The 2012 Newsletter - Get It Here
Powered by MaxBlogPress  


Starchild Skull – looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax…

January 8th, 2007 by Rob | Posted under Uncategorized.

The Starchild Skull..but is it real? I hate it when evidence is presented, but it’s not REAL evidence, but rather someone telling me that there is evidence…but in this case the names of actual experts are used…

The “Starchild” is a real, true bone skull [1] independently dated by Carbon-14 to be 900 years old (+/- 40 years) [2]. Research indicates is unlike any human skull ever before recorded [3]. The name “Starchild” is the result of early X-rays taken of the skull and maxilla fragment found with it, which showed unerupted teeth [4] that, combined with the smaller-than-normal-adult size of the skull [5], indicated a child of age 5 or 6 [6]. A second skull was found with the Starchild, a normal, adult female of small stature [7], also C-14 dated to 900 years ago (± 40) [8], and biochemically shown to have lived in the same general area as the Starchild [9]. This second skull is often used for comparison to the Starchild.
From its extremely shallow eye sockets [10] to the total lack of frontal sinuses [11], the Starchild skull’s morphology cannot be accounted for by any known combination of deformities. The bone is half as thick [12], weighs half as much [13], and is substantially more durable than normal human bone [14][15]–unlike anything currently in the scientific record [16]. Furthermore, inside that unusual bone are microscopic fibers and a reddish residue that so far defy any explanation [17].

When you are used to reading legit science papers, this seems to be kosher on the surface. But then when you follow the link to the references, you find that most are from the author of the site, or Dr. Ted J. Robinson. Dr Robinson, from a Google search, seems to be mostly known for his participation in this project.

Robinson lists a number of experts who assessed the skull. They tend to be known legitimate experts. To get 11 of them to agree with your hypothesis would be impressive for a hoax!

In short, I think that it’s a regular human with a condition we are unaware of. But as far as evidence of alien visitations go, this is pretty good.

Related posts:

  1. Philip Coppens on the Crystal Skulls
  2. New 2012 Social Network
  3. South Africa 2012 Community – Survival Has Begun!

Comments

14 Responses to “Starchild Skull – looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax…”
  1. Trehugindrtlvr says:
    November 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm

    Why isn't Pye in jail, or someone pursuing charges? These things are obvious scams. He takes peoples money to do fake "research." I'll bet money he takes the cash and pockets it, then has a buddy of his type up some fake report. Isn't there some laws about companies, like Lloydpye.com, Inc, deceiving people outright?

    Reply
  2. Ash Doonan says:
    December 4, 2009 at 6:23 am

    Dear Rob,
    Please present evidence in which goes against the Starchild skull,
    Now that is a question that you will find hard to answer,
    At the moment you are saying that the evidence presented on Mr. Pye's website is not real or doesn't proof his point?
    This evidence does prove such because it shows that the Starchild is nothing like what other skulls are like in appearance nor structure,
    How do you think Prehistoric man was proven to be linked into evolution lets say,
    It was linked by the work of archeology,
    Hence we could say the same about the discovery of dinosaurs as well,
    Lloyd has done his research, in my opinion, by the means of a scientist doing his work on evolution or the discovering of dinosaurs,
    He has realised that this skull is special because of the structure, fibres in the skull, density of the skull and endurance,
    I would love to hear some 'real' opposing questions from yourself and not jargon about Lloyd not representing his evidence correctly or more efficently!

    Reply
    • jack says:
      April 25, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      there is no “real” opposing questions theres no much evidance

      Reply
    • Finn says:
      August 2, 2010 at 10:45 am

      @Ash,

      For starters, DNA analyses have been conducted and have never demonstrated that the skull is anything but human. As well, there is not indication that this skull is in any way the product of human-alien hybridization. Despite these two separate analyses, Pye has rejected these findings, all the while selling his books and asking for danations for his “research”. He has used the name of Dr. Ted J. Robinson as an expert, claiming that he is a “craniofacial surgeon”, and claiming that this Dr. is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (Canada), yet there is no indication of anyone by this name on this public directory. Hmmm.

      If Pye were truly interested in finding truth in this matter, he would treat this skull like any archeological find and have it examined independently by experts. How many anthropology depts in universities across the US would turn down such an opportunity? Try ZERO. Imagine if there was any truth to what Pye claims. Such a find would prove to be the most significant discovery in the history of mankind, yet Pye refuses to let go of his cash cow.

