Starchild Skull Update: 8/20/2012 "geneticist writes Abstract about Starchild DNA!"

Disclaimer: I did perform a "search" and hadn't seen this one posted yet. So do what you must with it.

I have been following this topic off and on, here's the scoop.

.....about his nearly two-years of intermittent work on the Starchild Skull's DNA (as was permitted by negligible funding from us and his own resourceful initiative). It is now available for reading on the Starchild Project website, at the link provided below.

In Brief: The document below was written by the geneticist conducting the DNA research on the Starchild Skull. It is the Abstract of a larger document explaining the pertinent details of what he has thus far discovered in the Starchild’s DNA. It is written as a general text for specialists, so non-specialists might find it difficult to comprehend.

Full Article Here

One more quote from the email I received

A primary purpose of the Abstract is to help those of you who find yourselves embroiled in arguments about the Starchild on the internet, where Trolls and Skeptics invariably try to scorch supporters, demanding "proof," demanding "evidence." Now you have a document directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak, something written at a technical level I could never accomplish. So now if a Troll or Skeptic gets on your case for supporting the Starchild, tell them to have a look at this Abstract.

.

I know this is a highly controversial subject. I personally have yet to be convinced that it is extraterrestrial in nature, but I do find it a uniquely fascinating piece of evidence from a once living creature/being.

Have at it...

I read the article but my understanding of it is little to none. I really have no idea what that article says.

Originally posted by EndlessFire
I read the article but my understanding of it is little to none. I really have no idea what that article says.

I hear you there...I'm trying to absorb it myself. I know there are members where who can read this like a children's book. It's pretty much over my head. I just wanted to share.

In summary, this skull is like a human skull, only it isn't, if that makes sense

At the end of the day, there will never be a conclusive result that will satisfy the skeptics OR believers on this one. An interesting mystery nonetheless but in imo, will never be solved.

reply to post by exdog5


OK, I haven't read the report yet, just the responses in this thread, but if it is a DNA analysis, then why is it hard to understand? Either it is 100% match to human genome, or it is some lesser percentage. Not talking about the structure of the skull, or any genetic anomalies or defects that might have made it different than a typical human skull, but just pure DNA. Is it a 100% match, 99.9%?

Does the skull even contain DNA? Did they have to extract it from bone marrow, or was there some DNA evidence preserved on the skull?

I have never looked into this skull research much, because to my knowledge a skull doesn't contain much marrow, if any, and so the likelihood of having any DNA to test is so low that I've never really taken the research seriously, but I've always hoped I was wrong and some bold finding would result and be confirmed. Still hoping.

reply to post by exdog5


What I think this is saying is that it is human, however it is unlike "normal" human dna. It has strange variances. However, if they were to compare it to say down syndrome or other dna type abnormalities they would likely find similarities. Also if they compared their dna with dna from people who exhibit extra abilities like ESP or other abilities beyond the "norm" they would most likely find similarities.

Who’s to say this was not a physically deformed person that was also extremely intelligent or had other extraordinary gifts. That happens in humans . Someone who is blind but can paint. A person that is Autistic and a savant. They should compare that type of dna to see how it matches up..
Just my interpretation

Thanks for the replies, my knowledge of DNA testing is nominal. It seems they were able to obtain a DNA sample from the skull in question. The .pdf simply goes into areas beyond my scope of science. I understand about 80% and realize there is still no absolute proof of much beyond the fact the skull is "different".

Download PDF

I'm still not leaning towards an extraterrestrial connection. I'm of the mind it is the product of some rare genetic deviation...it's the cause that baffles me.

reply to post by exdog5


It's actually broken down pretty simply. Taken directly from the abstract:

From this evidence one may conclude that the underlying biochemistry of the entity’s life form must be either the same as, or highly similar to, humans or other species. Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin). The most important point here is that in either case, despite the existing differences, the encoded information can be recovered and decoded.

Further studies will include identifying and analyzing the entity’s collagen or collagen-like genes, which they believe should also constitute the organic component of the entity’s bone. In all humans and other mammals, collagen represents 25% to 35% of the body’s entire protein content. It should be easy to detect any differences with this approach.

