- Good news and not-so-good news. When the geneticists
analyzing the Starchild's DNA pulverized its bone like a fossil made of
stone, they were able to cleanly recover mitochondrial DNA and compare
it with the less-clear recovery in the second test, which resulted from
treating the bone like normal bone. In both cases the mtDNA proved to be
from Haplogroup C, meaning the second test result was indeed accurate and
we can say with certainty that the Starchild's mother was a human Meso-American
from that distinctive group, and was not the human female found with it
(she was from Haplogroup A). That much is settled.
-
- In the all-important search for nuclear DNA, during the
third run the geneticists made four complete attempts at recovery without
success. This does not, it turns out, mean nuclear DNA is not present.
The clarity of the mtDNA recovery means nuclear DNA stands an excellent
chance of being there, too. In a normal recovery from a fossil (say, a
Neanderthal from 30,000+ years ago), very little mtDNA is recovered and
no nuclear DNA has ever been recovered. The degradation of such ancient
samples is comprehensive. However, with the Starchild and the human found
with it, such is not the case.
-
- The human's mtDNA and its nuclear DNA were recovered
easily on the first test. Why? Because she didn't suffer any climate-driven
ravages after death. She laid exposed on the surface of a mining shaft,
never baked by the sun or soaked by rain. After 900 years she was in more
or less pristine condition. (Compare this to the famous 9,000 year old
Kennewick Man skeleton, which our geneticists also worked on. Because it
was exposed to the open air, it was soaked by water and scorched by the
sun, which leached out all traces of both mtDNA and nuclear DNA.) The Starchild
suffers from having been buried in somewhat acidic soil, which accounts
for the staining all over the skull and the staining at the back of the
human female's head. But the clarity of the Starchild's mtDNA recovery
in the third test means the degradation in the acidic soil was not comprehensive.
Bits and pieces of its nuclear DNA are almost certainly there to be recovered,
amplified, and tested.
-
- Okay, so if it's there, what went wrong? Why no recovery
in four tries? Because it degraded enough so that the primers used by the
geneticists of today are not sensitive enough to capture and extract it.
Understand that the field of ancient DNA recovery is very new, only beginning
in 1995. For most of it there has been no concerted attempt to recover
the highly fragile nuclear DNA, with most primers being developed to extract
the more durable mtDNA. Now that is changing and there are primers for
attempting to extract nuclear DNA, but they are not sophisticated nor,
at this point, very effective. With easy-to-recover DNA of the kind presented
by the human found with the Starchild (and, indeed, with any non-degraded
bone less than 50 years old), they work fine. If not, the pathologists
on "CSI" and other TV shows of that ilk would have little to
grapple with.
-
- Our hope all along has been that the Starchild's burial
soil would not have been acidic enough to do terminal damage to either
its mtDNA or the nuclear DNA. There was no way to test that soil in advance,
since we have no samples of it and have no way to obtain any. So we hoped
for the best and moved forward. Now we know the soil was acidic enough
to lower the recovery threshold below what the current primers can access.
It is as simple--and as deeply frustrating--as that. But before we all
go letting our dobbers droop, let's look on the bright side because in
this case there really is one....a nice shiny one.
-
- When telling me the disappointing news of no nuclear
DNA recovery in four attempts with the third extraction, the geneticists
explained the problems with the lack of sensitivity of current primers,
then they gave me three options. (1) Start again with a different lab to
see if they could obtain a result. I consider our guys two of the best
in the game. If they can't do it, nobody else can, either. Besides, we
only need a second verifying test if they obtain a positive result. There
is no interest in, or need for, comparing and contrasting inconclusive
results. (2) If we could raise something approaching six figures, they
could attempt to construct primers specifically design to recover the Starchild's
DNA. (3) We could allow them to put the extraction they recovered into
a nitrogen deep freeze storage for a couple of years (think sperm storage
or the head of Ted Williams) and wait for the natural course of events
in the field to develop those primers under the auspices of universities
and labs with access to millions of dollars in developmental funding.
-
- While they did not pressure me in any way, I took into
account their excellent work thus far, their obvious passion for and commitment
to their science and the task at hand, and my own inability to raise dust
on a dirt farm, so I chose option # 3. The extracted sample is now on ice,
and we all intend to hunker down to wait until we have better prospects
for recovering the Starchild's elusive--but almost certainly viable--nuclear
DNA. Meanwhile, several other things can happen to directly benefit this
project. The first is that the geneticists have strongly advised me to
have every test available applied to the Starchild's bone because it is
so clearly unlike normal human bone. This is not nearly as expensive or
as extensive as the DNA testing proved to be. Fundamentally, it is basic
chemistry at work.
-
- These tests are as follows: (1) Histomorphometrical analysis;
(2) Morphological analysis; (3) Mineral density; (4) Mineral composition;
and perhaps most interesting of all (5) Bone strength. These five tests
should provide us with all we can learn at this time about the Starchild's
bone and how it relates to normal human bone, and we know going into it
that we will be getting sharp deviations from the norm. I have known that
much for three years. The problem is that it will not be enough to sway
mainstream scientific opinion toward accepting the Starchild as anything
other than some weird kind of physiological anomaly. Only DNA analysis
and comparison can do that.
-
- Let me give a background story here. Over three years
ago we commissioned a bone scan comparison between the Starchild and the
human. Under a microscope the two slides could not have been more different.