      I can see only the glint of silver in Pye’s eye, but precious little of the huble search for truth that he would like us to believe. The gullible will continue to be bilked as long as he is not exposed for the fraud he is.

      Reply
  3. John says:
    March 23, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Welcome to the Year 2010 and the evidence on Starchild which is now a couple of weeks old. DNA markers have been found that do not exist in the master DNA database.

    Stay tuned.

    Reply
  4. Dr. Malik Nidal says:
    May 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Starchild suffered from a congenital defect, specifically Brachycephaly and exorbitism. The evidence supports the fact that the Starchild was not an alien, as it suffered from various human congenital defects that are known and well documented.

    Reply
  5. UFO researcher says:
    July 8, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Taken by itself criticism of the the star child skull makes some sense. However the case for authenticity of the skull is greatly strengthen by the confluence of many other pieces of evidence. The more you take time to understand the hard core studies of UFOlogists the more you’ll come to understand that this skull is very likely real. Also if you actually spend time studying what proponents of the “Ancient Astronaut” theory are saying then you are even more likely to understand. Skeptics tend to lack these understandings.

    It is very hard for a skeptic to break free from a l lifetime of indoctrinated thought. Just reflect on how it took for the church to accept changes. (You know like the the earth is not in the center of the universe),… The scientific community is having similar issues as it too has become a “belief” system, and this is why they cannot accept the possibility that this is not a hoax.

    Reply
  6. Robert Bast says:
    July 8, 2010 at 8:45 am

    BTW, that page and the references have been removed from the site, perhaps due to criticism? I retrieved them from archive.org:

    References

    1. Joel D. Wallach, BS, DVM, ND (Comparative Pathologist), “Preliminary Histology Report – Starchild Project,” unpublished, July 7 1999, 1.

    2. Ken Pye, PhD, Director Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd., “Summary of ‘inorganic’ chemistry work done to date,” unpublished, received June 1 2005, p1 (referencing fig. 2).

    3. Ted Robinson, M.D., LMCC, FRCS (c), Vancouver, B.C., “A Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull,” StarchildProject, 25 Sept 2004, 4.

    4. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 6.

    5. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 12.

    6. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 7.

    7. Lloyd Pye, “A Condensed Analysis of Two Unusual Skulls of Uncertain Origin,” StarchildProject.

    8. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 18.

    9. Ken Pye, “Summary of ‘inorganic’ chemistry”, p1-2, fig 1.

    10. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 15.

    11. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 12.

    12. Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 3.

    13. Ibid.

    14. Lloyd Pye, “Starchild: Fibers and Residue” (slideshow presentation), StarchildProject, slide 2

    15. Jason Eshleman, MA, PhD, Director, Trace Genetics, Richmond, CA, “Report on the DNA analysis from skeletal remains from two skulls,” Trace Genetics, StarchildProject, 12 Aug 2003, 2-4.

    16.Ted Robinson, “Preliminary Analysis,” 4.

    17. Lloyd Pye, “Starchild: Fibers and Residue” (slideshow presentation), StarchildProject, slide 18.

    Reply
  7. UFO researcher says:
    July 8, 2010 at 11:10 am

    The fact that archeologists aren’t clamoring over this skull, a skull that has been know of for many many years is just another indication that it falls outside their “box” of beliefs. Now in 2010 the skull has been shown to contain DNA that has NEVER been catalogued before. Why then aren’t the academics interested?

    Answer: Because they KNOW that the results then must be a hoax or flawed.

    If this is not a indication of a belief system then I don’t know what is. How can we move knowledge forward if we aren’t even willing to look? It is time for mainstream to wake up and look for alternative ideas.

    Reply
  8. Robert Bast says:
    July 8, 2010 at 11:27 am

    There’s no mention (that I can find) of 2010 DNA tests on their site.

    Reply
  9. UFO researcher says:
    July 8, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Well there are a number of sources other then their, less than adequate site. But you could start by watching this online video.

    http://dad2059.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/is-the-star-child-skull-the-wedge-to-the-future/

    Again however, the picture is much much bigger then just this skull.

    Reply
  10. Robert Bast says:
    July 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Still not convinced. The video show a screens hot of results obtained from the NIH database, with the key words being “No significant similarity found”.

    If this was really how they portray it, they would have no difficulty finding an expert endorsing the uniqueness of the human DNA.

