- I. Forensic DNA Test Results On The Starchild Skull
- The initial rounds of testing the Starchild's genomic
(nuclear) DNA are now complete, and the results are that it is male, and
from a forensic standpoint it is human. There is more to it than that,
of course, because of the greater insights that might be available through
diagnostic testing, which is more extensive and expensive than we have
been able to afford up to this point. So what we will do now is go through
the testing that has been done, outlining the results, and after that
we will discuss various views of what the results mean and how they have
been interpreted. I think you will find it fascinating.
- The tests were conducted by Dr. David Sweet, Director
of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry (BOLD) at the University of British Columbia
in Vancouver, Canada. BOLD is one of the world's best forensic laboratories
for the analysis and study of DNA from calcified tissues, usually dealing
with forensic cases less than 50 years old. (The Starchild skulls have
recently been dated at 900 years old.) Dr. Sweet is an odontologist (dental
expert). During his work with the Starchild skull, he was assisted by
his Research Associate, Dr. Dean Hildebrand, a molecular biologist. The
academic credentials of both men are extensive and impressive, and their
professional reputations are impeccable.
- They conducted a series of five genomic (nuclear) DNA
tests: (1) one on the adult skull found with the Starchild skull; (2)
one on the piece of detached maxilla alleged to be an integral part of
the Starchild skull (see previous reports on this site for an explanation
of the detached piece of maxilla and its probable connection to the skull);
(3) one on a piece of bone from the Starchild skull known as an occipital
condyle (a piece of the foramen magnum, or neck hole opening); (4) one
on the Starchild's right mastoid bone (behind the ear); and (5) one a
rectangular "window" cut from the right-side parietal bone (the
right side of the skull above the ear).
- We will now briefly review each of those tests, first
quoting relevant excerpts from the official report, then expanding on that
to make it clearer to nonprofessionals.
- The first test (1) was on the adult skull, with results
in on Nov. 2, 1999. Here is the quote: "Human genomic DNA was extracted
and typed from the adult's skull using a screening test called AmpFISTR-Blue
(3 genetic loci) plus Amelogenin (gender determination). Results reveal
that the DNA extracted from the adult skull (occipital condyle) is from
a female person. A genetic profile at three forensically significant loci
has been obtained."
- This means everything went well and predictably with
the adult skull. The condyle bone's surface was sanded down to remove the
usual traces of human contact, and the remainder was chemically cleaned,
crushed to powder, and prepared for testing. The Amelogenin test, which
indicates male or female, clearly showed female. Then a screening test
of only three genetic areas--the 3 loci (DNA sites)--was able to detect
all of the DNA required to provide a genetic profile of the female. This
ease of extraction can be attributed to the fact the human skull was not
buried in the soil of the mine tunnel (or cave) it was found in. It lay
supine (face up) on the surface, meaning the condyle bone that was tested
(a knob-shape alongside the neck hole opening) would not have been touching
- The second test (2) was run on the detached piece of
maxilla (the upper right jawbone) alleged to be part of the Starchild
skull. That small piece of maxilla had two baby teeth attached in an exposed
position and three impacted in the bone above--two premolars and one incisor.
It was decided to test one of the exposed teeth because of ease of duplication,
ease of extraction, a high probability of recovering viable DNA (tooth
pulp encased in enamel is often the last part of a body to degrade), and
the minimal damage that would be done to the maxilla itself. Here is the
test report on that procedure:
- "Unfortunately, the results of PCR amplification
of the sample recovered from the baby tooth taken from the piece of right
maxilla (upper jaw) was negative. No profile was obtained. As I explained,
this may be due to environmental factors, including humidity, acidic soil,
UV light, heat, etc. I think it will be valuable to harvest another small
sample from elsewhere on the exhibit and attempt another amplification
- Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplification is how
geneticists make infinitely small pieces of DNA reproduce themselves into
much larger samples that can be easily worked with in a laboratory. However,
when attempted on the crushed tooth extract, there was no reaction! Thus,
nothing at all could be said about the sex of its owner or characteristics
of its DNA, indicating that degradation of the sample was comprehensive.