I was delighted by what I saw. However, the pathologist I was working with
doused a bucket of cold reality on my enthusiasm. "Yes, Lloyd,"
he said, "they're like apples and oranges. So what? That doesn't mean
your Starchild is of alien origin. All it means is that it's a VERY weird
human."
-
- "Wait!" I protested. "If it's far enough
from human, why CAN'T that mean it's alien?"
-
- "There is no distance far enough from human that
will permit a scientist like myself to conclude it might be alien bone.
We are trained to always look for the simplest, most economical explanation
for anomalies, and the simplest, most economical explanation for what I
see here is that it is a VERY weird human. Period."
-
- So let's understand what to expect from the upcoming
bone tests. We can come in with numbers that will boggle our own minds...distances
from normal bone densities, strengths, and mineral content that will scream
at us that it can't be human or even a terrestrial creature (say, if beryllium
is grossly abundant in it). Even if we get results like that, science can
hold us at arms length and explain it away with "histological deformity"
and "unique morphology" and all kinds of technical mumbo jumbo
that we will not be able to overcome.
-
- In the end, all that counts in this game is DNA, so we
have to accept that and play within the rules laid out by our competition,
which we will continue to do as long as I'm involved with it. We can't
win playing dirty. On the other hand, we can serve notice that the pendulum
has swung in our direction, which is the great value that the bone testing
will provide. If we come in with five major results deviating from the
human norm, we can rest assured that scientists will no longer be able
to dismiss us as a bunch of howling cranks. They will have to take the
Starchild seriously because of the extreme likelihood that the DNA results
will be a clear reflection of the bone analysis. Bone analysis alone they
can dodge and weave and work around, but DNA is a skewer through their
hearts because it is the bedrock of their own testing protocols. In every
case it says what it says, independent of their own dogma or anyone else's
(i.e., organized religion, government....even my own).
-
- Two other things I would like to do, and I think would
be quite useful, are: (1) another dating test other than Carbon 14, which
is not as precise as some of the newer techniques. And (2) I'd like to
go ahead with the long-awaited forensic sculpture so we can all have a
glimpse of how the Starchild might have looked in life. To do all of this--the
bone testing, the new dating, and the forensic sculpture--in total should
cost somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on the quality of the
labs we use and the forensic sculptor we select. We do not have this amount
in the Starchild Fund at present, but I am hoping many of you can see the
value in what we are doing and will choose to dig down one more time to
get us past this final obligation before we settle into however long we
must wait until the geneticists feel fully prepared to go after the nuclear
DNA again.
-
- Another thing I need to mention is that a comprehensive
technical report is being written by the geneticists, which will be more
for the benefit of curious and/or doubting peers than for non-specialists
(wait till you read even a little of it!). They hope to have it ready for
posting on the Starchild website by the end of this month (August 2003)
at the latest. When I post their report I will also be posting a long wrap-up
report of my own that will cover all of the developments in the four-and-a-half
years I have been working on this project. That long report will cover
all I've learned about it up to this point, which I expect to serve as
a helpful introduction to individuals who will hear about it in the intervening
couple of years and come to the site to learn more.
-
- If you are a fan of the Starchild Project and feel disheartened
by these results, please try to focus on the incredible things we have
accomplished while obtaining them. Unlike nearly every other alleged relic
or artifact in the field of alternative knowledge, we have taken the Starchild
skull and shoved it like a huge pile of chips right out into the middle
of science's great crap table and said, "Throw the damn DNA dice!"
We all stood there--you, me, all of us who have supported this effort--shoulder
to shoulder, and watched those dice roll. As it happens, one (the nuclear
DNA result) ended up standing on edge. No winner, no loser. So now we have
to wait a couple of years before rolling it again.
-
- Please don't miss the point we've made loud and clear
to anyone who would listen during this long, often tortuous process. It
harkens back to one of the stanzas in Rudyard Kipling's classic poem about
courage, "IF..."
-
- "If you can make a heap of all your winnings, and
risk it all on one turn of pitch and toss, and lose, and start again at
your beginnings, and never say a word about your loss...."
-
- Well, that's what we've done. We risked it all on one
turn of pitch and toss. We didn't flinch. We were ready to take the hit
if that's what came our way. It didn't. Now it looks very much like the
hit is going to go the other way. To me it looks very much like all we
have to do is be patient, keep playing within ourselves, and we're going
to walk away from this table as winners in the greatest gamble any of us
will probably ever take.
-
- **********************
-
- For those willing to contribute, please send a check,
bank draft, or money order to "The Starchild Fund." Don't make
it out to me. Be sure to have your address on your check or on the envelope
so I can contact you if necessary. Then mail it to me at:
-
- Lloyd Pye
- 6805 Veterans Blvd.
- # L-3
- Metairie, LA 70003
-
- If preferred, contributions can be sent through PayPal
using my account under lloyd@lloydpye.com, or wired directly into the Starchild
Fund account at Bank One in Metairie, LA. The account number is: 1591729601.
The routing number, or ABA, is 065400137.
-
- These are the last few hurdles in this long, difficult
race. Let's clear them cleanly and finish standing tall.
-
- Lloyd Pye
- August 9, 2003
- lloydpye@cox.net
- lloyd@lloydpye.com
|