Starchild Skull and all things Lloyd Pye

[Pons Asinorum]

That's for sure. since the latest testing shows it isn't a regular human at least, and nothing before or since has come up with an explanation of the sequencing, other than alien dna!

According to the Starchild website, the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from the Starchild had some nucleotides that were anomalous when compared to a known test-sequence of human mtDNA. The authors interpreted this to mean that they may have discovered a new species of hominid (at a minimum).

They tested a sequence of 167 nucleotides and found 17 of which were missing or added. Not sure if the is normal for a skull that is 900 hundreds years old (between contamination and degradation), but the authors seem to think that if this ratio holds up for the entire genome of the Starchild, then this will be conclusive proof of a new species. Apparently, other species of hominids have even less variation in their genomes, ratio-wise.

The total number of nucleotides that need to be tested is 16,570.

So, since: 17 / 167 = 0.1017 or 10.2%, then they should expect to find 0.1017 X 16,570 = 1,705-ish variations. Since this number is much greater that the 120 variations across human mtDNA, this would serve as a basis for concluding a new species of hominid.

Be interesting to see if they present a peer-review paper on their results and conclusions (right now they are withholding the names of some researches).

(Apparently, the nuclear DNA was not conclusive because full testing was not carried out due to expense, however, if they can get the smoking gun from the mtDNA, then funding would not likely be a problem for sequencing the entire DNA genome of the Starchild).

[Bel-Shadow]

Um dont mean to sound dumb here but is mtDNA only on the female side?

[mahalla2]

Um dont mean to sound dumb here but is mtDNA only on the female side?

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the DNA located in organelles called mitochondria, structures within eukaryotic cells that convert the chemical energy from food into a form that cells can use, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Most other DNA present in eukaryotic organisms is found in the cell nucleus.

Mitochondrial DNA can be regarded as the smallest chromosome, and was the first significant part of the human genome to be sequenced. In most species, including humans, mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

[Pons Asinorum]

Um dont mean to sound dumb here but is mtDNA only on the female side?

Hi Bel-Shadow,

Good question and you are correct in that the mtDNA is exclusively handed down from the mother to child. Both male and female have mtDNA, but only the mother can pass it down to her offspring.

The source Mahalla2 listed has all the particulars.

[cRush]

Interestingly, Wikipedia's entry for the Starchild Skull persists:

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.

Which was concluded for this site: http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-starchild-project/

It also goes on to say:

The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.

What is the consensus on this evidence?

[Bob137]

I checked on this hydrocephalus, and read many doctors, and scientists information on it. It does do deformities as stated in the article, but they do not seem to be able to create such as the starchild skull though that original author stated otherwise. From all the research on this deformity, I conclude that that author was being one sided, and not open minded.

[cRush]

What about the DNA testing on the skull from 1999 that produced both X and Y chromosomes of human origin?

[Moon]

What about the DNA testing on the skull from 1999 that produced both X and Y chromosomes of human origin?

The test done in 1999 was when such tests were very primitive. Mr Pye found some anomalies in the test and has since then put the skull through some more complex testing methods now that ancient DNA recovery techniques have vastly improved. There is evidence to show the original testers in 1999 did not test the samples at all. Mr Pye's site goes on to talk about that:

http://www.lloydpye.com/lloydpyewikipedia.htm

The article is Mr Pye's attempts to amend the Wikipedia article to include all of the recent findings about the DNA samples. Wikipedia is a very skeptical place almost to the point of being debunkers.

In the end, the latest DNA testing will prove Wikipedia and the others to be wrong on this issue.

[cRush]

I won't debate Wikipedia's skepticism. They axed an article a Wikipedia page completely for a project I have been working on over 4 years. This project has NUMEROUS media sources, with references which we provided. Unfortunately, certain Wikipedia moderators felt that they didn't want to host the page, and disregarded our sources, citing that the sources weren't "credible". These sources were actually from major news outlets, as well as established Internet forums. Their claim is that a forum thread does not represent credible establishment; even if that forum is just a back end for displaying articles to a front end. Quite shameful in the least. Luckily, our project is starting to gain momentum that even Wikipedia won't be able to deny, and has been covered lately in some of the largest technology media outlets available.