This meant no genetic connection could be made between the maxilla and
the Starchild skull. Also, further testing on the maxilla was ruled out
because of the poor likelihood of results.
- The third test (3) was done on the Starchild's occipital
condyle, the same knob-like bone from alongside the neck opening (foramen
magnum) that had been taken from the adult. Though smaller and less robust
than the adult's, the Starchild's condyle was treated the same in the
lab. It was removed, its outer surface sanded away to remove all traces
of human contact (which would leave behind contaminating DNA), it was
chemically cleaned, then its inner core was ground to powder and tested.
Here is the report:
- "Human genomic DNA was extracted and typed from
the child's skull using the same screening test. Unfortunately, the DNA
profile is a mixture of at least three people. At the Amelogenin locus
it was determined that at least one of the DNA contributors was male (result
is a mixture of male and female). This result indicates there has been
severe contamination of the specimen by DNA originating from several people.
Despite our best efforts to decontaminate the surface of the specimen
prior to DNA extraction, multiple DNA profiles were obtained."
- This is self-explanatory, but a salient point not mentioned
here that was discussed orally is the Starchild skull's extraordinary porosity
(a sponge-like quality) relative to normal human bone. This might have
been expected since the Starchild skull is remarkably light compared to
the adult skull, which is close to its size. (The adult was small, perhaps
only 5 feet tall, while the Starchild was large for a child, comparable
to a normal 12-year-old.) Weighing only 1/2 as much as the adult, and
perhaps 2/3 of a normal six-year-old (the Starchild's presumed age), it
is 1/3 larger, which has caused some experts to question whether it is,
in fact, a child. However, child or not, its bones are unexpectedly durable.
- We can assume half-weight adult bones would be thin and
fragile, yet the Starchild's skull bones, while indeed thinner than usual,
show no cracking or fissuring apart from normal (and extensive) cranial
suturing. In contrast, the adult shows a severe concussion in the upper
part of her left parietal. If we accept that both lived and died in a
rugged area of northern Mexico around 900 years ago (calculated by a Carbon
14 dating performed on the adult ), we can presume the Starchild would
have had ample opportunities to crack a truly fragile head in the process
of growing up in such an environment.
- Others might argue that the Starchild could have been
paralyzed, or virtually paralyzed, by its aggregate deformities, and so
would never be put in a position to be injured by the accidental (or otherwise)
blows to the head that all children are subject to while growing up. However,
others can argue that in such a place 900 years ago a paralyzed or otherwise
helpless child could not and would not have been kept alive because of
the enormous strain that would place on its family's undoubtedly meager
resources. So it seems fair to suggest that extraordinarily porous bones
that somehow maintained reasonable durability are a sign of something
beyond the range of "normal" humanity.
- The fourth test (4) was done on a sample taken from the
Starchild's right mastoid bone (mastoid process), the bone behind its right
ear. The mastoid area is known to be porous, too, but we were hoping to
avoid cutting into the denser cranial bones and permanently marring the
beauty and symmetry of the skull. So extra grinding was done to the surface
of the bone to be certain to go into it below any possible seepage of
oil from human hands that might have handled the skull in the past. The
result was then chemically cleaned, ground to powder, and the test was
conducted. Here is how the report reads:
- "After the customary number of PCR cycles (28),
there was a very weak gender profile from the second bone sample taken
from the child's skull (mastoid process). Other alleles had 'dropped off,'
which is usually a result of degradation of the genomic DNA. The approach
when this occurs involves reamplifying the sample with 5 additional cycles
in an attempt to produce a result. (The objective is to take whatever
has amplified from the very tiny starting amount of DNA and subject it
to further amplification--in theory the DNA doubles with each cycle so
additional cycles may produce a result that can be visualized and interpreted.)
Once the additional 5 cycles were performed, which is the outer limit
of current technology, only one locus showed a profile: Amelogenin. The
result is X-Y and this tells us two significant things. First, the child
was male; second, the DNA is human. Unfortunately, because we do not have
a profile from other loci it is not possible to conduct a paternity test
against the genotype of the adult skull."
