Two things I didn't understand in the article:

(1) "In 2003 a primer-based DNA test showed the Starchild was a human-alien hybrid. Definite."  That's one helluva statement.  In the first sentence does the word "alien" refer in fact to an as yet unidentiified/unidentifiable genetic sequence or does it really mean non-terrestrial?

(2) "This is an absolute lead-pipe cinch because there is not a single physical corollary between the Starchild skull and a normal human skull--not one!"  However, from the photos I have seen, the Starchild skull is visibly more hominoid than simian.

I guess I'm just going to have to buy the e-book!

Dear Professor W:

1) Yes, it IS a helluva statement, but it's true. The word "alien" in that context means "something other than human." You can call that either an "unidentified genetic sequence" OR a "non-terrestrial genetic sequence" because the first is definitely true and the second is, ipso facto, very likely to be true.

2) Saying the Starchild does not have a single physical corollary with normal humans does not mean it automatically HAS to have simian features. It simply has to have "non-human" features, meaning "SIGNIFICANTLY different from human," which is exactly what it has, and which is why I call it "alien." It's not human and it's not simian, it is definitely SOMETHING ELSE!

Sincerely, Lloyd Pye

 Hi Lloyd,

Thank you.  That makes sense now.  BTW I loved the image.

Regards

W

Hmmm....  How best do I put this?

For a more rational explanation, and a more scientific one...

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211033813/http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=37

Squid

As someone who firmly believes in the existence of life on other worlds, I cannot understand how any adult who's done research on the subject could continue to believe in things like the Starchild.  Of course, I must admit that I subscribe to notions such as Darwinian evolution and Occam's Razor.  Since believers in the Starchild don't seem to follow the same logic paths as I do, anything goes.

Otherworldly life isn't going to look like a Gray or any of the other humanoids that populate these reports of encounters with E.T.s.  The assertion that this skull is "SIGNIFICANTLY different from human," is obviously untrue on the literal face of it.  The skull looks human to me.  Sadly deformed, but still human. 

The notion that an alien life form would be interested in cross-breeding with a human is laughable.  Leaving aside the total genetic incompatibility, they'd be crazy to even want to.  Humans are a highly aggressive species that thrives on conflict to the point of potential self-destruction.  Any species capable of travelling here has already developed into a society capable of dealing with whatever obstacles lay before them.  They would have no need for anything we primitive humans have to offer.

The Novella article was written in 1999 when we knew very little of a factual basis about the Starchild, so he was easily able to make us seem confused about what we actually had on our hands. By 2006 we had shown his article to be completely false and groundless, so I asked him to either withdraw it or make the necessary changes to bring it in line with reality. He refused, and the only change he made was to change the date on it from 1999 to 2006. It was a piece of crap in 1999, and it remains a piece of crap now.

As for the gentleman who seems to know so very much about how aliens think and would react, and who seems to know everything about their biology, I can only say that is this kiind of extreme arrogance that keeps so many of his ilk in extreme ignorance about the actual world around them. If he took the time to read through the eBook, or even through the website, he might think twice about making such incredibly foolish statements as if they were fact. He's not just wrong, he's embarrassingly wrong. Again, all it takes for anyone to see this is to check the facts rather than just popping off statements that reflect the current brainwashing generated by fallacies of logic like "Occam's Razor."

Okay, I've been to your website now.  Your website, The Starchild Project seems quite proud of the various medical and scientific experts that have examined the skull, but I couldn't help but notice than not a single one of them was willing to say anything about alien beings.  The facts they are willing to address have nothing to do with extra-terrestrial life.

For the report on deformities, the scientists all agree that the skull is not a plastic fake, and that it is significantly deformed from the human norms.  They all agree that they cannot determine what may have caused the abnormalities, nothing more.  There is a recent adendum regarding the wear on the skull's teeth indicating that it is an adult rather than a child, yet there is no mention of any licensed dentist making this assertion.  Just you.  The possiblility of wear caused by poor diet, teeth grinding or any other alternate explanation is not addressed either. 

The report on the website about DNA analysis does not give the name of the author.  How odd.

The reports on skull fibers and red residue are both written by you, and not any reputable scientist.

The report regarding the dental aspects of the skull by Dr. Brown makes no mention of any alien teeth.  In fact, there is no mention of any abnormalities at all about the teeth.  Plus, you then proceed to disregard the report because "Later evidence of serious wear on the surviving teeth, and the presence of heavy roots in both, proved beyond doubt that the skull was of an adult and could not possibly be of a child."  As mentioned above, no licensed dentist is sited to back up this claim.

Thank you for advising me to visit your website.  In a way, it was indeed very informative.