So, I can definitely relate to their censorship. It has me quite infuriated in the past. I have also found Wikipedia to be a great wealth of unbiased information; however, at times. Information not tainted by personal beliefs and circumstantial evidence. While it's not always the case - enough so that Wikipedia can't gain scholarly notoriety - Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt.

What I didn't understand was that if the 1999 tests concluded that an X and Y chromosome had been found of human origin, how could this evidence be refuted by Lloyd Pye. He seemingly discarded it, and went searching for a second opinion because the first didn't come out the way he wanted. As you say, perhaps there is more behind the scenes here. Perhaps the initial laboratory forged some results, and didn't test the sample at all. I'm not sure what the motive for that behavior would have been. Perhaps, they were concerned about being ridiculed by their scientific peers, but that is only speculation, and not enough to establish motive.

It is interesting that the new techniques being described seem to be uncovering some incredibly fascinating results. The issue I foresee is that the mainstream scientific community will cast doubt on the methods employed by this "shotgun" test. It seems that this new test is relatively new, and has not been validated by rigorous experience - it is unorthodox. Mainstream scientists will simply claim that methods used do not prove anything because the data retrieved is unreliable.

*EDIT* I just read on Lloyd Pye's website that he now believes both of the "Starchild's" parents were aliens... I don't see how he can possibly uphold that claim, and it is likely to completely discredit any attempt he may make at establishing the Starchild's father as an alien.

[Moon]

The problem with the 1999 tests is they were not done correctly and were also out of date according to the new methods now used to extract ancient DNA. Remember, ancient DNA extracting is very new and the techniques are getting better and better at it. The original 1999 test concluded the mother was human, but newer tests showed much different results as to who or what the mother was. Again, this is a relatively new science on the use of ancient DNA testing and breakthroughs in finding more information are coming daily.

Here is something from Mr Pye's most recent email:

How can we say we have "proof" the Starchild is alien?

Several of you, and critics, have written to me over the past several weeks asking how we can legitimately claim the Starchild Skull is "alien" if we don't have its entire genome to compare to the human genome. In fact, this very afternoon nationally syndicated radio show host Michael Medved bothered himself to excerpt the Wackypedia article about the Starchild on his show, announcing to his audience with apparent authority that Dr. Steven Novella had examined the Starchild and concluded it was a "common hydrocephalic."

Let me say that Novella is a quack who has never laid eyes on the Starchild other than photos on our website, and I don't believe he's even a doctor. As far as I know he is a scam artist of some kind passing himself off as a qualified skeptic. But qualified or not, he doesn't know anything of substance about the Starchild Skull, having written about it once, way back in 1999, and since then his horribly flawed article has been taken as gospel by mainstream scientists, Wackypedia toadies, and, now, today, Mr. Michael Medved.

That Novella article can be read in its entirety in the "Fight the Stupids" section of the Starchild Project website, along with my explanations of all the asinine errors in it. So now let's get to some new facts about the Starchild DNA testing and results that should make even "Dr." Novella and Michael Medved perhaps have second thoughts.

Roger Cunningham is a good friend who recently offered me some great ammunition for dealing with critics and skeptics who insist we can't assert anything meaningful about the Starchild's DNA until we sequence its entire genome. We do understand that sequencing the entire genome is a must-do in order to make our case impervious to critics and skeptics. But we also know that from a strictly statistical standpoint, we already have enough fragments in hand to know what the final result will be---absolutely and definitely.

First, some background on Roger. He is an engineer with a degree from Georgia Tech, which has one of the best engineering programs in the U.S. While at GT and the GT Graduate School, Roger took and passed nine courses in Statistics, Probability, and Hypothesis Testing. It is important to know that in the undergraduate and graduate programs of nearly all scientists other than engineers, they take at most two such courses. This is why they tend to be totally inept at grasping the meaning and significance of statistical data.

What follows might at first sound intimidating because of everyone's basic unfamiliarity with statistic analysis. But if you bear with it and read through Roger's comments, I feel sure you will understand the great value of what he is putting forth here. At a minimum, if it gets posted in enough places maybe it will give skeptics and critics reason to think twice about where we are with the Starchild Skull, and where we are so obviously taking it--straight into the history books as the world's first genuinely "alien" being.

