STARCHILD
UPDATE
OCTOBER 12, 2002
When the last Starchild update was posted in early July, I agreed to renew our funding campaign of three years ago to try to raise $30,000 needed for diagnostic DNA testing, and for filming of the process so its veracity would be difficult to doubt. Our hope was that by being presented as part of a new "special" on TV's The Learning Channel, we'd draw attention to our cause and get the kind of help the Starchild needs and deserves.
We did obtain a certain degree of help, but not nearly enough to think about getting the testing done…at least, no time soon. However, we did make some real and interesting headway in this long swim upstream against heavy currents, the details of which I'll share with you below. That headway has left us with several irons still in the fire (these, too, will be detailed below), so the funding campaign is being continued until the end of this year (December 31st). I'll take stock again at that point, as I'm doing right now, and let everyone know where things stand at that time. I think it's the best way to proceed.
The first thing to discuss is money. Since this funding campaign was opened we have collected right at $5,500. Three people gave $1,000 each, two people gave $500 each, and the rest is made up of smaller contributions ranging from $250 to $5. (Yes, a few insisted on sending something, to be able to say they were part of it if it turns out to be what we think it probably is. I can't fault them for that and appreciate their feelings.)
Of that $5,500 approximately $1500 remains. I spent roughly $4,000 in several efforts to bring the Starchild to a wider national audience. First, I was invited to be on a local TV show in San Francisco, but at the last minute they refused to let me go on. When they invited me, they didn't understand exactly what it was. When I got there, they did.
I also went to Atlanta to be on a major radio talk show, which went well and was sent out to a large audience (albeit radio). I also tried to meet with individuals at CNN's national HQ and Ted Turner's organization. At both places people were considering examining the skull, but in the end neither one did. I was extremely disappointed in both cases.
Finally, I did manage to get it on the air at a TV station in Jackson, Mississippi, of all places (a surprisingly open-minded CBS affiliate there), and the result is an excellent piece of streaming video that is now on the website. If anyone hasn't seen it yet, by all means check it out. About 20 minutes of explaining the skull and what is so special and unusual about it. If you can't "get" it from that video, I don't know what else will do it for you. Anyone who sees it should be at least intrigued, if not entirely convinced.
Regarding the video: If anyone reading this is a personal friend of any executive at any level of any media organization in the world (TV and large newspapers are best), please ask them to take a look at the streaming video. Somewhere in the world is a mainstream media executive who still has spine and courage. I found Rick Garner in Mississippi, so while people like him are obviously a rare and endangered species, they do exist. So if any of you know where one might be found, by all means contact them and ask them to take a look at the streaming video. Who knows? They might decide to act on it.
I'm being acerbic here for good reason. I've sent three separate rounds of notices about the Starchild skull to every one of the major news outlets in the United States. I've sent them to ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX. I've sent them to CNN and FOX News. I've sent them to PBS. I've sent them to Larry King, Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, Connie Chung. I've also sent those notices to every major metropolitan newspaper in the country.
The point to make is this: Although those are all "news" organizations that will spend inordinate amounts of time and money analyzing and discussing stains on dresses, for some strange reason they won't bother to investigate a bone skull that could very well prove to be from a being that is not entirely human. Of course, maybe in the end it will prove to be merely a unique human deformity. That will remain a possibility-though now a remote one-to the end of testing. But I've pointed out to them again and again that by any reasonable definition of the word news, the Starchild skull easily qualifies.
The only one of those major media to even nibble on the bait was the Los Angeles Times, of all places, because I know someone who works there and he did his best to get them to take it on as a major investigative piece. He doesn't know how or why it didn't make the cut, but the bottom line is that in the end they rejected doing a story on it. This was a big disappointment, needless to say, but at least they know about it. They know it's for real. But no other organization nibbled because I don't know anyone anywhere else. As I said above, if any of you do, please contact your friend and see if they'll get anything going.
Another serious iron in the fire is that an organization in Rome, Italy, is getting a major display in a major museum in Rome outlining the history of UFO's. They've requested the Starchild skull be displayed for at least a few weeks. I'm not willing to send the skull by itself (too easy to be "souvenired" despite insurance), but I am willing to go and stay with it to give interviews and answer questions about it. Media in Europe are much less under the sway of government pressure in regard to UFO's than in the States, so if we go to Rome with it we can expect serious coverage in a wide range of mainstream media.
The problem, as always, is money. There is no way the organizers of the Rome event can pay for an extended stay by me and the skull for their exhibition. Also, to be fair, I would spend part of that time traveling up to Leipzig, Germany, to see if I could talk to those in charge of the #1 lab in the world for extracting ancient DNA. Our hope all along has been that they would participate in this project because they provide so much credibility for the scientific community. If Svante Paabo does the testing, everyone would respect the result.
This trip alone would probably cost no less than $5,000, so I informed the organizers I don't see how it could be done during the remainder of this year. We haven't received a contribution in weeks, so at this point the wind is simply not blowing us to Rome. If the funding situation changes, I'll let them know and I'll post another update to that effect.
The last iron in the fire is that a small group in Australia have become determined to try to make something happen for the Starchild over there, and they've dangled it under the nose of one of the top cranio-facial surgeons in the world, who happens to hail from their home town. I won't mention names for fear of upsetting early and sensitive negotiations, but to get that world-renowned surgeon interested in the Starchild would, in its own way, be the equivalent of enticing Svante Paabo to agree to do its DNA extraction and testing.
It is also possible-but I can make no guarantee-that the Starchild will be mentioned or shown in some way during one of November's episodes of the new version of the old "In Search Of…." TV series. I was filmed for it twice, but there has been a lot of upheaval getting the show to air eight episodes, so I can only say that at one time it was supposed to be a part of an episode. Whether it made the final cut or not remains to be seen.
Okay, that's where things stand for now. It doesn't mean we're dead in the water, but we're not gaining much traction, either. We're doing what we always do, poking around trying to cut a hole in the fence of doubt and hostility that keeps us from getting the fair hearing we should have been granted over three years ago. I'm not one to easily jump on the "conspiracy" bandwagon, but I have to admit it's beginning to look like something along those lines might be in place against the Starchild.
How else to explain the total disregard by even 24-hour-a-day TV news services that are usually dying for subjects to cover just to fill airtime? Or major metropolitan newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun Times, the L.A. Times, etc., that consistently choke their readers with masses of trite and/or useless information? Is there no room in any of them for an objective analysis of the Starchild? Not so far….
