

By Lloyd Pye
Preface:
The Starchild Project formally began in early March of 1999. In the six months since, certain information has stood the test of time as true and accurate, so it forms the core of this updated text. However, much information in it is new. Some enhances what we assumed to be true from the beginning, some challenges those assumptions, and some totally supplants what we thought we knew. For all readers, the text has been made as concise as possible without losing clarity.
Because the Starchild Project is so unprecedented, there has been no blueprint to follow. We have been left to our own devices, doing our best to make sense of the data we have gathered. In addition, our policy from Day One has been to conduct an open, honest, straightforward pursuit of the truth - and nothing but the truth - regarding the Starchild skull's reality and origins. Therefore, to facilitate comparisons between old and new information, the reduced version of the prior text will be kept on the website. Anyone wishing to evaluate the progress we have made, or to explore the blind alleys we have gone down, will be able to contrast what we thought we knew then with what we think we know now.
Discovery:
Sixty to seventy years ago an American girl of Mexican heritage in her late teens (15 to 18) was taken by her parents to visit relatives living in a small rural village 100 miles southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico. Upon arrival, the girl was told local taboos forbade entering any of the area's numerous caves and mine tunnels. Like many teenagers might do in such a situation, she soon found an excuse to slip away from the village to explore the forbidden places.
At the back of a mine tunnel she found a complete human skeleton lying supine (face up) on the ground's surface. Beside it, sticking up out of the ground, was a malformed skeletal hand wrapped around one of the human skeleton's upper arm bones. The girl proceeded to scrape the dirt off a shallow grave to reveal a buried skeleton, also malformed, and smaller than the human one. She did not specify the type or degree of any of the "malformations."
The girl recovered both skulls and kept them for the remainder of her life. As her death neared, she passed them to an American man who maintained possession for five years before passing them to the American couple who now own and control them. That couple found both skulls show a staining pattern consistent with the discovery story as told by the now-deceased woman.
Only the rear part of the human's (lying on its back) is stained, while all of the malformed skull (the buried one) is stained to varying degrees.
Motivation:
As reported by its discoverer, the Starchild skull is "malformed" in many key ways. In fact, little about it compares to a normal human. It does possess the same number and kind of cranial bones: a frontal, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, none are shaped or positioned as in humans. There are also other similarities, including certain bone extrusions and contours, muscle attachments, and openings for veins and arteries that correspond to humans. Despite those and other recognizable conformities, an overwhelming majority of comparisons show deviation from the human norm.
Sometimes those deviations are slight, but most times they are extensive, to a degree that should have produced afetal "monster" incompatible with life as we know it. Instead, they seamlessly combined to form a cranial outline hauntingly similar to the "Gray" alien type exemplified on the cover of Whitley Streiber's book "Communion." Indeed, apart from a marked difference in the eye sockets (more about that later), the Starchild skull looks very much as if it might fit inside that Gray alien's head. If that were not so compelling, we also would have assumed it was a deformity.
Because the Starchild skull shows so much deviation from the human norm, we can confidently expect DNA testing to prove it is one of three things:
(1) a pure alien Gray type;
(2) a Gray-human hybrid; or
(3) the most bizarre human deformity since The Elephant Man.
Either of the first two would be historic at a level never seen before, while the last would be merely historic. However, even the last outcome would warrant the effort being put into the determination process. History is history, and it is a rare occurrence in anyone's life to get an opportunity to make it.
Inflicted Deformity:
Upon seeing the Starchild skull, the first question most people ask is whether it could have resulted from some kind of human deformity. Because that is such an obvious consideration, we will address it before beginning a detailed description of the skull. There are two basic kinds of human deformity: natural and inflicted. Inflicted deformities result from a practice of certain primitive societies known as "head binding," in which an infant's head is bracketed by any of a variety of flattening or shaping devices, usually boards, then tightly swathed in rags to hold those devices in the desired shape. When applied to the back of a human head, no shaping device can go beyond the bump at the lower middle rear of it known as the inion.
The inion is where the neck begins, so the muscles that attach there prevent any shaping device from affecting anything below it. In the Starchild skull the flattening goes well below the inion (which in its case is not even present!), and the bone itself is not actually flat, which is invariably a product of both head binding and cradle boarding (a means of flattening only the back of the head). In both binding and boarding, the affected bones are pressed smooth, but the rear of the Starchild skull is subtly but clearly convoluted, with no true flattening in any part. Therefore, it is virtually impossible that binding could have been the
cause of its unusual shape. Lastly, if a skull is truly bound into some other-than-ordinary shape, the cranial bones will never be able to suture at the top of the head, so a person thus afflicted will always have a "soft spot" on the top of their reshaped cranium.