- This means that after a normal run of trying to amplify
the DNA, it was found that degradation (most likely from being buried
in acidic soil, as mentioned earlier) had caused the alleles (the actual
gene segments that must be read for proper analysis) to "drop off,"
which means they were reduced from long segments (strands) into bits and
pieces so small they would render almost no pertinent information. Try
as they might, Drs. Sweet and Hildebrand could not amplify those bits
and pieces beyond sensitivity to Amelogenin (one of the least technically
demanding test procedures), which allowed them to determine its sex was
male. This is a crucial determination because it permits a conclusion by
inference that the Starchild was human. Here is how:
- To obtain a sex determination of "male" means
readings were obtained from both "X" and "Y" chromosomes
in the Starchild's DNA. From a genetic standpoint that means it received
its X chromosome(s) from a human mother and its Y chromosome(s) from a
human father. From a forensic standpoint, even though virtually nothing
else is known about the construction of the Starchild's DNA, with X and
Y chromosomes present, all of its finer details, if ever known, would
inevitably prove to be human. On the other hand, some might argue that
without much more clarity regarding the entirety of the Starchild's DNA,
it is too early to rule out the possibility that infinitesimally small
fragments of other-than-human DNA might be present. Or, for those willing
to stretch a bit further, it could be that the biological template of
the alien part of an alien-human hybrid (which the Starchild might represent)
would not be visible at all to any kind of "human" testing.
- These alternative views will be considered in more detail
shortly. For now be sure to note that the testing process could not establish
a genetic link between the Starchild and the adult. Consequently, we do
not know if they were or were not a mother and her son.
- The fifth test (5) was carried out to verify the "very
weak gender profile" of the 4th test, and to try to establish a genetic
link between the adult and the Starchild. What follows is Dr. Sweet's
report regarding this final test (minus an introductory review of events
up to that point, and a disposition statement regarding repair and return
of the skull), which was received by me on December 2, 1999. I will enclose
his words with the usual quotation marks, and wrap my explanatory comments
- "Dear Lloyd:
- After receiving from you permission to proceed, a section
(4 cm x 4 cm) of parietal bone was harvested from the lateral aspect of
the right side of the child's skull. Rigorous decontamination procedures
were used to eliminate any contaminating DNA from the bone. Subsequently,
5.5 grams of powder were produced from the sample by cryogenic grinding.
The sample was divided in two and DNA was extracted and purified from one
half of the total amount. It was determined that there were 200 picograms
of DNA present in this relatively large sample. (Ideal amount of target
DNA for PCR is 1,000 picograms.) Thus, again, it appears that there has
been considerable degradation of the DNA over time due to environmental
conditions at the site of discovery or during storage and/or transportation
of the exhibit."
- [Since storage of the skulls is alleged to have been
in cardboard boxes kept in garages for 50 to 60 years, burial in acidic
soil seems the most likely source of a degrading influence. Also, by #5
all testing procedures were being carried out with extraordinary rigor.
And note that the recovered sample is only 1/5 of what is needed for useful
- PCR-based amplification of this trace of DNA produced
an X-Y (male) profile but did not result in supra-threshold results at
other forensically significant loci. (No peaks.) The second half of the
sample was then processed and concentrated. PCR-based amplification of
the DNA produced the same result as with the first half. That is, X-Y
(male) and no peaks at other genetic loci tested."
- [Amelogenin gave another X-Y read as a male, which allows
the extrapolation that both the X and Y chromosomes had to come from humans,
as occurred in test #4. And there were still no significant (supra-threshold)
results generated, which means not enough DNA was recovered to complete
allele calls that would allow paternity testing.]
- Due to the strict cleaning regimen employed with this
sample, it is my opinion that the DNA that was isolated and tested was
not from exogenous, contaminating DNA. The result appears to be due to
the age of the skull; the genomic DNA is too degraded to provide a complete
profile. The sex of the decedent has been verified as male. The traces
of DNA that were recovered in each of the numerous tests performed in
this laboratory responded to human-specific probes."