The ABCs of statistical analysis direct from Roger Cunningham

(Quote) In Hypothesis Testing, even a .1% sample can be significant if the population being measured has few or no outside influences to cause change. DNA nucleotides and base pairs are just such a population. They exist only in and of themselves, and never change once their host, a living entity, is genetically established during the first few moments of conception and gestation.

(Quote) This is called a "Confidence Interval Test." Most scientists are not well versed in Confidence Intervals. This is why they can reject a sample that is 2% valid "because it is too small." However, in real statistics, which scientists are not trained in and receive only introductory-level courses, a verified sample of .1% to 2% can be all that is needed to prove a case, provided the Confidence Interval is sufficient.

(Quote) Because Mitochondrial DNA is so highly conserved, its Confidence Interval is AT MOST only on the order of .1% to .5%. Thus, the Starchild data needs only a 99.5% Confidence Interval threshold for its mtDNA amount to be significant. The actual 9.5% recovery (of mtDNA base pairs) provides a 90.5% Confidence Interval threshold, which can only be termed "overwhelming."

(Quote) It is completely legitimate to extrapolate that 9.5% recovery (multiplying it by a factor of 10.5) to firmly establish the Starchild as "not human." If scientists were well-trained in Statistics and Hypothesis Testing, the established 9.5% recovery would have them on their heels.

(Quote) With only .001% recovered base pairs (approx. 30,000) of the Starchild's 3+ billion base pair nuclear genome, the required Confidence Interval has not been achieved. Nonetheless, by establishing that only 2% of the recovered amount (.02% x 30,000 = 600) was not found in the NIH database (and thus not found on Earth to this point), it would statistically confirm that the ultimate recovery of the entire genome would prove beyond doubt that it is "not human." And, indeed, the NIH database did not contain at least a few thousand of the base pairs from the Starchild's nuclear genome.

(Quote) These numbers solidly establish proof of the Starchild's "alien" genetic heritage. However, because the vast majority of scientists have no understanding of these basic statistical facts, they will stubbornly insist that the only acceptable result is 100% recovery of both the nuclear genome and the mitochondrial genome.

(Lloyd) Anyone who feels like challenging Roger on any of this, or thanking him for sticking his neck out to try to help us in this way, he can be reached at: gray22020777@gmail.com. Don't ask me about those numbers, he's an engineer!

What it all means relative to what we do now.

First, I'm going to do what I can to salvage the damage caused by Michael Medved on his radio show, such as it might have been. I'll ask for at least a few minutes on his monthly "Full Moon" show, which I am told deals with alternative subjects. He could hardly do better than to take anything resembling a fair and objective look at the Starchild Skull.

I also intend to keep pushing hard to try to find the investor that we need to secure funding for the genome recovery and the documentary films that will show the world that the testing was done correctly and the results can be verified by any other genetics lab in the world.

Times are hard everywhere now, and even people with great wealth are waiting to see what the U.S. Congress will do about raising our country's debt ceiling. Until that issue is resolved, we all seem stalled in a holding pattern. I hope to break out of it when everyone else does, but for now it's just "wait and see." I hope you all can have the necessary patience to bear with me as I grind through yet another of the many low points in the Starchild's story.

This was sent out this week and gives some idea to the information that has recently been found. The latest testing that was done is much more reliable than the older methods done in 1999. The technologies are vastly improved, just like computers are now (compare a PC from 1999 to one in 2011).

Mr Pye never dismissed the DNA results from 1999, but also knew the testing was very limited and wanted more done to be sure about it. This is too big to just let some early primitive test results kill off. The genome sequencing will be the final proof of this Starchild Skull.

[cRush]

That is definitely a most interesting read. I do, however, have questions about the credibility of the cited statistical "expert", Roger Cunningham. Georgia Tech is an excellent school; one of the best in my opinion. The wording that is used by Lloyd Pye is a bit obscure, though, and leads me to wonder.

He claims Roger is an engineer with a degree from Georgia Tech. What he fails to mention is what degree does Roger hold? He doesn't even specify that the degree is in engineering. It's not unheard of for an engineer to hold a degree in a different area of study. He does go on to say that only engineer's would take 9 statistics, probability, and hypothesis courses. This isn't entirely true as mathematicians, some physicists, and serious post graduate programs of other disciplinary sciences would most certainly enroll in such areas of study. So, it doesn't establish Roger's degree as having been an engineering degree.