Again, I hate to use the word "conspiracy," and I hope I'm wrong about this, but we've been at it for a long time now with no takers. Also, there is no way they can protest that nobody told them about it. I've sent too much information to too many people. That's why I need your help if you can give it. If you know any of them…maybe you went to high school or college with one of them…please try to use whatever influence you might have to get them to take a look and hopefully gather the nerve to try to override whatever "orders" might be in place against dealing with the Starchild openly and objectively.
Contribute if you can, and try to keep the faith. Sooner or later, we'll find the way.
Lloyd Pye
The Starchild Fund
6805 Veterans Blvd. # L-3
Metairie, LA 70003
LAST UPDATE:
July 7, 2002
NOTE: I have just finished watching
“Mystery of the Skulls.” It leaves several misperceptions.
The Starchild is not like the Peruvian skulls. It was not
found in Peru, it was found in Mexico. The Peruvian skulls all have normal
eye sockets; the Starchild does not. The Peruvian skulls have normal bone
density or abnormally high bone density; the Starchild has 40% the density
of normal human bone. The larger Peruvian skulls, the “coneheads,” average
twice as much brain capacity as normal humans; the Starchild is the size of
a small human or a normal 12-year-old, yet it has significantly more brain
capacity than normal in a significantly smaller area of skull. Last but not
least, Dr. David Sweet cannot legitimately assert that finding an X and Y
chromosome in the Starchild makes it definitively human. For an explanation,
see below: “What About The Forensic DNA Testing?”
These are the final sentences
of the conclusion of Dr. Sweet's final written report to me (the full text
of which is available elsewhere on this website):
"This means there is a certain detectable amount of human DNA in the
Starchild. It does not guarantee there is only human DNA present, nor does
it indicate there is anything other than human DNA present. In other words,
human-specific probes are indicative but cannot be definitive. They can imply
or suggest innate humanity, but they cannot prove it beyond doubt"
This is precisely the OPPOSITE of what he said at the conclusion of the Starchild
segment on "Mystery of the Skulls."
Lloyd Pye—midnight, July 9, 2002
CONTENTS
(15 pages, 24 sections, 9000 words)
Click Below On What Interests You
Why An Update
Now?
The Starchild’s 15 Minutes of Fame?
Who Passed The Buck(s)?
Why Don’t People
Contribute?
Does Anyone Really Want An Answer?
Did We Try Hard Enough?
What Was Achieved
By Our Effort?
Where Did Things Go Wrong?
What If It Really IS An Alien Skull?
Is That All We Did Wrong?
What’s Different
About This Funding Campaign?
Why Do We Need At Least $30,000 To Begin?
DNA, Schmee-N-A…Why
Is It So Important?
Can The Starchild’s mtDNA Be Recovered?
What About The Forensic DNA Testing?
What Can A Diagnostic DNA Test Provide?
*** What Needs To Be Done NOW?***
What Makes The
Starchild So Special?
What About Its Flattened Rear?
What About Its Cranial Bulges?
What About Its Bone Density?
What About Its Other Physical Features?
Why Won’t Scientists Take It Seriously?
The last one
was 18 months ago. The reason for the long delay was because,
regretfully, during that time nothing significant occurred regarding the Starchild
Project. However, on July 9, 2002, the Starchild stepped onto the U.S./Canadian
stage, and in due course it will be seen on the world stage, via a new television
documentary. If you’re at this website you have probably seen the hour-long
“Mystery of the Skulls,” featuring the Starchild, along with the equally bizarre
“conehead” skulls found at Nazca, Peru.
Because of that invaluable media exposure, we have mounted our second all-out
funding campaign to try to take advantage of this great opportunity. We intend
to raise a threshold amount of money to allow us to finally be able to pay
for the ultimate DNA test (diagnostic) on the Starchild skull
to determine its genetic pedigree. Below, I explain how much we need to raise,
why we need to raise it, and how we intend to raise it. If the story of the
Starchild is about anything, it’s about money, and that issue is examined
in detail.
In another section I explain what happened to the money originally raised,
and I try to explain why we haven’t yet been able to raise what we need. It’s
not a heartening story to hear or to write about, and I undertake this financing
campaign with much more trepidation than I undertook the first one. However,
for better or worse, the Starchild has become an integral part of my life…I’m
now “the Starchild guy”…so I’m prepared to make another all-out
effort to try to resolve its true genetic heritage.
Lastly, there is a synopsis of the many pros and cons regarding the Starchild’s
potential as the artifact with the best-ever chance to conclusively prove
that mankind is not alone in the universe. I’ll go over each of its many salient
features, allowing readers to decide for themselves if they think such an
astonishing array of deviation from norms could possibly have been collected
into one being who miraculously managed to live. I think the evidence shows
beyond doubt that the Starchild looked the way it did because its genes told
it to grow that way, and if that’s correct, then it cannot be entirely human.
The Starchild’s 15 Minutes of Fame?
On the evening
of July 9, 2002, The Learning Channel broadcast the premier of a new hour-long
documentary called “Mystery of the Skulls.” The show was produced by Beyond
Productions from Australia, one of the largest and best documentary producers
in the world. They had hoped the Starchild alone could have been the focus
of the entire hour, but the bosses at Disney/Discovery/Learning Channel said
no, they wanted a film that covered other anomalous skulls in the world, not
just the Starchild. And so it is.
They came to New Orleans in October of last year (2001) to film myself and
Dr. John Verano, an anthropologist from a local university
(Tulane) who is a specialist in South American mummies and other artifacts,
and who is a vocal critic of the Starchild’s potential for alien pedigree.
The Beyond staff then flew to Vancouver, BC, to film Dr. Ted Robinson,
a respected cranio-facial plastic surgeon who supports the position that the
Starchild is in all probability not a human deformation of any kind; and Dr.
David Sweet, a geneticist who performed the forensic DNA test that
was done on the Starchild.
Working together, we gave the Starchild Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame.
Literally…so far….
Who Passed The Buck(s)?
When I received
the Starchild skull from its owners in March of 1999, I felt it might require
three or four months to rally the alternative knowledge community to get behind
it financially for a full scientific work-up. Here we are, midway between
three and four years later, and we still languish without the funding to push
ahead with the ultimate in DNA testing (diagnostic) that’s required to obtain
a definitive answer about its origins.
From March of 1999 through the early part of 2000 we did all we could think
of to place the Starchild message into the minds and hearts of people within
the alternative knowledge community. I asked for help from the UFO wing, the
metaphysical wing, the spiritual wing, the paranormal wing…in short, I tried
anyone and everyone who would listen to me. I also tried to contact celebrities
with an apparent or avowed interest in the paranormal: Steven Spielberg,
Chris Carter (creator of “The X-Files”), Dan Ackroyd, Wesley Snipes,
and several others of that ilk. Not a dime from any of them.
