plausible conclusion that the undesirable genotype was selected against fairly quickly. Nine hundred years later, it is no surprise that evidence of the genotype having existed at all is quite scarce.

  2. All Finn is asking (and quite reasonably) is for the skull to be released to reputable medical and genetic testing authorities for a full and thorough examination, and then we (the science community) will wait with baited breath for the peer-reviewed article in Nature or the lecture and questions before the Royal Society. Thats how science works, its tough, its a bitch, but thats the deal. And yes, this stuff is HARD WORK. You don’t become a geneticist from reading a few websites or popular science books on the subject, any more than you are able to understand and debate quantum mechanics without about 20-25 years of education leading up to that point! Am I qualified to discuss this with absolute authority? Of course not, but a BSc based in biology followed by an evidence based career means my bullshit detector is fully functioning at all times. As Finn says – release the data in its entirety, or release the skull for proper examination.

    Extraoorinary claims demand extraoordinary evidence and open investigation – this is the way of science.

    • Josh
    • December 26th, 2011

    Finn your education and experience dictates that without eliminating all doubt and providing evidence you will not believe that the SC is not human. And that is why you will never be a normal human being scientist lack the ability to understand that there are somethings on earth that cannot be explained I’m sorry you may be smart and you may have this science thing down pat but you don’t understand humans understand little of the infinite universe we have yet to truly understand even our own origin and I’m tired of that we came from monkeys BS! Science lacks imagination and that’s what make us human … One thing I do agree with you is this skull must be given to unbais respectable professionals in this field to prove once and for all if theSC is a hoax or ligetamate … The truth will come out and the liars and deceivers will one day have to answer to a higher power or do you not believe in that either? Pye included

    • Josh

      Yes, the skull needs to be handed to unbiased professionals, as you say. And yet you deride scientists, as they “lack the ability to understand that there are somethings on earth that cannot be explained” and “Science lacks imagination”. You really can’t have it both ways!

      One other thing that I didn’t really go into in the post is the entirely disgusting way that the skull is being treated as property. I don’t know how human remains are covered in US law (other than understanding a little about NAGPRA), but in English law, there can be no ownership in human remains: the tissues from any human being are the inalienable property of the person in whom they first grew. Others may have possession of them, but never ownership.

      The current “owners”s of the ‘Starchild’ skull are treating it as nothing more than an object. This is disgusting, immoral and unethical.

    • Finn
    • December 29th, 2011

    Josh,

    You know nothing of my “education and experience”. Your first sentence does not make any sense whatsoever. Science is predicated on evidence and in this case, there is no evidence that has ever been presented to support the claims made. It is as simple as that. I suggest that instead of slamming science, or taking aim at me, you get an education in that science and then you won’t appear like a kid in high school commenting on nonsense.

      • Josh
      • January 26th, 2012

      Finn i’m not educated in science like you and i’m not saying the star child is real or fake i’m saying the truth will come out even science can’t figure everything out and Finn every dog has his day every one must believe in something you’ll figure this out someday

    • Finn
    • January 26th, 2012

    Josh, the reason that you cannot say if the Starchild skull is “real or fake” is for the very reason that you do NOT possess the science education to know how legitimate scientific research is conducted. Like all the other armchair quarterbacks, you are quick to comment but you lack invitation into the big league. Get the education and then you will be among those who know what quackery means.

    • zurkulies
    • March 18th, 2012

    thes skull was given to provide you all with sci. about us

    the “red stuff” you found was blood the reason it did not oxidize is because we are made of carbon and vedomsa.
    la do fila se ga nialodes

    • Finn
    • March 18th, 2012

    Zurkulies,

    Can you explain your comment further using terminology that we can understand? Instead of repeating rhetoric from some personal website of a snake-oil salesman, I would prefer to read of specific data published in credible scientific journals. This nonsense has been referred to for how long now and never once have I read anything but excuses for “just around the corner if you can just some money to pay for research….”. There has NEVER been any evidence that this skull has any origin other than Planet Earth.