- [Human-specific probes are segments of DNA which respond
only to complimentary sequences of base pairs in human DNA at flanking
regions of the locus (site) under study, (which in forensic testing is
normally 100 to 300 base pairs long). Thus, they will not match up with
anything other than counterparts within human DNA. 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.]
- The following question arises: Can DNA be used to evaluate,
assess, or diagnose the etiology (cause) of the unusual shape and appearance
of the child's skull? Unfortunately, this laboratory deals only with STR
loci that have forensic significance -- they are non-diagnostic loci.
The specimen would have to be tested by a laboratory that focuses on diagnostic
genetic loci if one was to consider attempting to identify a potential
genetic cause for the unusual appearance. Further, it is predicted that
diagnostic laboratory will also find the same difficulty in isolating
and extracting sufficient DNA for genetic testing."
- [This is the crux of the matter. What we have now are
test results for "loci that have forensic significance." The
forensic testing of calcified tissue (bone) is done with markers in the
range of 100 to 300 base pair lengths, which is adequate for answering
broad-based questions like, "Is a sample male or female? Is one sample
related to another?" Or even, "Is it human or ape or cow?"
Such determinations can be critical in situations where old bones are
recovered in an isolated, unmarked grave and foul play may be suspected.
On the other hand, diagnostic testing is done with markers longer than
500 base pairs in length, which provides a much finer determination of
- What we must decide now is whether to move forward with
diagnostic testing on the Starchild, which could tell us whether or not
its physical anomalies are due to some kind of known chromosomal disorder
(Down's syndrome, hydrocephaly, etc.). That potential gain must be weighed
against the assured cost, which will be much greater than forensic testing
(and is a primary reason we opted for forensic testing in the first place).
Also, any diagnostic lab will face the same degree of degradation the
BOLD lab encountered.]
- David Sweet Director, BOLD Lab
- In closing this part of the website update, I would like
to compliment Dr. Sweet and Dr. Hildebrand for professional diligence above
and beyond the call of duty. We paid for the first three tests only, with
the cost of the next two coming out of their pockets because they wanted
to secure the best possible results they had contracted to deliver. Nowadays
we seldom find that kind of commitment to the old-fashioned ideal of value
for money, and we want our gratitude for their integrity and competence
to be formally recognized.
- II. Where Do We Go From Here?
- The short answer is "further testing," especially
the diagnostic testing mentioned above, which can be analogized as examining
the Starchild's DNA with a microscope rather than the magnifying glass
of forensic testing. (You get what you pay foror can pay for.) However,
there are some serious considerations. As Dr. Sweet observed, analyzing
the Starchild's chromosomes might determine if any known chromosomal disorder
caused its "unusual shape and appearance." But as he also observed,
any laboratory doing that will have to cope with the same degraded DNA
the BOLD lab was forced to contend with.
- In addition to diagnostic testing, we should consider
other possibilities, things more "off-the-wall" but which could
be crucial to discovering the Starchild's true background. For example,
the Human Genome Project is a worldwide effort being undertaken by diverse
geneticists determined to decode all 100,000-plus genes in the human genome.
It is now scheduled for completion within 2 to 5 years, during which we
can expect amplification techniques to become increasingly sensitive.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that within those next few years new
procedures might be able to recover the currently unreadable bits and
pieces of Starchild DNA and assemble them into an intelligible whole.
- Imagine a new supercomputer able to "read"
every single one of 10,000 or 100,000 such bits and pieces. To the supercomputer
those bits are like puzzle pieces, each providing a fraction of their whole
gene. Taken altogether and assembled in the correct order, those bits
might allow the "reading" of an entire strand of Starchild DNA.
Then we might be able to learn for certain, one way or the other, what
it truly is. But let me stress again that for now such technology is imaginary
and its reality will require at least several years.