I don’t mean to criticize those good people. I think our own community is
much more to blame for not supporting us than people who didn’t really know
us well. I went on the Art Bell Show four times to talk about the Starchild
and explain the situation we faced with it, asking for support to pay for
the testing that needed to be done. I did get a degree of support and we did
carry out a number of tests with those funds, but there was never enough at
one time to do the heavy lifting that always needed to be done. We had one
donation over $1000 and another over $500. That’s it. Everything else was
smaller. We appreciated it all, of course, but in the end it never added up
to what we needed.
Why Don’t People Contribute?
In general,
the field of alternative knowledge operates on a shoestring. We have no established
sources of funding, no place we can go when we have projects eminently worthy
of support. Contrast that with mainstream science, which has money to burn
and every year embarrasses itself with the stupidity of some of its fully
funded projects. This is because the foundations that award grants are established
as tax free mechanisms for disbursing money. In order to maintain that status,
they must give away a certain amount each year or lose their exemption. Because
there are so many of them, many thousands, there are never enough “legitimate”
projects to go around. Thus, an alarming number of funded projects become
the butt of jokes by Jay Leno, David Letterman, and before
them, Johnny Carson, who always took special delight in exposing
such absurdities.
Because “the mainstream” has a stranglehold on funding sources, those of us
in the alternative knowledge community must, of necessity, become beggars
when we need large infusions of money to finance our projects. This is especially
galling because what it does is pit researchers against each other. We all
have to share the same financial pie (yes, I know this is a terrible pun but
I can’t think of a better example), so anyone who takes a larger-than-normal
slice from the pie is automatically shortchanging others who must also feed
off it. Thus, it becomes quite difficult to obtain strong support from those
in the field with high profiles because when they advocate for someone else’s
project, it is often at the expense of diminishing the amount they can hope
to gain for their own.
This leaves people at the grass roots of our field in a constant quandary
as they’re bombarded with requests for money from nearly every personality
(including mega-rich Art Bell, who must hawk products to support his show).
So everyone who is a “fan” of alternative knowledge must pay for their interest
by enduring a continual barrage of requests for money from virtually everyone
they listen to.
It’s a business, like all others, and the object is to acquire money. This
makes it quite difficult, if not impossible, to separate the wheat from the
chaff, so in the end most people tend to just “shut down” and not contribute
to anything. And for those that do contribute, their money is spread over
a wide range of people and causes, which tends to dilute the impact of any
particular one, whether it’s Richard Hoagland’s Mars Mission,
or Dr. Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project, or, yes,
Lloyd Pye’s Starchild Project.
This is problem #1. Problem #2 is similar, but a bit more sinister.
Does Anyone Really Want An Answer?
As mentioned
above, if the Starchild is genuinely and legitimately the very best opportunity
the world has ever seen to prove—beyond doubt—that intelligent alien life
exists, why has it languished for over three years? Why have “personalities”
in the field of alternative knowledge not rallied to its cause? Why have “celebrities”
ignored it? If it really is what it is alleged to be, why the deafening silence
around it? What’s wrong?
After being the point man in this endeavor for three-plus years, I have come
to a conclusion in that regard which might be incorrect, but I think is worth
consideration. I’m of the strong opinion now that if people in a position
to do anything serious about it really wanted it to happen, it would have
happened not long after it appeared. The conclusion I have drawn is that,
at bottom, the people who in any way feed off existing doubts about alien
reality do not, in fact, want the question definitively answered. Not on their
watch.
Put yourself in their shoes. I have, and what I see is this: If I’m someone
who is making my name as an advocate for the radical idea that aliens—in whatever
form—do actually exist, then I am not going to be anxious to have that issue
definitively resolved, even if the resolution is in my favor! What good would
that do for me? People would get up the next day, go to work, continue with
their lives, and nothing would change for them except they would now have
the knowledge that aliens exist. But I would be out of a job.
With that in mind, it becomes easier to see why those who earn a fantastic
living (such as Spielberg and Chris Carter) playing the “alien” card wouldn’t
be in any rush to help find a resolution to the issue. Nor would it benefit
Richard Hoagland or Dr. Steven Greer or Art Bell, among many other prominent
names in alternative knowledge circles. For all such people, the preference
would be to have it resolved, but not while they are attached to the tit,
so to speak. Let it happen on someone else’s watch.
Did We Try Hard Enough?
Starting in
March of 1999, when I first received the Starchild skull from its owners,
until the end of 2000, I busted my butt trying to get the word out about it
to a complete range of alternative knowledge communities, and to the world
at large. I drove over 70,000 miles to speak to dozens of groups, large and
small. I once calculated that I personally presented the Starchild to approximately
5,000 people, allowing most of them to hold it in their hands in the hope
they’d develop some kind of visceral connection to it. I felt that connection
very strongly and hoped others would, too, but clearly most didn’t.
As I also mentioned, I was on the Art Bell Show four times to discuss it,
twice with Art and twice with Hilly Rose. There is much argument
about the true size of Art Bell’s audience, but I think it’s safe to assume
it’s in the low millions. In addition, I was on about 100 other radio shows
of lesser stature—Jeff Rense’s chief among those—but which
collectively and over time must have reached several more million.
In addition, I wrote articles and essays regarding the Starchild for a half-dozen
magazines around the world, including the U.S., Canada, Japan, Italy,
Australia, and England. At the same time, others were writing articles
about me and my efforts to get the Starchild noticed and to raise the money
to have its DNA tested. The collective readership of those magazines would,
once again, probably be in the low millions.
A selection of articles, by me and about me, is available on my personal website
(www.lloydpye.com). My suggested reading order for those articles would be:
1) “A Starchild Debate”
2) “The Starchild Skull”
3) “The Starchild Saga”
4) “Starchild or Star Being?”
5) “In Search Of The Starchild”
6) “Raising The Starchild”
I wrote the first four, and the last two were written by others about me.
They won’t add much to what’s discussed in this comprehensive update, but
they give more detail about the Starchild itself and about how the first legs
of this unusual journey were undertaken.
The point to be made is that I don’t know what else I could have or should
have done, nor do I know what I was doing wrong when I was doing what I did.
However, results speak for themselves, and my results were anemic to say the
least.
What Was Achieved By Our Effort?