My dear Wyldstaar:

I'm surprised to hear you bothered yourself to go to the Starchild website to read selected excerpts from it. However, it seems you only went looking for were things you thought you could pick on as flawed or insubstantial. Okay, now that you've had your fun, let's see about picking YOU apart for a change. As I'm sure the average moron knows, NO scientist who intends to keep working in his chosen field can afford to openly support an alien interpretation of ANYTHING. And who can fault them for such caution? In blindingly short order rabid defenders of the scientific faith would relieve them of their livelihoods.

If I were in their shoes I'm sure I would do the same thing. This is simply the way of the world where science and scientists are concerned. Defend the faith or get out of the church, ipso facto. So, I have to agree with you that none of them would say publicly that the Starchild is "alien." They would say that to me in private, but I would never be so foolish as to ask them to say it on paper. I know as well as they do what the consequences would be, as I'm sure you do, too.....uhhhh....don't you?

I'm surprised you failed to notice those scientists saying the Starchild is, "like nothing I've ever seen before," or "like nothing ever known before," etc. So, okay, let's just go with the clear and scientifically supported fact that many physiological and genetic aspects of the Starchild are, in fact, "like nothing ever seen before." Hopefully we can all agree on at least that much. Maybe not "alien," but scraping very near that dangerous term, near enough to smell the fear it generates in the scientific  faithful.

You next say the scientists agree it's not a "plastic fake," and is significantly deformed from human norms. For some reason you fail to add that not one single physical aspect of a human skull has a corollary in the Starchild skull. You can't name one part of the Starchild that equals a human. The entire bone that comprises the skull is not like human bone, either, it's more like tooth enamel. And you spend much of the rest of your critique talking about teeth, yet you leave out the mind-boggling fact that the Starchild's bone, which is indeed bone, is biochemically more like tooth enamel than human bone. How on earth, dear Wyldstaar, did you miss that little gem of information? Don't you consider it important enough to mention?

You certainly felt it was important to point out some confusion about the Starchild's teeth. Early on we thought they were children's teeth and that's why we named it "the Starchild." We were told that with visible teeth down and impacted teeth in the maxilla, that indicated a child of 5 or 6. So those experts who agreed with that early assessment shouldn't be faulted. Later, when a molar was pulled and its heavy roots (unnoticeable in the first X-rays) were revealed, there could be no doubt the Starchild was not a child, it was a full grown adult. The roots of children's teeth are small because children's teeth don't undergo much chewing stress because their muscles can't generate sufficient torque. Plus, the roots have to dissolve so the baby teeth can fall out and permanent teeth replace them.

The DNA analysis was carried out by a team at Trace Genetics led by Dr. Jason Eshleman, who was the lead writer of the report.  I don't put his name on the report  to keep people like you from giving him unnecessary grief about getting involved in testing the Starchild, but since you have griped about it, there it is. And he didn't ask me to keep his name off the report, I did it as a courtesy.

I reveal the name of the person who found the fibers and the residue in my book "The Starchild Skull," but here, too, out of common courtesy I didn't divulge his name on the website with those "reports," which aren't reports at all but an analysis with slides. Now, let me ask you, does not having an "official" name on them other than my name make them less real? Less impressive? Does the name on the report matter, or do the photographs taken by a scanning electron microscope matter?

The bottom line is this, Wyldstarr: people like you make life miserable enough for people like me, and certainly miserable for the few scientists I've been able to find to support the Starchild investigation. A few have openly let me use their names because they are in positions in life where they don't have to worry about peer pressure. But most of them DO have to worry about it, and I choose not to bother with trying to impress people like you if it means putting at risk the careers of people with more personal courage than you can probably imagine.

I KNOW what the Starchild is, and so do my scientist friends who have taken the trouble to actually study the skull in detail. In the not too distant future everyone on earth will know what it is. So, criticize all you want, for whatever reasons drive your ilk to do this kind of supercilious sniping, but be prepared for the final DNA analysis to serve up a hearty ration of crow for you to have to choke down.

Lloyd

Sadly, Lloyd, you don't know what the Starchild is... you're assuming you know what the Starchild is.  You have made the decision that it's an alien-human hybrid, and are now trying to find any facts that fit your theory, all the while discarding facts that point to any other hypothesis.

For example, you had the skull's DNA tested before.  When the DNA came back as definitively human, you changed your hypothesis to refute the evidence, instead of discarding your hypothesis.  This, sadly, is typical of people who don't understand the scientific method and have already made their minds up about whatever theory they currently believe, be it alien, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, fake moon landing conspiracies, antivaccination believers, truthers, psychics, etc.

Yes, the name on the reports matter, because a key component of the scientific method is peer review.  A test or hypothesis is not valid unless the results, no matter what they are, can be duplicated by multiple scientists, working independently of each other, across the globe.  Anyone can claim to have a test performed and say what it's results were... it's only when a test can be duplicated multiple times by other scientists can a hypothesis move to a theory.