- Another "far out" concept that must be considered
is the reasonable assumption that an alien-human hybrid could have both
human DNA and alien "genetic" instructions melded in its/his/her
makeup, with both sets of instructions being active and complimentary and
cooperative. In addition, both might be constructed in entirely different
ways, with DNA being the basis of human genetic structure and ??? (silicone
base, nanotechnology, etc.) being the basis of alien structure. Taking
that a step further, both DNA and ??? could be present as full sets--the
entirety of human DNA and the entirety of the alien "genetic"
code, whatever it would be--to have both sets available for reference
- If that were the case, it seems reasonable to assume
the current human-specific probes used by Dr. Sweet and others would be
thoroughly unable to "read" the alien code if it differed even
slightly from the human (which we can further assume--but only assume--would
be the case between a gray and a human). Because those probes are designed
to detect and identify components of human DNA at very minimum parameters
(the strands of a few hundred base pairs required for forensic and even
diagnostic testing) they would almost surely be "blind" when
confronted with segments of non-human, or not-entirely-human, genetic
code, especially segments not constructed in recognizably human terms.
- One final "cutting edge" concept that must
be mentioned is the fact that genes can be divided into two categories:
timing genes and morphology genes. Timing genes are what code for events
in the life of any organism (when growth starts and when it stops in an
absolute myriad array of tightly regulated events). One single mistake
in a timing code sequence can destroy a developing organism much more effectively
than a mistake in a morphology sequence, which would be what was growing
(an eye or a limb). So while mistakes in morphology code are often survivable,
mistakes in timing are usually not.
- With that in mind, imagine the problem of creating an
alien-human hybrid by starting with a human to produce something like
the Starchild. What would be required? First, you would need a great deal
of morphological change to modify many (if not all) points of physical
reference that define a "normal" human being. (In the Starchild
skull, every such point is reconfigured.) However, that would be essentially
achievable without destroying the viability of the hybrid. In other words,
it could live (as the Starchild clearly lived) without looking much like--or
even at all like--its original human lineage. However, timing sequences
could not be altered or viability would be lost.
- What this means is that however physically different
from humans a particular alien species might be (imagine the wide array
of possibilities in "Star Wars"), it must share a complimentary
copy of the human timing sequence code or viable offspring (no matter
how much or how little a "mix" they might be) will not progress
beyond the fetal stage. Needless to say, the idea that aliens and humans
might share a fundamental similarity in their chromosomal makeup is deemed
"unacceptable" to current science and theology. However, it
should be considered as part of the overall picture that may or may not
be developing with regard to the possibility of humanoid alien life forms,
and particularly to alien-human interaction and coexistence at the genetic
- Now, let's return to the realm of "acceptable"
to science by considering an alternative to trying to obtain genomic (nuclear)
DNA, which reveals characteristics of both parents. Instead, we could
try to sequence mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which reveals traits of the
mother only. If the Starchild is in fact an alien-human hybrid with a human
mother (impregnated either sexually or manually), mtDNA would not help
in that determination because it would represent only the mother's DNA.
However, if it is a hybrid and its father is human and its mother is not
(much less likely), or if the skull is from a pure alien (a more plausible
possibility), its mtDNA should reveal that (unless its genetic lineage
is either indistinguishable or undistinguishable from humans). Here, too,
degradation will be a problem, although considerably less so than when
trying to recover genomic DNA.
- Evidence for this last statement has been provided to
me by a geneticist who wishes to remain anonymous. Here is his quote,
which I don't fully understand but which I assume to be correct: "We
have examples of mitochondrial DNA that have been amplified from samples
even more degraded than the Starchild. For example, the first Neanderthal,
the Tyrolean Ice Man, and bodies at the ancient Cahokia mound have not
given up genomic DNA, but mtDNA has been recovered. Even if the PCR band
is a 3-molecule mixture, by cloning and sequencing a series of individual
clones, one could isolate a putative 'alien' component at a level as low
as 10%. Therefore, if a qualified laboratory takes Starchild samples and
amplifies mitochondrial HVI 16,000-16,400 in units of 100, there is a good
chance of picking up an alien clone if any should exist in the sample.
Only 16,100-16,300 vary much, so 3 sections within that range (100-180,
160-240, 220-300) should work."
- Obviously, this is extremely technical work that can
performed in only a few labs in the world, the foremost of which is the
laboratory of Dr. Svante Paabo in Munich, Germany. Dr. Paabo is the world-renowned
geneticist whose lab recovered the mitochondrial DNA samples mentioned
above from the first Neanderthal (from 30,000 years ago) and the Tyrolean
Ice Man (now most commonly referred to as "Otzi," from 6,000
years ago). As a matter of fact, when the Starchild Project first got
underway, going straight to Svante Paabo was our primary plan. We intended
to send samples from both skulls to the world's top five labs for dealing
with ancient DNA so they could carry out double-blind testing (no lab
would know which skull sample it had), and we wanted to hire Dr. Paabo
to oversee that process. Looking back, the grandiosity of our planning
- III. A Personal Message
- In addition to five double-blind DNA tests (to circumvent
sample tampering and/or manipulation of results), we intended to perform
several others of scientific significance: Carbon 14 dating (recently completed
and showing 900 years plus-or-minus 50 before present time); neutron spectroscopy
to determine the bone's chemical composition (still not undertaken); CAT
scan to determine the skull's basic growth pattern (done, revealing normal
cranial sutures with no premature closing, or synostosis); an endocranial
cast to provide a glimpse of the surface of the brain housed inside the
skull (still not done and technically challenging unless the entire top
of the head is sawed off like a bowl, which for now is not an option);
and a forensic reconstruction of what the face might have looked like
in life (several drawings have been completed, but no clay sculpture as
- In the case of the bone's histology, which is its anatomical
makeup, an examination was carried out by Dr. David Harris of Biomedical
Consultants of California. In general, the results were that no significant
differences could be distinguished between the adult and the Starchild.
However, it would be difficult to distinguish any such differences between
the adult and the bone of many other mammals. The value of this test would
have been if any large, blatantly obvious variations had presented themselves.
For more detail on this procedure, Dr. Harris will be posting his report
at www.biomedicalconsultants.com .
- Every case of failure above has been due to a continual
and profound lack of funding. This is attributable almost solely to me,
Lloyd Pye, because I was so naïve about what I was getting into when
I undertook the Starchild Project. I was convinced that something so potentially
paradigm-shattering would be eagerly welcomed by every seeker of truth
throughout the world, and those of us involved would be given carte blanche
to do whatever we deemed necessary to get the testing done quickly and
thoroughly. I thought it would require three or four months, six at most,
to arrive at answers I was convinced every truth seeker would be anxious
to hear. I could hardly have been more mistaken.
- It is humiliating to have to confess this, but in the
nine months I have led the Starchild Project, I have proven myself unequal
to the task. Try as I might, I have not been able to interest any major
media in even looking at the skulls, much less giving them the kind of
coverage I felt they deserved. Recently (Nov. 12th) the tabloid TV show
"Extra" gave us four minutes of national coverage, but that
is the sum total of mainstream exposure I was able to generate for the
skull. By any reasonable standard, this was and is an unacceptable performance.
And my efforts at fundraising have been even more dismal, prompting an
acquaintance to pointedly quip that I couldn't raise dust on a dirt farm.
- In nine months I made nearly 50 personal appearances
with the skulls in tow, at large and small venues, driving almost 50,000
miles and flying perhaps 30,000 more, to speak face-to-face with approximately
5,000 people. At every venue I asked for contributions and support, and
collected less than $7,000 that way, with $1200 of it coming from one
venue and $800 from another. That is no exaggeration. I was also on dozens
of radio interview shows and one local TV show, speaking altogether to
probably hundreds of thousands, asking for contributions and support.
Perhaps another $5,000 came in from those efforts. But the piece de resistance
was my interview with Hilly Rose on Art Bell's late-night radio talk show,
when I introduced the Starchild to an audience of 10 million or more.
- I was on with Hilly for five hours, during and after
which we received 1,000,000 hits on our new (at the time) website. That's
right, one million hits--after one night! (Those who listened might remember
that shortly after I announced the site it went down for about 20 minutes.
That was because in the first three minutes after I announced it, the
site received over 70,000 hits, which froze the counter. Fortunately,
Mark Bean, our webmaster, was listening to the show and managed to disable
the counter to reestablish the site.)