In the 20 months
I pushed the Starchild flat-out, we received slightly less than $20,000 or
about $1000/month. Of all money donated to the Starchild Project, none of
it went into anybody’s pocket, including mine, except for necessary travel
and promotional expenses. The vast majority was spent on paying for the things
that needed to be done to establish what could be established about it, short
of full-blown diagnostic DNA testing.
We had an exact copy of it produced by complex stereolithograpy.
We had a bone scan done. We had a bone density test
done. We had a CAT scan done. We had three sets of forensic
drawings done. We had a forensic DNA test done.
We had a Carbon-14 dating test done. We had dental
casts made. We had a maxilla and a mandible made
to complete its lower face. We had an excellent website created and
maintained. $20,000 doesn’t go far when dealing with such expenses,
but we stretched it as far as we could and we’re proud of what we managed
to accomplish. In truth, though, we only got half a loaf.
Where Did Things Go Wrong?
When the Starchild’s
owners and I discussed how we felt the campaign in its behalf should be waged,
we agreed upon certain fundamental guidelines. For their part, the owners
were emotionally attached to it and didn’t want to see anything done to it
or with it that would smack of crass commercial exploitation. I wholeheartedly
agreed with them in that regard. My sticking point was that we had to be scrupulous
in everything we did concerning money because money was the most obvious issue
that could trip us up.
As we began the Starchild quest, we wanted to be certain we were constantly
in a position of strength relative to our critics. We assumed from the first
that we would have hostile critics, but we knew for sure that if we should—by
whatever miracle—obtain a positive result from the diagnostic DNA test, critics
would come out of the woodwork and we’d find ourselves under intense scrutiny.
Everything we did would be subject to analysis, and if anything was questionable,
much less inappropriate, we’d be hammered for it and our critics would use
any small mistake or mistakes to nullify everything else we did. This is a
common tactic used by those in positions of power—emphasize any small mistakes
challengers might make to cast doubt on the whole of their efforts.
Another problem we confronted was the certain knowledge that if we used the
Starchild to make money in any way—particularly if we arranged our affairs
so that we, or any group of “investors” we might align ourselves with, were
in a position to make a financial killing if the Starchild’s test results
were positive—then critics would merely have to announce, “No one should believe
anything those people say because they are simply trying to line their pockets!
Ignore every word!” Regardless of the Starchild’s actual test results, that
would be an extremely difficult charge to overcome.
Knowing all that, we came up with two basic rules to follow: (1) We wouldn’t
allow the Starchild’s image to be commercialized in any way. No T-shirts,
no bumper stickers, no decals, no nothing. I admit that during certain bleak
days we did consider wavering on this one, but I’m equally proud that we never
succumbed to the temptation to try to gain money that way. It would have put
a permanent stain on the whole cause.
Our second rule (2) was that we wouldn’t allow the Starchild to be “bought”
by any one person, especially not anyone who might try to capitalize on a
successful DNA test result. Let’s face it, if the Starchild tested positive,
it would at that moment become the single most valuable object in the world.
There isn’t any price that could be paid to equal its value. It would be an
object of veneration…beyond price…beyond value.
What If It Really IS An Alien Skull?
That question
haunted us from Day One. In the end, we decided that if it was, in fact, an
alien artifact, we didn’t want it to end up in a trophy case in Michael
Jackson’s bedroom. Or on Donald Trump’s mantel.
Or in Bill Gates’ billiards room. Or wherever. From Day One
we felt that if it did produce a positive DNA result, it should belong to
the world, to all of humankind, because of what its reality would mean to
all of us, now and forever into the future. It would be perhaps the pivotal
discovery in all of history, so no matter what, it couldn’t be turned into
any kind of sideshow or carnival freak.
We decided that if it proved to be of alien origin in some way, it should
end up with a prestigious museum somewhere in the world. Why? Because museums
know how to protect and handle the world’s most valuable historical artifacts.
If they can manage to travel with and display King Tut’s gold
funerary mask, they could manage the Starchild skull. Also, putting it in
a world-class museum would allow ordinary people to have the chance to see
it with their own eyes…to know it’s real and feel a connection to whatever
alien race it might represent. Providing that gift to the world would be worth
far more in karmic goodwill than whatever might be paid for it by someone
with obscene wealth.
Is That All We Did Wrong?
Nope. I started
off with two good rules to work with, but then I overlayed that with thorough
ignorance of the process of asking people for money. Instead of setting specific
goals and processes to attain those goals, I just hit the road and told people
I needed “a lot of money” and “would you please give me some?” I’m ashamed
to admit how asinine I was, but that’s almost inevitable when well-meant enthusiasm
combines with a woeful lack of experience. But I soon began to improve…just
a little.
Before long it became clear that the whole project was going to cost in the
range of $50,000 to $100,000, which was vastly more than I had anticipated
in the beginning. My shock at the potential upside caused me to begin quoting
the lower figure… “We need in the range of at least $50,000…maybe more.” At
the same time I was coming up with those intimidating numbers, I kept asking
people to contribute “anything…we’ll appreciate anything…we need it all.”
Golden rule soon discovered: He who asks for anything will ultimately gain
nothing. And that’s not too far from what happened.
Instead of asking for money in sizeable chunks, which had become essential,
I kept asking for “anything you can spare” because I was so uncomfortable
pleading for money, especially such a large amount. Even though I knew we
needed it, I could never make myself feel comfortable asking for it, which
came through loud and clear whenever any presentation I made came to the crunch
point of asking for money. I don’t believe I ever did even a satisfactory
job at that. I was so ineffective, in fact, that Bob Brown (of Bob and Teri
Brown fame; producers of each year’s UFO Congress) came to
me at the 2000 Congress in Mesquite, Nevada, and said, “Lloyd, I love you,
but you suck at asking for money. Let me do it for you.” So when that part
of my presentation came, I turned it over to Bob and he coaxed $1200 from
an audience of 300. It was our best single gain.
(If only I could have had Bob along at every stop and during every interview!)
What’s Different About This Funding Campaign?
We know what
we need to do and how we need to do it.
First, it will not be open-ended. It will last until
the end of 2002. If we haven’t collected what we need by then, we’ll
call a halt and donations will be returned. I’ve cleared the last three months
of 2002 to devote full attention to the Starchild, but if the financial support
we need has not manifested, I have no choice but to return to my writing projects,
as I’ve been doing for the past 18 months.
Second, we’re asking for specific amounts, not “anything
you can spare.” We want $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, or (should we be so
lucky!) $5000 contributions. We’ll be happy to have any of the three lesser
amounts, but what we really need are the larger amounts. To that end, we will
prorate any donation of $500 or above and apply it to a refund of whatever
money might be left over if the testing results prove negative.