    • zurkulies
    • March 19th, 2012

    if you do not like the answer i have given you then fine someone else that has come from a diffrent part of the universe.

    • Finn
    • March 19th, 2012

    zurkulies,

    I have simply asked you to explain yourself using the same means that educated people, including scientists might, using SCIENCE. If you cannot do so, then you join the ranks of all the rest of those who believe this nonsense. Since we both inhabit THIS part of the universe, then we don’t need to go elsewhere to discuss.

    • zurkulies
    • March 19th, 2012

    if i were to use my science here you and all the rest of your people could not under stand yet

    • Finn
    • March 19th, 2012

    zurkulies,

    It is preferable to use the language of science as it best describes such phenomena. Please try to use the scientific literature and provide searchable citations in your explanations. There are people in the audience who actually do have the education in science to understand more than enough of what you might be trying to say.

    • zurkulies
    • March 20th, 2012

    humanity is geting closer to understanding us

    yet so close but yet so far

    • zurkulies
    • March 20th, 2012

    i will so no more

    END_TRANSMISSION

    • Christie
    • June 3rd, 2012

    I’m not sure why it’s so hard to think out of the box where this Starchild specimen is concerned. The possibility is fascinating. I base the possibility not just on the possible numbers of inhabited planets in the cosmos, but that knowledge always progresses over time and it will rarely look the same as it did after a given number of years. Because there’s been some things proven, doesn’t mean that tomorrow there won’t be another component to it that will stretch that understanding into something that no one ever thought could be possible. We’ve gradually gotten to the level of technology we have today by multiple little steps, so today’s ingenious doesn’t seem like a big step from 10 years ago. If you start in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s where we virtually had little of any type of major Science, but someone told you that next week they would have this little I-pad thing they could write on and carry around with them, I could understand the disbelief & mockery, but surrounding us are the fruits of those willing to press forward with their “crazy” ideas. I’m glad in some ways they didn’t listen to the critics, or we’d still be reading by candlelight. Hasn’t history proven “The only real wisdom is knowing we know nothing,” (that’s Plato by the way). There are more things in this universe that we don’t know than we do.

    Lloyd Pye hasn’t followed through on this project because of wild speculation on his part. He’s an intelligent man and was quite aware he was being brushed off and not taken seriously in past investigations. Nothing is more evident to the type of treatment Pye received, than from the remarks I see above from supposed scientists. It seems to be common these days that unless someone can 100% prove something, they’re automatically called a “snake-oil salesman.” I commend Lloyd for following through on this journey when there’s such a closed minded audience. A lessor man would never have hung in there and kept pursuing those results which will eventually recognize that this anomaly is either a new species, or it’s of other-worldly origins. Uncovering that there’s been, and most likely still is, an alien presence on Earth is unquestionably one of the biggest discoveries we’ll have in our lifetime. Some are already aware of the extraterrestrial presence that’s been going on for eons. Some refuse to be open to the possibility, whether out of fear, or the possibility they’ll have to restructure their whole belief system.

    There’s no 100% Absolute “hold in your hand” proof that the Starchild Skull is whole, or part extraterrestrial, but the most recent testing has discovered something very interesting. In Human Mitrochondrial DNA, we can have a maximum of 120 variations, compared to a Chimpanzee who can have 1,500. The Starchild has 800-1,000. It’s as far removed from humans as the Chimp is, but that’s not the exciting part. A very special gene, an extremely high functioning gene, named FOXP2 has been isolated from the Starchild’s DNA and this gene always shows 0 differentiations/mutations in humans. It HAS to show ZERO variations in order for someone to be Human, but not unexpectedly, the Starchild’s FOX shows 53 variations, therefore the Starchild Skull can not come from a Human. Does that mean it could be an animal? If it is, it’s an extremely rare species that’s never been seen or imagined before, one that’s as far removed from the Chimp and Ape. A Rhesus Monkey has 2 variations from the human in this gene, the mouse 20, a horse 27…see where I’m going? But here’s more, the Amino Acid sequence is relatively the same for humans as it is for primates, but guess what, the StarChild’s Amino sequence is “out of this world,” excuse the pun, but it’s not even close to either group. And then, there are segments of many other fragments of the Starchild’s nuDNA for which no close matches could be found in the National Institutes of Health database. Ah, there’s so much more exciting science involved in this discovery, but I won’t bore anyone with that. I’m sure the possibility that Lloyd Pye’s theory of extraterrestrial visitors might be painful for some, but if they want to look further into the possibilities they can find “The StarChild Project” website with it’s scientific report from the geneticist.