Lloyd also states that Roger "passed" the nine courses. While it is notable that he passed the courses, it would be more reassuring if we knew what types of marks he got in those courses. Did he scrape by with the minimum grade, or did he excel at the top of his class?

The word's of Roger, reiterated by Lloyd, are phrased as a bit antagonistic, which is sure to draw some scrutiny from academia. Usually rebuttals such as this need to be phrased in a neutral state, using facts to discredit and disprove mainstream theories, rather than pointed words.

Nonetheless, it sounds very promising. Based on my own mathematics background, which is quite extensive, though geared more towards computational mathematics, I concur with Roger's statements. I can't wait to hear more about the discovery of the full genome of the skull, and the scientific community's reaction! Perhaps we will finally have proof that we, at least at one point, are not alone!

---

What about the other skulls, though? Has any progress or attempts been made to establish their genetic code?

[Moon]

Mr Pye sounds antagonistic as he has been at this for a very long time and does get irritated by all the naysayers out there who won't even give this a chance to pan out. You are correct to have questions about the person Roger Cunningham and his qualifications here. The idea is to show the statistics used should not be ruled out automatically.

We probably won't know the results of the elongated skulls for a few months. It does take time to do the testing, and they want to make sure more than one test is done.

It is good to be skeptical about this case, but one should also applaud the use of scientific analysis to prove this to be the real deal. So many alleged artifacts are not tested for whatever reasons that this is a breath of fresh air to see something done to give us proof of alien visitation.

[Bob137]

I think this information is exceedingly wonderful. If one has questions for the engineer, then one should email him on the email, that was presented, and ask those questions. Grades are great in some respects, but are not a tell all of what a person has learned and knows. A lot depends on the professors abilities to teach, (which some are very bad at, and if you want to know who, I will get the name of my daughter's last physics teacher for one!), also I had received a lesser grade in a subject that I was very proficient at, but got a lower grade due to the professor being prejudiced on a certain individual on one of the topics, that I did not agree with, but I was very correct! So grades as I stated are fine and dandy, but the proof is in the pudding, not in the grades, and not always in which school one attended either. I know some who got better education at Jr. colleges than in Universities! I am not trying to offend anyone, just stating a case of incomplete data!

[cRush]

I think this information is exceedingly wonderful. If one has questions for the engineer, then one should email him on the email, that was presented, and ask those questions. Grades are great in some respects, but are not a tell all of what a person has learned and knows. A lot depends on the professors abilities to teach, (which some are very bad at, and if you want to know who, I will get the name of my daughter's last physics teacher for one!), also I had received a lesser grade in a subject that I was very proficient at, but got a lower grade due to the professor being prejudiced on a certain individual on one of the topics, that I did not agree with, but I was very correct! So grades as I stated are fine and dandy, but the proof is in the pudding, not in the grades, and not always in which school one attended either. I know some who got better education at Jr. colleges than in Universities! I am not trying to offend anyone, just stating a case of incomplete data!

Certainly, college grades aren't an accurate gauge of what knowledge a person wields; however, it is one such standard that academia, from which mainstream science is born, withholds the establishment of credibility. It is thus important, when presenting an argument aimed at winning the support of mainstream science, to cater to their implicit criteria. You could compare it to an MLB player giving pointers at the NFL Combine; while the MLB player might have a significant background in football, and be seriously talented in the sport, without the NFL credentials, his acceptance by the NFL hopefuls would be hesitant at best. Bottom-line, if you are going to present someone's opinion as that of an expert, then they need to be a well-established, and verifiable, expert. Perhaps, Roger Cunningham satisfies this criteria, but, if so, Mr. Pye failed to establish it in his article.

That doesn't discount the meat of the source's opinion; in fact, I believe that Roger's statements are mostly without flaw based upon my own understanding of statistics, which sounds like it might be somewhat less than Roger's. Remember, that the majority of the populace has no education, and for them to accept the opinion of a purported expert, without understanding the content, said expert must be established as such by his credentials - his accomplishments. While I also feel that college educations prove less today than at any other point in history, and should be taken with a grain of salt, it, nonetheless, stands as the pinnacle of academic achievement by which our generally ignorant society firmly plants it's trust.