Natural Deformity:
Natural deformities also come in two kinds: genetic and congenital. Genetic deformities occur regularly as a result of cumulative defects in humanity's gene pool. They produce consistent characteristics and have names like Apert's Disease, Crouzon's, Treacher-Collins, Progeria (premature aging) Trisomy 18 (a type of Mongolism), and Hydrocephaly (water on the brain), to name a few. One of their hallmarks is asymmetry (lopsidedness) caused by "synostosis," which is a premature closing of one or more cranial sutures, forcing a skull to grow in unusual ways. The Starchild skull exhibits a very high degree of overall symmetry, which is difficult to reconcile with the marked asymmetries produced by most cranial pathologies. Also, a CAT scan reveals that all of its cranial sutures were healthy and open at its time of death.
In our efforts to determine the truth about the Starchild, we have asked over 50 experts to personally examine the skull and tell us what they thought might have caused it to look as it does. Several others have sent unsolicited opinions after viewing the photographs on the website. With predictable consistency they have pronounced the skull the result of some kind of human "pathology" (a scientific phrase for "something went wrong"), often combined with the cranial binding discussed above. When we ask what kind of pathology, specifically, they suggest one or another of the genetic disorders as the most likely cause. If we offer reasons why their diagnosis cannot be correct (its symmetry, no synostosis, no inion, etc.), they will change to another disorder, or fall back on the safety net provided by congenital deformity.
Unlike genetic deformities, which are consistently repeated generation after generation, congenital deformity is a one-time event caused by a sperm-egg misconnect at conception, or by varying degrees of mutation during gestation. They can be slight or they can be horrific, producing ghastly "monsters" that give neonatologists nightmares. In theory and in practice, congenital deformities are capable of producing virtually anything, which means the Starchild skull can be labeled as congenital and the label will stick. Unless, that is, you know the rules governing congenital deformities at the level the Starchild exhibits.
In the head area one deformity at a time is the general rule because sperm-egg misconnects and mutations tend to strike only one gene or a localized suite of genes. For example, if the face is affected, the rear and side of the head will be unaffected. If the rear is damaged, the face and sides should be okay. Etc. If two severe deformities occur, say the back and side are affected, life will be tenuous at best because the head area controls so much of early life processes (breathing and eating being the two most prominent). Three major deformities, like three strikes, will almost certainly mean you are out, with no chance to live. You are DOA.
How this relates to the Starchild skull is that no expert yet consulted has provided a credible, sustainable link to any of the known genetic disorders. Nor have they explained how the Starchild could legitimately be classified as a congenital deformity because its skull shows massive reconfiguration in EIGHT different areas of cranial morphology. In other words, the Starchild should have been DOA several times over, yet it thrived until its death.
Note:
Occasionally we are asked to name some or all of the experts who have examined the Starchild skull. We do not do that for three reasons. First, in most cases they provided their opinions after only cursory examinations. Consequently, they are not anxious to put their reputations on the line for an opinion not based on careful observation and consideration. Second, for the few who have undertaken careful observation, they will allow use of their names on a selective basis to other experts and qualified media (several have already been quoted in newspapers and magazines). However, they do not want a general disbursement of their names because it might lead to unnecessary pestering. Lastly, nearly all (if not all) of them will ultimately be proven wrong about whatever opinion they offered. They all suggest one or another of the various types of deformities, only one of which can be correct if the Starchild proves to be entirely human. If not, then they are all embarrassingly wrong, and we are in this to find truth, not embarrass those who freely grant us help with honest intentions.
General Morphology:
As mentioned above, the Starchild skull has most (but not all) of the parts of a normal human skull, all of which are thoroughly reconfigured to somehow produce a living entity never seen (or at least recorded) before. Now we will analyze the skull piece by piece and area by area, pointing out similarities and differences between it and human skulls, normal and deformed.
To begin, the overall configuration bears closest comparison to an alien "Gray" type. Grays are entities alleged to have vaguely heart-shaped heads with two high, expanded rear lobes forming the upper arcs of the heart, and a reduced and narrowed lower face area combining with an almost pointed chin to form the bottom of the heart. With that front outline goes a flattened, sloping-inward rear area, and a thin neck positioned forward relative to a human neck. The Starchild skull has all of these physical attributes, plus others that may or may not be part of Gray morphology, such as no frontal sinuses and an apparent lack of a cerebellum (which may or may not be related to the lack of an inion discussed above).