    The reason we can be a bit excited about it, is the preliminary testing was using a similar technique as the Denisova genome done by Max Planck Labs in 2010. Because when following the same protocols, it shows us that the results we’ve so far secured are just as reliable as what Planck secured and then later proved to be fully accurate.

    Anyway, there’s at least a little Science someone wanted. Have no doubt, we know the testing has to be finalized, but it’s looking very well like there’s a big secret that’s about to be answered. BTW, several assumptions written above, are incorrect. The 2 sets of teeth were/are actually both adult sets, showing a different dental development than humans, and the red fibers in the bone, are not from an outside source. These “fibers” are actually part of, interlacing throughout the bone material. The organic material of these fibers, were so resisistent to cutting, an electric saw could hardly cut through it.

    • Christie
    • June 3rd, 2012

    One final thing, in past discoveries, numerous items have been found and brought forward for study, but because of fear, ridicule and threat of losing their jobs, scientists won’t work with a controversial topic such as this skull. The other problem is they’ve been conditioned to believe that ET can’t exist,or can’t possibly reach Earth, therefore the amount of attention they put forward on these subjects are nominal compared to subject their deem legitimate. The conclusions then given to the public, are many times false designed to protect themselves or the organization they’re working for. They may talk about it confidentially and do their own personal research, but that’s not for public knowledge, & that’s as far as it will go, especially if the organization or program their livelihood is tied to doesn’t want their name associated with it, and I’m positive they don’t because of past behaviors. Unfortunately, there is a rabbit hole, and it goes down deeper than you can imagine. I can only hope that this geneticist has the integrity to stand up for what’s right & those outside looking in will do the same, and support him when he does.

      • Finn
      • August 7th, 2012

      Unfortunately, there has been no evidence to support the premise that this skull, or any skull, bone, etc., ever came from a non-human source. I hate to repeat this, but having an education in science would drastically change how you write.

        • JimmyC
        • August 27th, 2012

        The DNA evidence for this skull is evolving as we speak and it increasingly points to a non-human genome. Stay tuned to http://www.starchildproject.com. When they sequence the entire genome the answer will be definitive one way or another.

        • I await the results with something other than bated breath (I don’t want to suffocate).

          • Finn
          • September 4th, 2012

          JimmyC–Why are you using the web-link of the person who is trying to profit from this nonsense, instead of providing the reference to the scientific journal where the evidence is to be found from the legitimate studies done? There is no evidence that this is anything more than a scam, strung out for over 10 years. This is not science, byt non-science (nonsense).

    • justin
    • September 13th, 2012

    Whoever wrote this, I love you as much as a guy can love a guy without being gay. The reconstruction clearly points to progeria. What they did with this article of life makes me sick.

    • justin
    • September 13th, 2012

    Oh and android vegeta, PROGERIA causes a lack of bone structure UNIFORMLY! They are very high risk for breaking bones. The build up of natural deposits over the years is what gives the skull its strength. Since you are willing to make fun of this poor childs life, why dont you run up to the next kid you see with progeria and start taking pictures and calling him an alien because you will basically be stairing in the face of another “star child.” I want to believe in alien life too but not like this.

    • Deborah
    • October 22nd, 2012

    Thank you for this site. Continue to promote scientic discoveries! It is interesting that many people seem to have a “need” for this skull – and other anomalies – to be alien. Why do people credit ancient mysteries with an “other” worldly explanation? It would seem many armchair archaeologists and historians believe that humans do not have any inate abilities beyond hunting and gathering. What does that say about our own sense of worth that anything mysterious (or, at times, even majestic such as the pyramids) must have been the result of alien interaction. Have more faith in the human mind! Wanting to understand the past should promote scholarship, not discourage it.