[Moon]

cRush, Mr Pye did put up Mr Cunningham's email address up so people could contact him directly if they had any questions. You can ask him about his credentials yourself if you want to.

It is also good to be skeptical of any claims made and to ask questions about the people making such claims. This is how the theories and ideas move forward.

[SecondLook]

The Conehead Samples


Unfortunately, the timeframe for this work is much longer than we would prefer. Our geneticist's lab is undergoing rennovations to accommodate the "exotic" new work he's been doing, and now will obviously continue to do. Upgrading their facilities will be a good investment for them in the long run, which is why they're doing it now. As a result, he can't start on any new projects until sometime in August, after the rennovations are complete.

Here is an image of one of the skulls:


[/quote]

Just reading this last paragraph makes me sick already. It reads like my excuses to my professor. There's just sooo many excuses in that paragraph, really. I'm 100% guarantee that we will never know the DNA result and if we do, guess what's the answer? INCONCLUSIVE!!!!

you may now open your conspiracy theory book.

[Hinduw]

Who is testing the skulls? If it's not someone who is interested in this field but some willy-nilly skeptic like Michael Shermer, he'd lie his way out of having to admit its alien and he would falsify the evidence to give the world fake results saying that they are just humans with elongated heads.

[Moon]

Just reading this last paragraph makes me sick already. It reads like my excuses to my professor. There's just sooo many excuses in that paragraph, really. I'm 100% guarantee that we will never know the DNA result and if we do, guess what's the answer? INCONCLUSIVE!!!!

you may now open your conspiracy theory book.

The testing will be done to these skulls as it is Lloyd Pye who has the connections to getting them tested. It does take time and money to test DNA from ancient sources, so that is why we have to wait. Mr Pye will report the test results, no matter what the outcome. He will state they are human if they are and if they aren't human if tests point to that conclusion.

Who is testing the skulls? If it's not someone who is interested in this field but some willy-nilly skeptic like Michael Shermer, he'd lie his way out of having to admit its alien and he would falsify the evidence to give the world fake results saying that they are just humans with elongated heads.

The skeptics/debunkers have been ignoring these skulls and they are being tested through Mr Lloyd Pye. Again, they could be human, but this is the first DNA tests being done to see if they are human or a possible alien hybrid.

I think we should all be happy they are finally being DNA tested, and if they are human then we can look at why they are shaped the way they are.

[cRush]

I just now noticed the skull in the background of that image...the dark brown one.

Does anyone else find that skull to appear to be enormous in comparison to the two in the front?

[Bob137]

Might just be an optical illusion!

[Moon]

The skulls mentioned above were featured in last night's episode of Ancient Aliens about Lost Worlds. Nothing was stated about them being tested and the segment was only on for a minute. Kind of disappointing, but it could of been filmed before Mr Pye was given the sample to test.

This alone could make for a special episode of AA.

[Bob137]

I would really like to see an episode on DNA testing accomplished on many skulls, not just the Star Child Skull, or the ones shown, but also of the ones, of the Giant's skulls that were shown on a previous episode in a cabinet at a museum in the Southwestern U.S. If all these could be tested, and findings revealed, we might just get somewhere on the Ancient Astronaut Theory.

[isitmeorwhat?]

Even if they are what we want them to be it will still be the tests will still be dubbed inconclusive. Our govt. knows of so many things I believe that would blow our minds if we knew and probably they know things that are still blowing their own minds! However we have to understand that if the truth is exposed they wouldn't profit from it anymore as if it were hidden from us. Why do you think the Catholic church has 15 miles if shelfspace and vaults with documents and art that are off limits to to everyone? Or wiping out the libraries of Alexandria and all the written Mayan transcripts? Because the truth would be too much competition for them. Once the people knew the truth why would they need to go church anymore and dump money in the plate everyweek. (We want people to pray this way and pay this way or ELSE!) The Templars knew the truth and they tried to wipe them out. It is a shame that even today there r is even a limit to freedom of religion and the way to worship and pray the way some choose even though it is peaceful and loving way of worship. Modern day alchemy is still against the law in most parts of the world. "We can't have masses of people enlightening themselves and finding out the truth we'll loose revenue"!