By Lloyd Pye
Preface:
The Starchild Project formally began in early March of 1999. In the six months since, certain information has stood the test of time as true and accurate, so it forms the core of this updated text. However, much information in it is new. Some enhances what we assumed to be true from the beginning, some challenges those assumptions, and some totally supplants what we thought we knew. For all readers, the text has been made as concise as possible without losing clarity.
Because the Starchild Project is so unprecedented, there has been no blueprint to follow. We have been left to our own devices, doing our best to make sense of the data we have gathered. In addition, our policy from Day One has been to conduct an open, honest, straightforward pursuit of the truth - and nothing but the truth - regarding the Starchild skull's reality and origins. Therefore, to facilitate comparisons between old and new information, the reduced version of the prior text will be kept on the website. Anyone wishing to evaluate the progress we have made, or to explore the blind alleys we have gone down, will be able to contrast what we thought we knew then with what we think we know now.
Discovery:
Sixty to seventy years ago an American girl of Mexican heritage in her late teens (15 to 18) was taken by her parents to visit relatives living in a small rural village 100 miles southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico. Upon arrival, the girl was told local taboos forbade entering any of the area's numerous caves and mine tunnels. Like many teenagers might do in such a situation, she soon found an excuse to slip away from the village to explore the forbidden places.
At the back of a mine tunnel she found a complete human skeleton lying supine (face up) on the ground's surface. Beside it, sticking up out of the ground, was a malformed skeletal hand wrapped around one of the human skeleton's upper arm bones. The girl proceeded to scrape the dirt off a shallow grave to reveal a buried skeleton, also malformed, and smaller than the human one. She did not specify the type or degree of any of the "malformations."
The girl recovered both skulls and kept them for the remainder of her life. As her death neared, she passed them to an American man who maintained possession for five years before passing them to the American couple who now own and control them. That couple found both skulls show a staining pattern consistent with the discovery story as told by the now-deceased woman.
Only the rear part of the human's (lying on its back) is stained, while all of the malformed skull (the buried one) is stained to varying degrees.
Motivation:
As reported by its discoverer, the Starchild skull is "malformed" in many key ways. In fact, little about it compares to a normal human. It does possess the same number and kind of cranial bones: a frontal, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, none are shaped or positioned as in humans. There are also other similarities, including certain bone extrusions and contours, muscle attachments, and openings for veins and arteries that correspond to humans. Despite those and other recognizable conformities, an overwhelming majority of comparisons show deviation from the human norm.
Sometimes those deviations are slight, but most times they are extensive, to a degree that should have produced afetal "monster" incompatible with life as we know it. Instead, they seamlessly combined to form a cranial outline hauntingly similar to the "Gray" alien type exemplified on the cover of Whitley Streiber's book "Communion." Indeed, apart from a marked difference in the eye sockets (more about that later), the Starchild skull looks very much as if it might fit inside that Gray alien's head. If that were not so compelling, we also would have assumed it was a deformity.
Because the Starchild skull shows so much deviation from the human norm, we can confidently expect DNA testing to prove it is one of three things:
(1) a pure alien Gray type;
(2) a Gray-human hybrid; or
(3) the most bizarre human deformity since The Elephant Man.
Either of the first two would be historic at a level never seen before, while the last would be merely historic. However, even the last outcome would warrant the effort being put into the determination process. History is history, and it is a rare occurrence in anyone's life to get an opportunity to make it.
Inflicted Deformity:
Upon seeing the Starchild skull, the first question most people ask is whether it could have resulted from some kind of human deformity. Because that is such an obvious consideration, we will address it before beginning a detailed description of the skull. There are two basic kinds of human deformity: natural and inflicted. Inflicted deformities result from a practice of certain primitive societies known as "head binding," in which an infant's head is bracketed by any of a variety of flattening or shaping devices, usually boards, then tightly swathed in rags to hold those devices in the desired shape. When applied to the back of a human head, no shaping device can go beyond the bump at the lower middle rear of it known as the inion.
The inion is where the neck begins, so the muscles that attach there prevent any shaping device from affecting anything below it. In the Starchild skull the flattening goes well below the inion (which in its case is not even present!), and the bone itself is not actually flat, which is invariably a product of both head binding and cradle boarding (a means of flattening only the back of the head). In both binding and boarding, the affected bones are pressed smooth, but the rear of the Starchild skull is subtly but clearly convoluted, with no true flattening in any part. Therefore, it is virtually impossible that binding could have been the
cause of its unusual shape. Lastly, if a skull is truly bound into some other-than-ordinary shape, the cranial bones will never be able to suture at the top of the head, so a person thus afflicted will always have a "soft spot" on the top of their reshaped cranium.