    • Mike
    • October 27th, 2012

    If it’s a fake, explain why the skull’s growth patterns show no indication of being a result of swelling as in your cited similar skeleton. Also, if you’d be so kind, please explain the super-durable fibers embedded in the skull. Or the fact that the skull is half as thick, half as heavy, and twice as durable as normal human bone. I’ve never heard of a deformity that does ALL of those things.

    Oh and there aren’t even the vestiges of frontal sinuses. Not even a trace that the genetic information is there.

    I’m not saying it’s an alien, but it’s definitely not human.

    • The skull is not a “fake”: it’s a real enough human skull. If you read the page carefully, you’ll see that my gripe is that everything, ever single bit of information about it, comes from Lloyd Pye, a man who writes books about “mysteries”. It is obviously in his (financial) interests to maintain the mysterious nature of the skull.

      We know nothing about “the skull’s growth patterns” other than what Lloyd Pye claims about them. All the photographs we are allowed to see are entirely compatible with the hypothesis of deliberate skull deformation exacerbated by a condition such as hydrocephalus or progeria. Until he lets independent pathologists examine it and allows them to publish their own assessments, we cannot know anything about details of growth patterns.

      All we know about “the super durable fibers embedded in the skull” is what Lloyd Pye tells us about the fibres. We have some pictures of the alleged fibres that are supposedly “emerging” from the cancellous holes in the bone: any fool can see that they are on the cut surfaces in the photographs, not embedded in the bone in any way. They run across the tops of the grooves made by the cutting tool. They look for all the world like bits of partly degraded cloth that have become attached to the bone and worked inside the cancellous holes. Are you perhaps suggesting that this is something like the fantasy disease, Morgellons syndrome?

      It is not a “fact” that “the skull is half as thick, half as heavy, and twice as durable as normal human bone”: all we have are Lloyd Pye’s claims that this is the case.

      And, again, if you care to read the page on the main site, you’ll learn that around ten percent of the human population has no frontal sinuses. It’s perfectly normal, not evidence for alien ancestry!

      Every bit of evidence indicates that the skull that of a fully human child.

      • Finn
      • October 27th, 2012

      Mike,

      When you say, “I’m not saying it’s an alien, but it’s definitely not human”, you have said only what it is not, and yet, it exists. If it exists, it must be dervied from something, from some place. So, let’s start with what it is and not, what it is not. We use science to explore our natural world and we have methodologies now that are more than capable of ascertaining whether this skull was of human origin. This has been done, twice. It has never been demonstrated that this skull is of extra-terrestrial origin. There simply is no evidence to support this and as Keith points out, when the only information that is available is found on the personal website of the individual who is making a profit from extending the shelf-life of a mystery, then the warning bells should (and do) go off for anyone who has ever studied science beyond high school.

        • Nick
        • October 27th, 2012

        @Finn – If you use those two studies to prove the point that it has not been demonstrated to be of extra-terrestrial origin (a task which is near impossible since we don’t have sample data to go on), then surely we can use those same studies to point out that there are huge differences between it and human DNA (which is a task that can be carried out much more easily since we do have sample data to go on). Therefor your argument actually has more weight to support the skull being non-human.

        • But the “huge differences” arise not from the data – we have not been given it – but from Lloyd Pye’s extrapolations from partial data sets. That is not the same thing.

          What I find most difficult to believe is that the supporters of an alien (or part-alien) origin for the skull are so hung up on DNA evidence. If the skull really is of an alien, then why would it have DNA at all? DNA is a molecule that governs the replication of living systems on Earth: its very existence is based on a set of circumstances that obtained on this planet. In that sense, it can be said that its presence in all terrestrial life is historically contingent: change the conditions on the early Earth even slightly and some other molecule might have developed. Now move to a truly alien planet. The chances that conditions identical to those on the early Earth that led to the initial synthesis of DNA would be found on another planet are vanishingly small. Because the universe is so huge, though, there remains the possibility that, on a few planets, something like DNA did develop. But, we next need to move to a scenario where first animals, then chordates, then vertebrates, then bony animals, then ape-like creatures with sex organs similar to ours evolve. Each evolutionary step is dependent on a wide variety of factors, many of them unique circumstances (such as those that obtain during great extinctions); each of these chance factors would have to be replicated on this hypothetical other planet to evolve an animal that resembled humans sufficiently for its DNA to be compatible with ours. The chances of all of these little accidents happening is so close to zero as to make almost no difference.