[Bob137]

Very true. We have to just follow our own paths, and for me, I steer clear of religion, due to those very reasons.

[Moon]

I would really like to see an episode on DNA testing accomplished on many skulls, not just the Star Child Skull, or the ones shown, but also of the ones, of the Giant's skulls that were shown on a previous episode in a cabinet at a museum in the Southwestern U.S. If all these could be tested, and findings revealed, we might just get somewhere on the Ancient Astronaut Theory.

Lloyd Pye is currently working on this idea as I type this in. The idea is for this to be a TV documentary (possibly aired by History Channel) that would cover the Starchild and Elongated Skulls of Peru. I am hoping the DNA of the alleged Extraterrestrial Queen Mr Zecharia Sitchin speaks of will also be tested.

The problem with the other skeletons is they are property of the universities in question. I will email Mr Pye to see if there is anything he could do, but his plate is full with what he already has.

The institutions doing the DNA testing have been very open and frank about the results of the latest tests. I do not think there will be a cover-up with these results. The debunkers will do the job of the government anyways.

[Moon]

For those interested, here is a recent (May 5 2011) radio interview on Red Ice Radio:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/nonsubscriber.php

It is over an hour long, but has a lot of good information about the Starchild Skull.

There is a new video uplink from Lloyd Pye about his Intervention theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtfxd91Pz9E&feature=youtu.be

Mr Pye will be releasing a new ebook on the recent developments of the theories in October.

Still no investor for the Starchild Skull genome, but Mr Pye will start working on that full time since this ebook has been completed.

[Dashell]

I was recently digging around online to find out what skeptics are saying about the new DNS results, but so far I'm only finding older responses, before these new test results came out. Anyone know what skeptics are saying about the new results? I like to hear both sides of the story.


Of course I'll be totally ecstatic if this turns out to be the real deal, but right now I won't get my hopes up too high. It's pretty obvious at this point that the whole thing isn't a hoax of any type though so that's good. I mean, even if it was, I'd have to give the guy credit for coming up with the most elaborate plan in the history of the world to come up with seven million dollars.

I hope he gets the funding, but if he does and it is really a hybrid... where do we go from there?

[Moon]

Lloyd Pye responds to the recent discovery of a conehead Peruvian mummy:

The infant Conehead mummy recently found in Cuzco, Peru has caused about 100 people from around the world to contact me about the many articles and reports featuring it in the past couple of days. All of those people want to know my thoughts about this astounding relic that has been examined by three anthropologists who have announced that it looks to be alien rather than human. The only aspect of this story that is a surprise to me is that mainstream anthropologists are actually giving it real credence as what all Coneheads so obviously seem to be---NOT human.

For at least a dozen years I've been saying that Conehead skulls are clearly not entirely human, if human at all. Yes, they have a human-LIKE face, but they have brains that are literally twice the size of normal human brains. And how does the mainstream explain this difference? With exactly what you see in the article I've linked below: the same excuse they use to explain the strange shape of the Starchild Skull---deliberate head binding.

The Starchild's brain volume is 400 cubic centimeters more than it should be. The Conehead brains are 1400 to 1600 more than they should be! Literally twice the size of normal human brains! So how does head binding not only reshape the head, but greatly expand the brain size at the same time? The painting of the Native American in the article proves my point---her head is reshaped, but not in the least enlarged because that is simply not possible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2063486/Is-alien-skull-Mystery-triangular-shaped-head-Peru.html

I think this remarkable discovery deserves every bit of the close scientific scrutiny we have been trying for so long to arrange for the Starchild. Look at its eye sockets! Look at their size! They're not like the Starchild's, they're something entirely different, but certainly not human, in the same way the Starchild's eye sockets are not human. Human-LIKE, yes, but NOT human.

Look at the size of its head! The body is the size of an infant, and the skull's fontanelle (the area of the "soft spot" on a human infant) has not yet closed, yet there seems to be adult type teeth in the mouth! This is very puzzling to me, and forces me to make some rather wild speculations. What kind of being has teeth in infancy? Or, conversely, what kind of being is so tiny as an adult that it has adult teeth but cranial bones that have not sutured?