Understand: We agree to do the testing and pay for it. Results are negative.
The Starchild is absolutely and without question a deformed human. We end
our work with money in the Starchild account. That money will be prorated
according to the amounts contributed, and the remainder will be returned in
those same percentages. Whatever is collected will not be spent just because
it’s there. That’s as fair as we can be about it. We’re not in this to make
money, we’re in it to get an answer—positive or negative.
Third, we’re setting specific goals. We need at least
$30,000 to begin work on the first of October. If $30,000 has not
been donated, we will return in full every donation of $250 or more. Donations
of $100 or $50 will not be returned because: (1) Some money must be spent
determining which DNA lab to contract with for the testing; and (2) losing
$50 or $100 won’t break anyone’s bank account.
Fourth, in the event of a successful test and everything goes our way, we’re
offering a “money back” guarantee. Understand, this is not
an investment opportunity. That would defeat our goal of making it a nonprofit
“people’s project.” If the Starchild’s testing proves to be positive for alien
involvement at any level, everyone who contributed $250 or more will get every
cent of it back. That payback money will come from a wide variety of income—interview
fees and such—that will no doubt eventuate in due course.
Fifth, in the event of a successful test we will use additional interview
income to commission a high-quality commemorative plaque
to be given to every individual who contributes at least $500 to the new Starchild
Project funding campaign. (It will also be given to the few who gave over
$500 during the first campaign.) This plaque will be an ideal keepsake for
those who put their money where their mouths are in the search for alien reality,
and we assume their rarity would make them an instant family heirloom.
Why Do We Need At Least $30,000 To Begin?
First, we need
the ultimate test of reality regarding the Starchild’s genetic origin, which
is a diagnostic DNA test. That’s explained in detail below. In addition, we
have a wish list of secondary things we haven’t been able to do yet, chief
of which would be creating a forensic model of the Starchild. That requires
hiring an expert in forensic reconstruction to build a head and face over
and around a streolithographic copy of the Starchild’s skull. We’ve all seen
such reconstructions of missing people and ancient skulls. The most famous
recent example looks like Capt. Picard of “Star Trek” fame,
created to represent the Kennewick Man. We need one of those
for the Starchild.
Forensic models cost in the range of $3,000. Unpainted stereolithographic
copies cost around $1000. The wish list goes on. But the Big Kahuna, the diagnostic
DNA test, is the golden ring we absolutely must snag this time around. It’s
the only test that matters now, or has ever mattered, really, because only
it can tell us anything definitive about the Starchild. But the price tag
is steep. It starts at $20,000 and can easily rise from there.
Another thing on our wish list is a fully filmed record of
the testing process. That seems essential because if we do obtain a positive
result, one of the first things critics will shout is, “They must have done
something wrong or stupid or both!” If we have a filmed record of every single
step taken in the testing process, it will be much harder for critics to dismiss
positive results so glibly. They will try, of course, which is why we need
a filmed record. That will surely add another few thousand in cost to the
total tab.
The final cost is physical oversight. Someone from our team
has to be there, on site and available, to make sure everything is done at
the lab as it is supposed to be. Also, to oversee the filming and make sure
the record is complete and intact. (Getting a positive result will only be
a small part of this task: the hardest part will be convincing critics that
we did it legitimately, then convincing the media and public of the same thing.)
I’m the frontrunner for the oversight job, which I’m told will last six to
eight weeks. Wherever the testing takes place, six weeks of lodging there
will add up to a substantial amount.
Taken altogether, these costs will probably far exceed the initial $30,000
we’re seeking to begin the process. However, I’m willing to kick it off with
$30,000 in hand because once the project is underway, others can be counted
on to rally to it and further funding will be acquired. An old but still true
adage is that it’s a lot easier to coax people onto a rolling bandwagon than
to nudge them onto one that’s standing still.
DNA, Schmee-N-A…Why Is It So Important?
There are two
basic kinds of DNA testing: forensic and diagnostic (often called
nuclear). Forensic is what we’ve already had done, diagnostic is
what we need to have done. Most people are familiar with the DNA tests regularly
given to determine guilt or innocence in criminal cases, or to establish definitive
parentage where doubt exists. Such cases cost from a few hundred to several
hundred dollars, depending on complexity, so to hear that the Starchild’s
diagnostic testing will require over $20,000 seems improbable. But the reality
of DNA testing makes the differences quite clear and understandable.
Typical DNA tests are run on alive, or reasonably recently alive, tissue and
cells. The dividing line between “recent” and “ancient” is now put at approximately
50 years. Any body exhumed within 50 years has a good chance of having its
DNA recovered and “read” using standard techniques. Testing on bone and/or
tissue beyond 50 years usually requires utilizing very specialized techniques
and equipment. However, those specialized techniques and equipment are producing
“miracles” every day. The best-known recovery of extremely ancient DNA was
obtaining mitochondrial DNA from bones of a 30,000-year-old Neanderthal. (It
proved that humans aren’t genetically linked to Neanderthals.)
In all of the extremely ancient cases, what is recovered is mitochondrial
DNA, which are tiny organelles floating outside a cell’s nucleus.
Imagine how small are the nuclei of cells, then imagine something vastly smaller.
That’s a cell’s mitochondria, and that’s what geneticists can now recover
and work with. It’s nothing short of a miracle.
Can The Starchild’s mtDNA Be Recovered?
Almost certainly,
because Carbon-14 dating indicates the Starchild is “only” about 900 years
old, plus or minus 50 years. Relative to a 30,000-year-old Neanderthal, the
Starchild is a spring chicken. Nevertheless, recovering its mtDNA will still
require the same complex, precise, extremely care-filled processes used to
recover any ancient DNA. And the cost for such testing rises sharply with
the increasing degree of difficulty.
The problem with recovering the Starchild’s mtDNA is that it won’t necessarily
tell us much about its lineage. The mtDNA passes down only from females. Males
don’t contribute any of their genes to it. So when you examine a being’s mtDNA,
you obtain a great deal of genetic information about it, but only about its
mother’s heritage. Its father is left entirely out of the equation. The only
place Dad’s genetic fingerprints can be found is inside the cell’s nucleus.
Ahhhh…there’s the Starchild’s rub.
If the Starchild is an alien, it could be completely alien or dominantly alien.
It’s unlikely to be completely alien because that implies a “Star
Wars” or “Men In Black” bizzaro-type character.
It’s clearly not that because its skull bones are in fact the skull bones
of humans, though rebuilt and rearranged to conform to a different template.
So it could be “dominantly” alien if most of it is alien but parts of it are
human. If that’s the case, its mtDNA should be recoverable and should read
“not entirely human.”
The most likely scenario (detailed in other parts of this site) seems to be
that the Starchild is a hybrid cross between a human and
a human-like alien. If that’s the case, the odds are quite strong that its
mother would be human and its father would be alien. Why? Because it was found
buried alongside a human female who seems to have buried it before lying down
to die beside it, apparently by her own hand. This indicates “mother” until
proven otherwise, although an extremely devoted caretaker remains a possibility.
If the Starchild’s mother is human, then recovering its mtDNA will reveal
nothing more than her genetic imprint. If only its mtDNA were available to
us, there would be no point in pursuing the matter. Nothing definitive could
be established about the Starchild’s true heritage. The debate about it could
rage forever without being conclusively settled.
What About The Forensic DNA Testing?
Forensic DNA
testing was performed by Dr. David Sweet in his laboratory in Vancouver, B.C.
First, he recovered viable DNA from the Starchild (the main thing we were
trying to determine—could that actually be done?), then he chemically broke
into the cell nuclei to determine what kind of chromosomes were present in
the sample. In the Starchild, Dr. Sweet found both X and Y chromosomes, those
being the sex indicators: XX for females, XY for males. Thus,
the XY pairing he found indicated to him that the Starchild had to be a human
male, because in all of recorded history as he understands it there has never
been a being with an X and Y chromosome that was not entirely human. He couldn’t
accept the possibility that the X chromosome could be provided by a human
female while the Y chromosome might be from an alien male with human genetic
traits.
Despite his personal conviction, in his official written
report he concluded that there was no way he could say definitively
what the Starchild was. (The last part of his conclusion is reprinted at the
top of this update.) However, when we prepared to present his results to the
world, he insisted that we declare his conviction that it was human even though
his technical conclusion was that certainty was impossible.
When Dr. Sweet’s conviction was announced, we couldn’t make
people understand that his conclusion was not definitive.
The general consensus was that the Starchild had been proved human and that
was that—period. Nothing could have been further from the truth because Dr.
Sweet was unable to say anything of value about the genetic makeup of those
X and Y chromosomes he had glimpsed.
Here’s a useful analogy: Assume you’re an explorer somewhere in America. You
see a house, not clearly but you know it’s a house. You assume it has furniture
in it, and you further assume that furniture is American. Why? Because you’re
in America, and the vast majority of furniture in America is American. But
the truth is, until you look inside the house you have no way to know for
sure what kind of furniture might be in it. It could be German or Spanish
or French, or it could even have no furniture at all!
The point to be made is that Dr. Sweet’s forensic DNA test looked at the outside
of the house, at the chromosome, and he recognized it as a Y chromosome. But
until that Y chromosome is broken into its constituent parts, until we look
inside the house, we can’t know for sure if all the components inside it are
human. They may be; that can’t be ruled out. But we won’t know until we do
a diagnostic DNA test—the sooner, the better.
What Can A Diagnostic DNA Test Provide?
In a word, closure.
The main value Dr. Sweet’s forensic test provided was that it determined at
a reasonable cost ($5,000) that recovery of the Starchild DNA was feasible.
Up until then, the feasibility of recovery was our main concern because the
Starchild is so unlike a typical human skull. Every bit of its bone is much
thinner than corresponding bone in a typical human skull. Its density throughout
is only 40% of typical human bone. Thus, by being so thin and porous it might
have desiccated more than usual during its 900 years of burial, and thereby
be degraded more than usual.
Now that we know the Starchild’s DNA is recoverable, it is time to take it
to a laboratory capable of breaking into the chromosomes Dr. Sweet glimpsed,
so their inner components, their genes, can be charted and catalogued. Only
then can they be compared to normal human genes to see if there is total similarity,
or only partial similarity. If the similarity is total, the Starchild is a
deformed human—period. If there is only a partial similarity, then the Starchild
is something other than entirely human. History is made.
The problem, as always, is cost. Diagnostic DNA tests are inexpensive when
done on living, or recently living, tissues. But on ancient DNA, such as the
Starchild’s, they become extraordinarily difficult and expensive. First, a
viable sample of the DNA has to be recovered. Then it has to be replicated
into an amount that can be worked with. During that process, extreme care
must be taken to make sure the sample isn’t contaminated by any “foreign”
or extraneous human genes. That could mean a single flake of skin from one
of the workers in the lab…a single droplet of moisture from a sneeze…anything!
The fantastic degree of cleanliness in laboratories capable of working with
ancient DNA makes the fabled “clean rooms” used in computer chip manufacturing
look like pig wallows. Because of the incredible level of cleanliness and
care such work requires, only a few labs in the world are currently capable
of it. They are expensive to set up and very difficult to maintain at optimum
efficiency, but they are there and they work, which is all that’s important
from the perspective of getting the Starchild’s DNA analyzed.
Contribute to
the new Starchild fund. Simple as that. As stated earlier, we’re looking for
contributions at specific levels: $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000, or
$5000. No more, no less, no different. If you can’t spare $50, you
need your money more than we do. We want it from people who can afford it.
And we don’t want more than $5000 from any one person because we don’t want
anyone trying to buy into “a piece of the action.” There will be no
“action” with the Starchild. It’s not destined to be a money-maker.
Also, keep in mind our money-back guarantee with a successful
result for those who contribute at least $250, and the prorated payback
that will occur with a negative result for those who contribute at least $500.
(For details, see What’s Different About This Funding Campaign?
above). Lastly, keep in mind the beautiful commemorative plaque
that will be provided to contributors above $500 if we get a successful result.
Contributions can be made by check, bank draft, or money order
made out to “The Starchild Project,” “The Starchild Account,” “The
Starchild Fund,” or even just “The Starchild.” Do
NOT make them out to me. If you want to participate in the
refund portion of the campaign, please make certain your personal information
is on something so I can contact you when that time comes. Then DO
mail them to me at:
Lloyd
Pye
6805 Veterans Blvd.
# L-3
Metairie, LA 70003
Those monies
will be posted to a special Starchild Account set up in Bank One
here in New Orleans (Metairie is a suburb of N.O.). If you
prefer, a contribution can be wired directly into the account. The account
number is: 1591729601. The routing number, or ABA, is 065400137.
Again, if you are contributing at the refund or payback level, please make
certain I get your personal information so I can contact you later.
This collection campaign will run until the end of 2002.
At that time I will either launch the diagnostic testing or return the collected
funds. Checking into this website at that time will let you know how things
have gone and what the results are.
What Makes The Starchild So Special?
The Starchild
skull has an excellent chance of being able to prove beyond any shadow of
doubt that humankind is not alone in the universe. If something can be more
special or more important than that, I don’t know what it is. Naturally, there
is a great resistance to this possibility in academic, religious, and government
circles. Few if any of them are anxious to have the Starchild proved to be
an alien, not even some of the people who most loudly profess to be proponents
of alien reality. It’s a classic Catch-22.
No matter how much the Starchild is denigrated by those in “authority,” the
truth about its physical anomalies can’t be disputed. However, what those
anomalies mean can be disputed, and so they are, vigorously, as was evident
in “Mystery of the Skulls.” Even so, what makes the Starchild unique is that
a definitive resolution of the debate about it is possible with a diagnostic
DNA test. Until then, all we have to go on are its anomalies, and the most
attacked of these are its cranial bulges and the flattened rear of its head.
What About Its Flattened Rear?
The extreme flatness
of the rear of the Starchild’s head indicates it was cradle boarded
as an infant. Cradle boarding is a common practice worldwide in undeveloped
countries. In such societies women work as hard as men, if not harder, and
much of that work is done by standing and stooping, standing and stooping,
while using both hands to pluck or pick or wash or whatever. Thus, infants
have to be carried on the back in any manner of pouch, but the common theme
of them all is that the baby’s head must be strapped to a board of some kind
in order to keep the head from lolling and snapping as the mother leans over
and stands up, leans over and stands up. It is this tying of the head to boards
as a protective measure that flattens their rear aspects, which stay flat
for life.
These flattened areas caused by cradle boarding have a universal and common
look about them. They extend from the farthest rear upper point of the crown,
down to the bump at the back of everyone’s head known as the inion.
Reach around and feel your own. It’s in the middle of where your neck meets
your skull. That’s your inion. Normal human skulls can’t be cradle boarded
past that bump. The bump, the shape of the skull, and the attached neck muscles
all prevent it. So in each of the cradle-boarded skulls that have ever existed
on Earth, none were flat beyond the inion. Otherwise, the neck muscles would
be ripped loose from their attachment to it and the infant would have died.
Period.
(For a good view of a typically cradle-boarded skull, go to the Main
Page of this website and scroll down through the illustrations and
photos until you reach the second trio of Starchild skulls, the slightly discolored
ones that when clicked on provide a side-by-side comparison between the Starchild
skull and the human skull found with it. Click the middle photo of the Starchild
and see its profile compared with “Mom’s.” Notice the difference. She is flat
and vertical; he is steeply slanted well past his missing inion.)
The Starchild not only is minus its inion, there’s a thumb-sized depression
in the bone where it should be. Furthermore, it is flattened well past its
inion, fully a half-inch past it, which is a tremendous amount. So right there
we have a gross anomaly in relation to normal human cradle-boarded skulls.
Here’s another: Normal cradle boarding leaves a glass-smooth finish on the
bone. You rub the surface of a cradle-boarded skull and all the convolutions
and nodules of normal bone have been flattened smooth. That area of the skull
feels like a baby’s rump rather than the textured surface of non-boarded skulls.
The Starchild has obvious convolutions throughout the entire surface of its
“flattened” area.
Thus, the Starchild was never cradle boarded despite what “authorities” say
to the contrary. It grew into its distinctive “flattened” look because its
genes told it to do so.
What About Its Cranial Bulges?
The bulges at the rear top of the Starchild’s head are quite distinctive and once again separate it from normal human skulls. Such bulges would, superficially, seem to have an obvious cause: hydrocephaly, or water on the brain. However, there are two things that make this an impossibility.
First, if you
shine a flashlight through its neck opening and look inside to view its inner
lining, you find veins indented the bone up to the beginning of the arch of
the cranial vault, meaning there could not have been fluid separating that
area of the brain from the bone. It was clearly solid brain pressing up against
the bone, which is one way to rule out any possibility of hydrocephaly.
(To see this illustrated, again go to the Main Page and scroll
down to the trio of X-Ray exposures of the Starchild skull near the bottom
of the page. Click on the profile and notice the river-like lines traced across
the ghost-like image. Note especially the ones that run upward from the temple
area to the very top of the crown. Those are the tracks of the veins in its
brain pressed into the bone. This establishes beyond doubt that the brain
was firmly seated against the bone throughout, completely ruling out water
on the brain. It also establishes that it lived for at least several years
for the impressions to be made.)
The other way to rule out hydrocephaly is to notice the symmetry of the upper
cranial bulges, complete with an unmistakable finger-width “crease”
in the bone where the two parietals (large sections of rear
skull bone) meet. Even the most ardent supporter of the hydrocephaly argument
must accept a zero chance that upward pressure of fluid on the brain would
cause two symmetrical bulges while leaving a distinctive dent in the bone
along the much weaker fault line where the two parietal bones meet. If anything,
that weakened area of conjoining bone should have been pushed higher instead
of lower.
What About Its Bone Density?
Perhaps the single most compelling fact thus far established about the Starchild skull is that its bone density is only 40% of normal. In the hand it is extraordinarily light compared a normal human skull. It weighs almost exactly half as much. It feels more like a dried gourd than a skull. And this 40% density is not some isolated aspect of it. This is in the entire skull, in every aspect of it. What this means is simple: If the Starchild were to be some kind of human deformity, then the affected areas should be only those that are deformed. There is no conceivable deformity that will uniformly reduce the density of its bone by 60%. That is so far beyond impossible as to be laughable. Thus, the only fair and logical conclusion to draw is that, once again, the reason the Starchild grew with such a uniformly reduced bone density is because its genes directed it to grow that way; and if they did that, then the Starchild cannot possibly be entirely human.
What About Its Other Physical Features?
As mentioned
above, the Starchild’s inion is missing, replaced by a shallow concavity relative
to the surrounding surface. Furthermore, its neck muscles attach fully an
inch below where they belong, and only an inch (half of normal) from the foramen
magnum opening where the spine enters the skull. The foramen magnum
itself is shifted forward an inch from its normal position in a skull, placing
it directly under the overall mass of the cranium. This means the Starchild’s
neck would be 1/3 to 1/2 the width and volume of a normal neck, and centered
right under the skull case, moving it perilously close to the shape and position
of nearly every “Gray” alien neck ever described.
The eyes. Human eye sockets are cone-shaped to hold an eyeball
and the muscles surrounding it, allowing it to move in all four quadrants:
up, down, left, right. That cone extends about 5 centimeters into
the skull, and at its back are openings for the optic nerve and various blood
vessels. In the Starchild's skull there is no cone, but rather a shallow scoop
in the bone of the face, 3 centimeters at its greatest depth.
The optic nerve canals and the fissures are skewed well down and away, at
the bottom of the scoop and on the inside, thereby housing an eye so different
in shape and probable function that to attempt any comparison is an exercise
in futility. Suffice to say, it had extremely unusual eyes.
The temples. In humans, thick bands of muscle that are attached
to the jawbone and face pass beneath the zygomatic arch (cheekbone)
to spread out in a fan shape and connect with the entire side of
the skull. Hold your fingers to the side of your head and grimace to feel
how they attach from forehead to upper hairline to behind the ear. In the
Starchild the zygomatic arch has been greatly reduced and dropped from horizontal
to a 45-degree angle. Instead of two fingers worth of muscle passing through,
two spaghetti strands pass through. And, in a true miracle of deformity, those
greatly reduced muscles have somehow been neatly detached from the anchor
points of humans, spread out in a reconfigured fan shape, and reattached across
an area about 1/3 that of a human.
The parietals. In humans the parietal bones form the upper
rear of the cranium. While we all know there can be quite a range of difference
in this part of the head, the parietals of the Starchild are well beyond most
such variation. In fact, they’re so large relative to normal human parietals,
it is conceivable they could contain the parts of a trilateral brain (all
humans and primates have bilateral brains). If the Starchild should prove
to have a trilateral brain (an endocranial cast is on our
wish list; we’ll have one done if we can afford it), there would be no doubt
it was not entirely human.
The occipital and neck. The occipital is the large curved
bone covering the lower rear of a human's head. Near its center is the noticeable
bump called the inion (mentioned above in What About Its Flattened
Rear?), which is the attachment point for the neck. Above the inion
is skull, below it is neck. Neck attachments fan out in an arc that carries
from the inion to behind and below the mastoid bones that protect the ear
canals. It’s an extensive area, as extensive as the attachment area of the
temple muscles. And, as with the temple muscles, the neck muscles have somehow
been adroitly detached from where they would normally be on a human skull,
greatly reduced in size, then reattached in a semicircle roughly 1/3 to 1/2
the area of a human neck.
The foramen magnum. In humans the foramen is positioned rear
of center to balance a heavy rear cranium against a basically empty face area.
The front of a human face has numerous sinus cavities, two deep eye sockets,
a mostly empty nasal passage, and a rather large mouth. This means the brain’s
weight is dominantly rearward, under which is the foramen. The Starchild's
foramen is centered under the head, balancing it like a misshapen golf ball
on a vertical tee. This shift in its center of gravity is necessary because
the Starchild's cranium is essentially wall-to-wall brain. It has no sinus
cavities and greatly reduced eye sockets above an apparently small nasal passage
and mouth.
Weight. An adult human skull weighs about 2.2 pounds. The
Starchild's skull is the physical size of a small adult or an average 12-year-old,
which is noticeably but not greatly smaller than an adult. However, the Starchild
skull weighs only a shade over 12 ounces without maxilla or mandible (its
upper and lower teeth), so with them attached it might have weighed 15 to
17 ounces, right at half of normal (previously discussed).
Brain volume. A normal adult's brain capacity is about 1400
cubic centimeters (c.c.). As stated above, the Starchild's skull is the size
of a small adult or an average 12-year-old, whose normal brain capacity is
about 1200 c.c. (200 c.c. less than at maturity). Yet the Starchild’s brain
capacity is 1600 c.c., fully 1/3 more (400 c.c.) than it should be for its
size! This is not only an astonishing increase in brain volume, it’s an astonishing
rearrangement of the internal physical features that have to accommodate it!
Why Won’t Scientists Take It Seriously?
During my three-and-half
years of involvement with the Starchild skull, I have shown it to over fifty
medical, physiological, and anthropological specialists with a wide range
of expertise, degrees, and pedigrees. (Most recently late last year when I
asked the late Stephen Jay Gould to examine it. He dismissed
it with a shrug.) By undertaking a comprehensive survey, I hoped their opinions
would be consistent enough to provide at least a tentative indication of the
Starchild’s true heritage. Some interesting results came from those encounters,
to be sure, but few provided anything of real substance.
Only five of those specialists actually took the time to carefully examine
the skull. Like Gould, the others glanced at it for no more than a few seconds.
Some wouldn’t even touch it. I know that sounds incredible, but it’s true.
They were either that dismissive of it, or that intimidated by it…I could
never determine which. Half of them made an initial pronouncement that it
was a cradle-boarded hydrocephalic. We’ve already discussed
why that is simply not possible (see What About Its Cranial Bulges?
above). Demolishing the “cradle-boarded hydrocephalic” argument won me no
friends among the specialists I consulted. After some strained, trying-to-be-polite
chit-chat, I would be shown the door.
I don’t want to present an entirely one-sided picture. Other specialists had
their own pet theories as to what had caused the Starchild’s obvious deviation
from the norm. Some said Apert’s Disease, others said Crouzon’s
Disease, still others felt it had to be Treacher-Collins
Disease. However, I’d then ask if those disorders should leave a
skull with otherwise normal bone density, and they’d assure me it would. I’d
then hand the skull over to them and their jaws would drop because of its
unexpected lightness.
The bottom line came to be that the Starchild skull was like nothing ever
seen before by any specialist encountered. Some insisted that they had, indeed,
seen skulls like it before, but none could give it a medical name or a description
that could then be found as a case study anywhere. They were all flying blind,
taking stabs in the dark, assuming I would tuck tail and say, “Oh, well, then,
Dr. Expert, I’m sorry to have bothered you.”
I should also add that in addition to the scientific specialists I took the
skull to for examination, I also took it to roughly the same number of “mystics”
and “sensitives” who wanted to “psychometrize” it to determine its backstory.
They were no more consistent in their “readings” than the scientists were
in their analyses, and I came away from all of my encounters with both groups
having no faith in any of them. They were all reaching.
So now it comes down to the diagnostic DNA testing, and whether or not enough
people put up enough money to pay for that testing and the incidental costs
surrounding it. If they do, then a definitive answer should be in hand by
the end of this year, 2002. If not…then, not. I can only do my best, which
is what I’ve tried to do in this update, and which I have tried hard to do
since undertaking this task back in March of 1999.
I can only hope it finally turns out to be enough.
Lloyd Pye
Metairie, LA.
July 7, 2002
Lloyd@lloydpye.com