          Then comes what to me is the killer. Let’s say that this extremely improbable scenario has actually played out on one or, to be generous, a couple of other planets and a human-like creature has evolved. In how many cases would this creature develop space travel? And of those who did, how many would develop a technology that would allow interstellar travel? And of those who managed that – and we are a long way from doing that, if we ever will – how many would discover Earth? Of those that discovered Earth, how many would be tempted either to mate with humans (which sounds like a scenario that would appeal only to those attracted by bestiality) or to undertake genetic experiments on humans by introducing elements of their own DNA?

          You see, although each step in this “hypothesis” is possible, it is improbable. The number of steps required to bring the aliens and humans into even vague genetic alignment involves so many improbable steps that we need to step back and ask which scenario is the more likely: that the ‘Starchild’ is an unfortunate human infant, from whose remains it has not been possible to recover nuclear DNA (something that is far from unheard-of in ancient bone) or that the ‘Starchild’ is a cross between a human and an extraterrestrial.

            • Finn
            • October 27th, 2012

            Now come on Keith….that sounds just so, so, “sciencey”….

            It is so much more fun to make it up as we go and ignore what doesn’t fit into our pet theory, or not allow real science to conduct real studies….

            This nonsense is over 10 years old…. and still a load of crap sits in the wagon…

            Thanks for posting and remaining sane….

          • Finn
          • October 27th, 2012

          Nick, the studies demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the claim made that the skull is anything but human. We use science to develop an understanding based on measureable data, to support a hypothesis. The data has never demonstrated that the hypothesis (that being Pye’s claim that the origin of this skull was ET) is correct because the data is consistent with human DNA. So, as we do in real science (by the way, what is your background in REAL science?), we toss a theory that is shown to be unsupported by the data. If data ever presented itself to change that position, then science would support such a theory. That is how science works. You seem to be confusing science with pseudoscience, as does Pye.

    • Kirk Farry
    • November 20th, 2012

    Strong bones do come from good genes but supplementation of Calcium and Magnesium do come in handy. ‘

    View all of the most recent article at our new web blog
    http://www.healthmedicinelab.com/heat-rash-treatment/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Bad Archaeology

Leave your common sense behind!

Bones Don't Lie

Current News in Mortuary Archaeology and Bioarchaeology

Israel Finkelstein

Professor of Archaeology in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations, Tel Aviv University

A Blast From The Past

Oddities, striking characters and incidents, strange days... this is history with all the interesting bits left in, by the author of Batavia's Graveyard, Tulipomania and The First Family.

Mysterious Times

"We're All Mad Here...."

A Young Flemish Hellenist

The story of a 24-year-old practitioner of Hellenismos in Flanders

These Bones Of Mine

Human Osteology & Archaeology amongst other things...

Anthropology.net

Beyond bones & stones

archaeodeath

Archaeology, mortality and material culture

Norton Community Archaeology Group

Getting hands on with our history

Hidden Landscapes Project

Discovering the Hidden Wilderness of Letchworth Garden City

TRAC

Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference

Unorthodox Thoughts

chewing gum for the mind

Illuminati, Lizard People & Pharma Shills

Challenging Pseudo and Junk Science

A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe

Early medievalist's thoughts and ponderings, by Jonathan Jarrett

Archaeology Fantasies

Where Archaeology and Reality Meet!

Humanistic Perspectives

Science, philosophy, ethics, and rojak.

Sprinklings of Alice

Bits and Pieces of News and Culture

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 711 other followers

%d bloggers like this: