Forensic DNA Test
Results Of 'Starchild ET' Skull
From Lloyd Pye <>
Latest Revision: December 1999

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 ground.
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 procedure."
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 in brackets.
"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 amplification.]
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 DNA characteristics.
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 and/or repair.
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 level.
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 is astonishing.
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 yet).
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 .
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: < .
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: .
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 .
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.


This Site Served by TheHostPros