    The official NIH explanation for such a result suggests to me that is would be quite common for those who don’t really know what they are doing:

    Below are common reasons that a BLAST search results in the “No significant similarity found” message.
    Short query sequences: Short alignments may have Expect values above the default threshold, which is 10 on most pages, and, therefore, are not displayed. Try increasing the Expect threshold (under ‘Algorithm parameters’). Also, see the FAQ Submitting primers or other short sequences.
    Filtering: Some of the BLAST programs mask regions of low complexity by default. These regions are not allowed to initiate alignments, so if your query is largely low complexity, the filter may prevent all hits to the database. On the Basic BLAST pages, adjust the filter settings in the section ‘Filters and Masking’, under ‘Algorithm parameters’. For a description of low complexity filters, see “What is low-complexity sequence?”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi?CMD=Web&PAGE_TYPE=BlastDocs&DOC_TYPE=FAQ

    Reply
  11. UFO researcher says:
    July 8, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    I’m not really trying to convince you. It will all come out in due time. My point is that an understanding of the larger picture is needed in order to discuss these issues. On both sides. My knowledge is in UFOs, the history of, current sightings, various attempts to find physical evidence and the like. I have a decent knowledge of written and verbal “myths” from multiple cultures across the face of the world. Almost all of these significant stories tell of interaction with ‘gods” “aliens” “star beings”. Are we to assume that our ancient cultures spent a huge amount of effort writing and recording fiction??

    I’m well versed in the Crop Circle Phenomenon and various attempts to isolate physical evidence from the fields. The science in this field gets the same response as the Starchild skull. Ridicule.

    I have a great understanding of the monoliths that are found across the world and I can tell you from first hand experience, these structures were not made by primitive cultures. Nor could many of the stones be lifted today even with our biggest cranes. Not to mention the laser like cuttings that are found in some of these stones. Do you ever wonder what the the indigenous people say about their monoliths. You bet ya, they say the “star beings” created them. For example the Summarians wrote about them extensively. The Hopi, The mayan, The Dogone, The Egyptians, etc etc. When will we decide to listen to our ancestors??

    Listen to the people that claim to have been abducted, these are not crazy people as research has shown. Look at ancient art, from caves to 16th century paintings. Read the ancient Indian Vamanas. On and On and On the stories, the art, the feats, the sightings and experiences, point to and even clearly states, that this is our past.

    Then ask yourself again, do you really want to close your eyes to the possibility that this skull might be real.

    My point is, if you REALLY LOOK and are not blinded by mainstream beliefs, the pieces of the puzzle are very interesting. The world is much more interesting then the things we were taught in school.

    Haven’t you ever wondered why humans are so different from the other animals on our planet?

    What is your experience in?

    Reply
  12. UFO researcher says:
    July 9, 2010 at 2:00 am

    As far as Blast and “No significant similarity found”. I’m not well versed in this area so I’ll let the experts argue about it. However I did find these comments about “base pairs” and the quality of the sample. perhaps this means something to you?… If so please explain.

    Quoted:

    The next two screen shots are taken from the national genetic database at the National Institute of Health, NIH. That public-access database is a centralized repository of all genetic information generated by geneticists all over the world, and now covers essentially all living organisms on Earth, from various kinds of viruses and bacteria, to various kinds of crustaceans and fish, to all kinds of animals and plants, including great apes and humans.

    For many species, humans included, there are already nucleotide sequences covering entire genomes. Therefore, sequences from the Starchild’s DNA can be directly compared against this vast database to look for any matches. In one such comparison below, you see the text below the blue line at the bottom (if you can read it, sorry it’s so fuzzy) that 265 base pairs (a good length) of recovered Starchild nuclear DNA matches perfectly with a gene on human chromosome 1. This verifies beyond any degree of doubt that some of the nuclear DNA seen in the gel sheet is from a human being.

    In the one below, and again at the bottom, you see the stunning report that in a string of 342 base pairs (another good length), “No significant similarity (is) found.” To recover a stretch of base pairs as long as that with NO reference in the NIH database is astounding because it means there is no known earthly corollary for what has been analyzed! This incredible anomaly will put the Starchild in history books!!!

    Please understand that this result has now been verified several times, and a few more different fragments have been identified that cannot be matched in this database to anything known. Despite that fact, mainstream skeptics will be obligated by their positions to try to say it’s some kind of gibberish or some kind of mistake because in their world view it simply can’t be true.

    The whole letter can be found here:
    http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2010/06/interview-lloyd-pye-starchild-caretaker.html

    Reply

Have any comments?