In short, biochemically similar, genetically similar, use of universally similar genetic makeup SUBSTANTIALLY different.

Who is the geneticist? Oh..."Starchild Project Geneticist". Why is it Pye never names these guys?

What does the "Starchild Project Geneticist" say in an abstract which is "written as a general text for specialists"?

Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin).

Here is someone supposedly writing for peers and he has to use an analogy to computer operating systems? Sounds more like intentional doubletalk aimed at people who won't understand what is being talked about.

Why has none of this stuff from Pye's experts been published with peer review?

Hmmm... He says this:

Our confidence is based on a number of critical prerequisites. First and foremost, the chemistry of the entity’s skull is similar to that of human bone.

When just above that it said this:

3. Its chemical makeup resembles human tooth enamel much more than the makeup of human skeletal bone

Does this invalidate his "first and foremost" "critical prerequisite"?

The abstract doesn't really say much, just that they tested the feasibility of doing some tests.
As usual, nothing new or of interest. Just more fluff to keep it stringing along.

Originally posted by Phage
Who is the geneticist? Oh..."Starchild Project Geneticist". Why is it Pye never names these guys?

What does the "Starchild Project Geneticist" say in an abstract which is "written as a general text for specialists"?

Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin).

Here is someone supposedly writing for peers and he has to use an analogy to computer operating systems? Why has none of this stuff from Pye's experts been published with peer review?

Off topic, sorry, but the quote Phage made is bugging the hell out of me, mainly because of how WRONG one of the analogies is: English and French both belonging to the same language group.

That is completely wrong. English is from Western Germanic and French is a romance language that came from Latin.

They would have been better off saying "by comparing the grammer rules of Spanish and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin)."

Because that's another thing: English and French do not share the same grammar rules.

Sorry for being off topic.........however I do have to wonder about the validity of the paper if the writers don't even understand basics of different languages that I learned in high school.....

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
In summary, this skull is like a human skull, only it isn't, if that makes sense

At the end of the day, there will never be a conclusive result that will satisfy the skeptics OR believers on this one. An interesting mystery nonetheless but in imo, will never be solved.

I disagree. let him release segments of the skull to be independently analysed by reputable universities/ Scientists. These results could be further confirmed. The problem is this find is his retiurment fund methinks.

This could be the biggests discovery in biosciences for the decade.

Originally posted by Phage
Who is the geneticist? Oh..."Starchild Project Geneticist". Why is it Pye never names these guys?

What does the "Starchild Project Geneticist" say in an abstract which is "written as a general text for specialists"?

Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin).

Here is someone supposedly writing for peers and he has to use an analogy to computer operating systems? Sounds more like intentional doubletalk aimed at people who won't understand what is being talked about.

Why has none of this stuff from Pye's experts been published with peer review?

edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I'm relatively new to this Pye person, Thanks Phage...I will dig deeper before posting this type of thing again. I'm multi-tasking today...not much investigative time.

reply to post by preezy120


Thanks for isolating a bit I can understand...

Originally posted by Tiger5


This could be the biggests discovery in biosciences for the decade.

No. It's so much more than that. As Pye himself says:

and that as soon as we can secure the funding necessary for our geneticist to recover and sequence the entire genome, he will indeed make history with it as big as history can be made.

www.starchildproject.com...

How big can history be?

But we neeeed more monnneeey! Pleeeeaaassse!

Originally posted by Phage
Who is the geneticist? Oh..."Starchild Project Geneticist". Why is it Pye never names these guys?

What does the "Starchild Project Geneticist" say in an abstract which is "written as a general text for specialists"?

Yet, the use of the genetic code, which still remains universal, is distinctively different, implying that this life form is very likely the result of a markedly variant and non-intersecting evolutionary process. This may be illustrated by comparing Macintosh OS and Windows OS, both of which run on the same Intel processor, or by comparing the grammar rules of English and French, both of which belong to the same language group (Latin).

