Commentary On The Forensic DNA Test.

  By: Lloyd Pye

Most people now seem to have the impression that the Starchild's DNA test results say it is a male human and that's that. This is totally incorrect, so I must have done a poor job of making the bottom line clear in the recent update posted on the Starchild Project website. First, Dr. David Sweet, the geneticist who did the testing, works with and studies forensic DNA as opposed to diagnostic DNA. Forensic DNA is much easier to access, and we have always lacked proper funding, so we took a shortcut to getting some fundamental answers to what the Starchild's DNA might be about. We simply cut corners. This is not a criticism of Dr. Sweet, nor of the capacity of his lab. He does what he does brilliantly. But, as he himself says in the "Recommendations" section of his final letter to me:

"The following question arises: CAN DNA BE USED TO EVALUATE, ASSESS, OR DIAGNOSE THE EITOLOGY (CAUSE) OF THE UNUSUAL SHAPE AND APPEARANCE OF THE CHILD'S SKULL? Unfortunately, this laboratory deals only with STR loci that have forensic significance--they are non-diagnostic loci. THE SPECIMEN WOULD HAVE TO BE TESTED BY A LABORATORY THAT FOCUSES ON DIAGNOSTIC GENETIC LOCI  IF ONE WAS TO CONSIDER ATTEMPTING TO IDENTIFY A POTENTIAL GENETIC CAUSE FOR THE (SKULL'S) UNUSUAL APPEARANCE."

What Dr. Sweet is saying here is that he cannot, even under the most ideal circumstances, take an actual look at the Starchild's DNA at a level that would determine whether or not it is or is not of possible alien origin. Under the best of circumstances all he could tell us would be that there are strong indications of such an outcome. Had the Starchild's DNA strands been whole and complete, and had Dr. Sweet's lab been able to "read" them at the level for which it is equipped, they would have supplied to us the kind of technical "ammunition" we would need to present to the public to (hopefully!) gather enough money to do the diagnostic testing Dr. Sweet himself recommends.

Please understand this: we paid for and received a look at the Starchild's DNA through a magnifying glass. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass was so clouded by degradation of the DNA that we only got to look at one--and only one--aspect of it at the chromosomal level (the XY "male" read that the Amelogenin gave), which is a far cry from the much finer view through a microscope that diagnostic testing can provide because it is designed let us look at some of the genes that chromosomes are made of. Only by analyzing genes can anything be said for certain about whether the Starchild is or is not entirely human.

Also understand that Dr. Sweet wanted a certain kind of wording in Part I of the update or he would not agree to have it posted. And "his" part includes the first paragraph, the wording of which he was quite specific about so it would clearly express his belief that the Starchild was a male human and nothing else. However, his belief is based on what he considers adequate data, but which others (myself included) might consider far from complete. In fact, I feel his conclusions are much narrower than the data warrants.

The crux of our difference of opinion is that Dr. Sweet got a reading of "male" from one of the chemical probes used to test the Starchild's DNA. For it to read "male," Dr. Sweet says, there must be an "X" chromosome (from the female of the union that created it) and a "Y" chromosome (from the male partner in the union). That much is definitely true. But what he further assumes is that both the female and the male who created the Starchild must also be completely human because only complete and total humans could combine their respective chromosomes to produce a viable offspring. He further assumes that if such an offspring is produced, under any circumstances (i.e., deformed well beyond the parameters of normal recognition), it must ipso facto be fully human as well.

Dr. Sweet's opinion is based on the deeply-held belief that humans beget humans, just as dogs beget dogs or cats beget cats. Check a male dog's DNA and find an XY pattern of chromosomes and you can bet the farm that a male dog and a female dog sired it. Not a female dog and a male cat. This is what Dr. Sweet feels would have to happen for the Starchild to be anything other than a deformed human: its DNA should clearly read that its mother (or father) was a human and its father (or mother) was something other-than-human. This is the only definition of "non-human" that he is willing to accept, and going strictly "by the book," so to speak, that is the only conclusion he can logically draw.

What Dr. Sweet must leave out of his analysis, but which I can include in mine, are the several cases of "impossible" genetic mixings that are "known" to certain researchers around the world (myself included), but which are totally "unacceptable" to mainstream scientific researchers like--with all due respect--Dr. Sweet and countless others like him. The most important of these, and the best documented by far, is the case of Zana, the Alma type hominoid whose astonishing story emerged from Russia in the late 1960's.