- On several occasions during those five hours with Hilly,
I discussed in considerable detail the extensive testing program we envisioned
(outlined above), explaining why we felt all of it was necessary and important.
And, of course, on three separate occasions I made a plea for funding
support to pay for that broad range of tests, quoting an estimated cost
of between $50,000 and $100,000 (which have proven to be accurate parameters).
I made those pleas as sincerely and as honestly as I could, yet that vast
audience responded with only $2,200 in contributions. I still do not know
how or why I handled that so badly.
- In nine months of pleading for money, the total I collected
has been less than $20,000, the largest chunk by far ($5,000) coming from
an old football buddy from my college days who is not even active in our
field! Also, the Starchild's owners, a wonderful couple who still prefer
to remain anonymous to avoid unwanted pressures at their jobs, bit the
bullet and took out a second mortgage on their home to pay for the last
round of testing at the BOLD lab. And in my own case, I considered it
morally unacceptable to continue promoting my book on the back of the
Starchild, so for the past nine months I let my personal income stream
slow to a trickle and then virtually cease. That decision has put me in
a precarious situation, but I felt then and feel now that basing the Starchild
Project on a solid foundation of integrity was one of the best things
we could do for it.
- The upshot is that I am now $50,000 in debt due largely
to lost book income and out-of-pocket expenses, which simply has to stop.
Therefore, I am hereby giving notice that I can no longer serve as leader
of the Starchild Project, or as caretaker of the skulls (adult and Starchild).
I must "retire" from those fascinating jobs to attempt a financial
recovery, which I am certain those who have read the above will understand
and accept as utterly necessary. On the other hand, I am pleased to announce
that the Starchild Project will continue forward under the guidance of
a few old hands and some welcome new ones.
- The Starchild Project's funding affiliation will remain
with The Truth Seeker Foundation in San Diego, California. Anyone wishing
to contribute to further testing or to paying off any of the debts piled
up in the past should earmark those contributions to The Starchild Project
c/o The Truth Seeker Foundation at Box 28550 in San Diego, CA 92198. As
for the Starchild website, it will continue being administered by Mark
Bean, provided his often aching back permits him to maintain his brutal
work pace. As for me, my current three roles will be divided and parceled
out to two men fully capable of handling them.
- Chad Deetken of Vancouver, British Columbia, is a well-known
researcher into several alternative topics: crop circles, cattle mutilations,
and Bigfoot (B.C. is a hotbed of such sightings, and Chad helps host an
international Bigfoot conference every year). He is a very good man I
know personally, having twice stayed at his home with him and his charming
wife, Gwen. He will be an excellent interface with the alternative knowledge
community and, ultimately, the media. He can be reached by email at: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org@direct.ca
- Chad will be assisted in his efforts by a cranio-facial
plastic surgeon who also lives in Vancouver, B.C., but who wishes to remain
anonymous for the obvious reason. He will interface with medical and scientific
personnel, and assume responsibility for arranging all further testing
of the Starchild. It was his friendship with Chad that led us to Dr. David
Sweet, so obviously he is well-connected within the medical and scientific
communities in Vancouver (and elsewhere). He can be contacted through
Chad at: email@example.com .
- For the time being, until Chad can get completely up
to speed regarding all aspects of the Starchild Project, I will remain
involved as its media spokesman. But that role for me will be phased out
as soon as possible so I can resume my career as a researcher and writer.
I am very much looking forward to getting started with researching and
writing Book Two in my "Everything You Know Is Wrong" series,
which will be titled "The Origins Of Life." Look for it to be
completed and available for purchase about a year from now. And, of course,
"Book One: Human Origins" remains available at www.lloydpye.com
- Finally, I would like to sincerely thank everyone who
has contributed to the Starchild Project up to this point, whether in
monetary terms, in effort, or in support of our efforts. All of it has
been important and is very much appreciated. I especially hope those who
contributed do not feel their money or effort was wasted because the result
proved to be inconclusive. The door to the future remains wide open, so
anything can happen.