Natural Deformity:
Natural deformities also come in two kinds: genetic and congenital. Genetic deformities occur regularly as a result of cumulative defects in humanity's gene pool. They produce consistent characteristics and have names like Apert's Disease, Crouzon's, Treacher-Collins, Progeria (premature aging) Trisomy 18 (a type of Mongolism), and Hydrocephaly (water on the brain), to name a few. One of their hallmarks is asymmetry (lopsidedness) caused by "synostosis," which is a premature closing of one or more cranial sutures, forcing a skull to grow in unusual ways. The Starchild skull exhibits a very high degree of overall symmetry, which is difficult to reconcile with the marked asymmetries produced by most cranial pathologies. Also, a CAT scan reveals that all of its cranial sutures were healthy and open at its time of death.
In our efforts to determine the truth about the Starchild, we have asked over 50 experts to personally examine the skull and tell us what they thought might have caused it to look as it does. Several others have sent unsolicited opinions after viewing the photographs on the website. With predictable consistency they have pronounced the skull the result of some kind of human "pathology" (a scientific phrase for "something went wrong"), often combined with the cranial binding discussed above. When we ask what kind of pathology, specifically, they suggest one or another of the genetic disorders as the most likely cause. If we offer reasons why their diagnosis cannot be correct (its symmetry, no synostosis, no inion, etc.), they will change to another disorder, or fall back on the safety net provided by congenital deformity.
Unlike genetic deformities, which are consistently repeated generation after generation, congenital deformity is a one-time event caused by a sperm-egg misconnect at conception, or by varying degrees of mutation during gestation. They can be slight or they can be horrific, producing ghastly "monsters" that give neonatologists nightmares. In theory and in practice, congenital deformities are capable of producing virtually anything, which means the Starchild skull can be labeled as congenital and the label will stick. Unless, that is, you know the rules governing congenital deformities at the level the Starchild exhibits.
In the head area one deformity at a time is the general rule because sperm-egg misconnects and mutations tend to strike only one gene or a localized suite of genes. For example, if the face is affected, the rear and side of the head will be unaffected. If the rear is damaged, the face and sides should be okay. Etc. If two severe deformities occur, say the back and side are affected, life will be tenuous at best because the head area controls so much of early life processes (breathing and eating being the two most prominent). Three major deformities, like three strikes, will almost certainly mean you are out, with no chance to live. You are DOA.
How this relates to the Starchild skull is that no expert yet consulted has provided a credible, sustainable link to any of the known genetic disorders. Nor have they explained how the Starchild could legitimately be classified as a congenital deformity because its skull shows massive reconfiguration in EIGHT different areas of cranial morphology. In other words, the Starchild should have been DOA several times over, yet it thrived until its death.
Note:
Occasionally we are asked to name some or all of the experts who have examined the Starchild skull. We do not do that for three reasons. First, in most cases they provided their opinions after only cursory examinations. Consequently, they are not anxious to put their reputations on the line for an opinion not based on careful observation and consideration. Second, for the few who have undertaken careful observation, they will allow use of their names on a selective basis to other experts and qualified media (several have already been quoted in newspapers and magazines). However, they do not want a general disbursement of their names because it might lead to unnecessary pestering. Lastly, nearly all (if not all) of them will ultimately be proven wrong about whatever opinion they offered. They all suggest one or another of the various types of deformities, only one of which can be correct if the Starchild proves to be entirely human. If not, then they are all embarrassingly wrong, and we are in this to find truth, not embarrass those who freely grant us help with honest intentions.
General Morphology:
As mentioned above, the Starchild skull has most (but not all) of the parts of a normal human skull, all of which are thoroughly reconfigured to somehow produce a living entity never seen (or at least recorded) before. Now we will analyze the skull piece by piece and area by area, pointing out similarities and differences between it and human skulls, normal and deformed.
To begin, the overall configuration bears closest comparison to an alien "Gray" type. Grays are entities alleged to have vaguely heart-shaped heads with two high, expanded rear lobes forming the upper arcs of the heart, and a reduced and narrowed lower face area combining with an almost pointed chin to form the bottom of the heart. With that front outline goes a flattened, sloping-inward rear area, and a thin neck positioned forward relative to a human neck. The Starchild skull has all of these physical attributes, plus others that may or may not be part of Gray morphology, such as no frontal sinuses and an apparent lack of a cerebellum (which may or may not be related to the lack of an inion discussed above).
No comments:
Post a Comment