You say that you would never be so foolish as to have your scientists say that the skull is alien on paper.  Well then, how do you expect it to be accepted by scientists around the world?  How do you expect to get the articles published?  You can publish them yourself, of course, but since anyone can do that, you'll never get your hypothesis accepted.  So why can't you try the normal channels?  Because they won't accept any such article without an acceptable burden of proof, which you do not seem to have.

You say you don't want to put the scientists who have helped you at risk to impress people like Wyldstar and myself.  Well, we're the people you have to impress if you want to be taken seriously, and not be seen as a crackpot.  You see, the burden of proof is not on us to prove you wrong... it's on you to prove yourself right.  After all, your claim is that aliens had the capacity to visit Earth, did so 900 years ago, had a compatible genetic structure and genome, impregnated a Native American female, genetically altered the child that was produced, and then left, leaving no other traces behind except for this one skull.  In doing so, you're rejected such explanations as genetic disorders or deliberate malformation of the skull, which don't require your preferred explanation.  Which is more likely to have occured?

Squid

Squid:

I can't imagine how you could assume that the sum total of my job as director of the Starchild Project should be to impress ignorant pomposities like you and Wyldstaar. My job is to prove what it IS, not send it through a tortuous labyrinth of peer reviews that will never happen in the first place because, as you two have made so clear in this exchange, it's YOUR minds that are already made up, not mine.

I came into this in early 1999 as convinced as you that it had to be some kind of deformity. I mean, I'm a reasonable person and I had a life apart from the Starchild skull. I figured the odds on it being an actual real alien, or human-alien hybrid, were like 90%-10% against. Now, I realize neither of you would grant it even a 10% chance of being anything other than a deformity, but I did what people like you will never do, which is actually digging into the evidence to see where it ultimately would lead me.

Eventually my investigation made it clear to everyone dealing with it, which ultimately included a couple dozen scientists who seriously examined it (along with several dozen who were as horrified as you and Wyldstaar that anyone with half a brain would take it seriously). For those who did take it seriously, though, it was a revelation. Everyone could see it bore no actual resemblance to a human. Nothing was the same in it, not one single corollary that matched up with a human. The bone was different, the shape was different, the brain was different, normal parts were missing (sinuses, inion), things were in it that were not found in any other species on earth (fibers and red residue), the usual places of parts of it had been moved significantly (neck, chewing muscles).... NOTHING  was the same, yet it all somehow came together with more precision, with better symmetry, than the average human skull.

Every scientist who has taken the time to study it in depth KNOWS, in his heart of hearts, that it's not a deformed human. Some do accept that it's a human-alien hybrid, some prefer to hold out hope that a more prosaic explanation can be found, because all of them know the degree of upheaval in science that proof of its genetic heritage would cause. Yet that's precisely what we're on the verge of proving, to a degree that will surpass any need for peer review. And while we're at it, the peer review system that you trumpet so loudly in your response is, without question, the most debilitating part of the scientific process. It reduces everyone in science to the level of these petty exchanges that occur on boards like this. Anyone who has anything to say about anything is automatically put into a shooting gallery to be sniped at by anyone who hasn't read the evidence thoroughly but who thinks they have enough of a general idea of the field to make an informed and intelligent comment. But they seldom do.

Look at you and Wyldstaar, popping off at me with only your brainwashed belief passed on by countless scientists that alien life can't possibly exist on earth because, basically, "we have, in our infinite wisdom, decided it's just not time to believe such rubbish because....well, we say so." They have no more proof that alien life doesn't exist than you have proof against what I'm saying about the Starchild. But the difference, Squiddy Boy, is that I actually do have proof, and it's proof that can and will be scientifically tested with all the rigor anyone like you could possibly ask for, and which will be repeatable again and again until every one of you who right now are so convinced that the Starchild can't possibly be genuine will be forced to pull up a seat at that long banquet table of crow and commence to chow down..

Finally, keeping to your profound ignorance of the facts in this case you seem to have overlooked my response that the Novella article you mentioned above is completely out of date and as wrong as it can possibly be. The first DNA test was done in late 1999 by a forensic lab in Canada because none of the six labs in the world at that time capable of analyzing ancient DNA (like the Starchild's)  would touch it with the proverbial ten  foot pole. Why? Because they were terrified--surprise, surprise--of peer disapproval! So we gambled on the forensic lab being able to do a competent job for us, but they couldn't.  Not until three years later, when there were 24 labs capable of recovering ancient DNA, could we talk one of them into testing the Starchild, and that lab proved beyond any doubt that the Starchild's mother was human and its father was not. What that lab could not prove with the primer technology available at that time was how far the Starchild's father, and therefore the Starchild itself, was from being human. That is what we can prove now with the new recovery technique from 454 Life Sciences, and that is what we will prove as soon as the required money is in hand to initiate it.

Lloyd