Here is someone supposedly writing for peers and he has to use an analogy to computer operating systems? Sounds more like intentional doubletalk aimed at people who won't understand what is being talked about.

Why has none of this stuff from Pye's experts been published with peer review?

edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Lot's of why's there Phage.

When you can't attack the data, discredit those behind it?

You know very well why established geneticists won't touch this thing, it's not exactly a career boost.

The genetic abstract is there, let's hope competent people will take a look at it.

Personally I haven't made up my mind about anything. With time the truth will prevail, regardless of what's being said in this thread.

To me Pye is one of the greatest lectures I've ever heard and I do think it is not of this world because of the content of the skull. It is twice as strong and much thinner than a human skull.
This is the real deal. We are just opening ourselves into a new age of enlightenment. We are joining ourselves to the outside worlds wither we like it our not.

I am not saying Lloyd is right on everything but not many people are, not even Albert Einstein. But I do think he is closer to the truth in most of the subjects he lectures on than i've heard elsewhere.

And he has passion in his presentations, I love his lectures on the pyramids, obelisks, monolithic stones. creationism etc. And of course genetics etc. To me he is a good breath of fresh air.
Even if you don't agree with him at the start, I highly recommend checking out his youtube videos.

reply to post by Heliocentric

Lot's of why's there Phage.

Yes. Yes there are a lot of questions about why Pye does and doesn't do things. Things like this:

The author of this Abstract obtained skull bone samples under the condition that DNA samples would be confined to one laboratory.

When you can't attack the data, discredit those behind it?

What data? The yammering about the FOXP2 stuff? See, the thing is that isn't new and none of it has been verified by anyone but Pye and "his" geneticist.

You know very well why established geneticists won't touch this thing, it's not exactly a career boost.

Ah. Only Pye's nonestablished geneticist then. And he's not willing to give his name? Why not? This is truly amazing stuff! Non terrestrial DNA!

The genetic abstract is there, let's hope competent people will take a look at it.

As pointed out, there is no genetic abstract. There is a "plan" for further testing....so he needs more money.

Sounds like the STarchild is just from a different race of beings that once inhabited the earth to me. Breaking off from mankind a long time ago.

I read a lot of research reports and they tend to include a lot of not so exact language. To be a real research article it has to be vague and list any parameters, which this does have. Some people only read the translation of these articles and never see the research articles themselves. most people can't understand the research articles lack of exact yes or no statements. Many interpretations of research are messed up even at high levels because someone made a definitive statement out of them. Real science has lots of Ifs, ands, or buts attached.

reply to post by Heliocentric

You know very well why established geneticists won't touch this thing, it's not exactly a career boost.

Finding scientific evidence of alien visitation wouldn't be a career boost? Seriously?



The "starchild" skull is very similar to a human's and has confirmed to have human DNA, so it's a human skull. Even if it weren't definitively human it still LOOKS ape. So arguing that it's alien is arguing:

1) Aliens evolved on a different planet BUT have skulls that appear primate in nature, this is an incredible coincidence. The odds that convergent evolution would take place and that that species which evolved to look a lot like us found its way through interstellar space to our planet to leave this skull behind - compared to the odds that this is just a deformed human skull.

2) Aliens evolved on a different planet and came to Earth creating an alien-human hybrid. This presupposes that the aliens have DNA compatible enough with ours to allow genetic engineering OR that the aliens are similar enough to interbreed (even more unlikely).

3) The aliens created us to look like them, hence the similarities of the "starchild" skull to the human skull. This hypothesis voids hundreds of years of research into human evolution, numerous fossil finds, and everything we know about human genetics and our relation to chimpanzees and other great apes (as well as our relation to all life on Earth). We've mapped the human genome, so where is the evidence of alien tampering in our past?

There are many fossil human-like skulls, many of which belong to our hominid ancestors. The fact that they are different does not make them alien nor does it open up the door for wild and moronic speculation about aliens, alien-human hybrids, etc. I simply cannot understand the religious idolatrous zeal of those who defend this obviously earthly object as if it were bombshell proof of their unfounded unproven assertions.