For those unfamiliar with the term "hominoid," it is used to denote the four types of upright walking, hair-covered, indigenous primates that share planet Earth with humans. Bigfoot/Sasquatch is the type that dominates in the U.S. and Canada; Yeti/Abominable Snowman is restricted to the five Himalayan ranges; Almas are found in southern Russia and western China; and Agogwes are found in all jungles of the world. A highly detailed account of everything currently known about all four hominoids is available in my book, "Everything You Know Is Wrong--Book One: Human Origins." (see www.lloydpye.com). But if your mind boggles at what you have just read, you will simply have to trust me on this one point: everything you think you know about this subject is wrong. It really is.

One of the classics of fact-based, scientifically defendable hominoid research is the story of Zana, an Alma type captured in 1850 and turned into a slave by Russians living in the isolated mountain village of Tkhina. She lived there until 1890, when she died and was buried in the local cemetery. During the 40 years she lived in Tkhina, she was a work-slave forced to carry water or fetch wood or gather hay at any villager's instruction to do so (she learned to understand their language but could never speak it). But despite her frightful facial appearance and powerful body odor (which all villagers who knew her in their youth commented upon), she was also a sex-slave to the men of the village.

In the early 1960's Russian hominoid researchers were able to contact over 100 people above the age of 80 who had known Zana in their youth. They all told the same general story about her appearance (tall, robustly muscular, covered head-to-toe with long dark hair) and habits (not surprisingly, very primate-like), so the corroborative strength of their testimony was overwhelming then (as it is today), and it was ignored then (as it is today). Nonetheless, all of the aged villagers were adamant about one amazing thing regarding Zana: on eight occasions she was made pregnant by one of the men regularly having sex with her, and each time she gave birth to a healthy hybrid offspring! And what's more, all eight looked very much like humans when they were born!

The first four she inadvertently killed because immediately after their birth she washed them off in a freezing glacial stream that ran through the village. That was obviously the practice of her kind in the wild, so if the offspring had been pure Alma they probably would have survived in good health. But because the offspring were hybrids of Alma and human, with the human apparently dominating, the shock of being dunked in freezing cold water killed them. And because the dead hybrids looked so
much like humans, and because every pair of hands was so valuable in rural villages in Russia at that time, the women of Tkhina seized Zana's last four hybrids as soon as they were born and put them into village families to be raised as regular members of the community, which they were. All four grew to be far more like their fathers than like their mother (though some of her traits were evident in noticeable ways), so they were assimilated as full-fledged humans even though everyone for miles around knew they were not.

Each of Zana's four living offspring (two males and two females) married and produced offspring of their own. Incredibly, some of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren are alive in Russia today! Yet this story remains totally unaccepted and blatantly ignored by mainstream scientists throughout the world because it simply cannot be true. Based on the reality paradigm Dr. David Sweet and his colleagues have been taught to believe, there is no such thing as hominoids, which consigns to limbo the well-researched, fully-documented case of Zana and her hominoid-human hybrid offspring.

With all of the above in mind, imagine Dr. Sweet being given a DNA sample from either of Zana's two male offspring. Further imagine that the DNA sample was buried in soil so acidic that the strands of DNA were chewed into tiny bits, as if they had been "put in a blender." And lastly imagine that those bits were so small that the only thing Dr. Sweet could determine with absolute certainty was that the sample came from a male, thereby insuring that an "X" chromosome and a "Y" chromosome had combined to make the being whose DNA was under consideration. Based on that meager base of knowledge, Dr. Sweet (and indeed, any other mainstream geneticist) could only conclude that the owner of the DNA simply had to be human, totally
human, and nothing but human.

And, as we now know, he would be wrong. Flat wrong. Dead wrong. As wrong as wrong can be. He can't imagine it. He can't understand it. He can't even conceive it. But it is true and he is wrong. The DNA sample that said "male" was not entirely human, even though the only way for it to read "male" was for it to have carried a presumably human pair of XY chromosomes. Now, with that knowledge, please replace the term "hominoid-human hybrid," which is what Zana's two sons unquestionably were, with "alien-human hybrid," which is what I and the other members of the Starchild Project believe the Starchild most likely represents. If you can join me in making that small leap into scientific Fantasyland, you will understand why Dr. Sweet's opinion--although extremely well-qualified in mainstream terms--is not necessarily "gospel" in this highly unusual case.

In any event, the truth is going to be known--someday--and I remain convinced that more sophisticated DNA testing (the diagnostic testing Dr. Sweet himself recommends in the update) will indeed prove once and for all that the Starchild is not entirely human. In fact, I believe the Starchild might ultimately play a leading role--if not the leading role--in shepherding all of humanity into the cosmic destiny awaiting us in the 21st century.