All I can say is what I've been saying all along: the Coneheads need to be as fully analyzed scientifically as I'm trying to make happen with the Starchild. And to that end, I can let you all in on this: I have become friends with a man who lives in Peru named Brien Foerster. Brien runs tours to all the unusual places down there, and many of you have seen him on the TV show "Ancient Aliens." He will be on it again next season. He is a new force in our field.

Earlier this year Brien was able to secure bone and skin samples from four different Conehead skulls, which he passed to me, and I have in turn passed them to the geneticist working on the Starchild Skull's DNA recovery. As is always the case, we don't have nearly enough money to do what should be done with those Conehead samples, but the geneticist does intend to try to make some very basic recoveries to tell us whatever can be discovered for a minimal amount of money. When we can make more of an investment in those samples, as with the Starchild Skull, you can be certain we will.

Now we have two solid chances to make history one with the Starchild, and one with the Conehead samples. I have always believed the Coneheads would prove to be non-human, just as I know for a fact now that the Starchild will prove to be definitely not human. But the amazing thing is that the Starchild and the Coneheads are from two entirely different types of beings! I don't know what the rest of the Starchild's body looked like, but we do have postcranial Conehead bodies, as seen in the small mummified one recently found in Cuzco.

This is, at the very least, one of the most cutting of the cutting edges in science right now, yet it's a subject that virtually no credentialed scientists dare to acknowledge. I'm astounded, frankly, that the Spanish and Russian anthropologists have stuck their necks out to say they think it's alien. But sooner or later this is where science has to go. Sooner or later they have to face up to things like the Starchild, and the Coneheads, and see them for what they are .... definitely human-LIKE, but just as definitely NOT human.

If you doubt what I'm saying, take four minutes to watch this video about strange skulls, most of which are coneheads, and see what YOU think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taXD1OMTyqA

Interesting to note the mainstreamers are taking this one seriously.

[SPEKTRE76]

we will still have to swallow that there was genetic engeneering 900 years ago...

My beliefs are along the lines of this. You know how people always talk about armageddon and WWIII? I think it's already happened and we are just barely climbing back to where we were. It certainly would explain a lot of the AA shows and why the aliens somewhat resembled us and we were made in their image. I made my children in my imgae too, get what I'm saying. The fact we call God 'the father' or the 'king of kings'. I think now in retrospect that maybe he and a few others was last of our specices who was advanced. I mean think about it something like that happened again, you really think we would all have the resources and mental fortitude to just snap back. Hell, no we'd revert to ancient times and ancient ways, our most basic primal needs and wants.

If any of you know the stories Stan was cast into a pit of EVERLASTING fire. Doesn't that sound like some sort of reactor to you? Maybe he was just an insuboordinate soldier? I say that because they refer to St. Micheal as the general of all angels. I think a big fight went down and Satan was trying to do something to overthrow the current regime and they ended up in some place where an ever lasting fire existed and they just threw his a$% in there along with all his followers as a punishment and example to any future opposers which is our word for SATAN.

So, coming back from my tangent, no It's not unlikely and were probably more advanced that we ever knew and the pyramids are actually way older than we think. Of course I've been awake since 2am and it's 7:30pm now LOL. I'm probably making no sense at all.

[Bob137]

The Star Child Skull is definitely a snare in many skeptics minds, and in time will probably show that everything is not written in stone, and that true science is always done with an open mind, and research, and more research, not with condescending, and ridicule, and going off half baked and spouting nonsensical questions to irritate people, instead of getting down to the truth of the matter. In regards to the misshapen skulls around the world, I am sure some are just from head binding, but some it is plain to see are not from that, and either part or whole extraterrestrial, or some disease, (which we know nothing of), was happening around the earth and effecting just specific people, and no one else, Which is not very likely. I also believe we at one time had advanced civilizations on earth and were destroyed, but that is not an answer for the Star Child skull or the elongated skulls that are not like ours or just from binding. Whether Satan or God or any of those idols of old had anything to do with that is not very likely, since they seem to have both been extraterrestrial in nature, and material beings, they may have made the wars, and the conflicts, but that is another story.