THE STARCHILD DEBATE
POINT-COUNTERPOINT
[The following is a critical letter written by Mr. Bari Hooper of Essex, England, to the editors of Fortean Times, a magazine published in England. In November of 1999, F.T. ran a story by Max McCoy regarding my efforts to promote the Starchild Project. Why it has taken until July of 2000 for this letter to be published is beyond me, but I have taken grave exception to both its tone and its basis in fact. Below is the letter in its entirety, followed by my response to it, which I hope Fortean Times will find means to publish in less than the seven months Mr. Hooper's complaint required to see print. --- Lloyd Pye]
Dear Sirs:
Your article "Star Child" describing "skeletal remains of an alien-human hybrid" cannot be allowed to pass into UFO folklore without being answered. The photographs accompanying the article clearly show two human skulls, an adult, probably male, and a child.
Although one might not ordinarily comment on a skull without physically examining it, from the photographs the child's skull appears to exhibit a mild case of hydrocephaly. This condition is sometimes known as "water on the brain," and in about a quarter of cases is probably congenital; the remainder originate from prenatal development, perinatal trauma, or as a result of post-natal infection. The condition usually becomes manifest in the fist six months of life, with the highest mortality rate occurring during the first 18 months. Cases have been reported from archeological sites in Europe, North Africa, and South America. One adult case of the Roman period is reported as having a cranial capacity of 2,600 cubic centimeters.
Vault deformity in the form of posterior flattening of the occipital region is also evident in both skulls, that in the child being particularly pronounced. Skull deformation of this type is usally caused by regular pressure being applied during infancy, the child having its head bound to a cradle-board. Artificial cranial deformation was widespread in antiquity, being found on every continent except Australia. It is still practiced today in some parts of the world, including Central America.
As for the supposedly abnormal eye sockets and lack of sinuses, I suggest that Mr. Pye, who is described in your article as an amateur anthropologist, takes a course in human skeletal anatomy. All of the foregoing information was apparently given to the protagonists of the so-called Starchild Project by American anatomists, but not surprisingly it was rejected by them. UFO loonies, like the religious cranks they closely resemble, subsist on faith rather than facts. If Mr. Pye succeeds in getting a DNA analysis for his skull, it will undoubtedly prove its mundane origins, but no doubt this fact will also be rejected.
[My response.]
Dear Sirs:
This regards Bari Hooper's rather scathing rebuttal of the article you published about me and my efforts to establish the biological credentials of what we have hopefully named "The Starchild Skull." Mr. Hooper opens his complaint by saying the adult human skull found with the Starchild is "probably a male," when forensic DNA testing proved beyond doubt it is a female. He then covers his pronouncement with the caveat that "one might not ordinarily comment on a skull without physically examining it." In that spirit I will open by saying one might not ordinarily call another person a complete ignoramus without knowing if they are truly as arrogant and narrow-minded as they sound.
From March through December of 1999, I attempted to raise enough funding to obtain expensive diagnostic testing of the Starchild's DNA. While trying to raise those funds, I took it to over fifty medical, physiological, and anthropological specialists with a widely varying range of expertise. My hope was that by undertaking a comprehensive survey, the results would be consistent and therefore accurate enough to provide an indication of what we might be dealing with. Some interesting results came from those encounters, to be sure, although very few provided substance regarding the Starchild's heritage.
Only five of those specialists actually took the time to carefully examine the skull. Every other one glanced at it for no more than a few seconds. Some would not even touch it. I know this sounds incredible, but it is true. They were either that dismissive of it, or that intimidated by it; I was never able to determine which. Like Mr. Hooper, fully half made an initial pronouncement that it was a cradle-boarded hydrocephalic. It seems obvious. I would then point out various reasons why the hydrocephalic end of the equation was not possible, starting with the unobvious fact that if you look inside the skull to view its inner lining, you find veins indented the bone up to the arch of the cranial vault, meaning there could not have been fluid on the brain. It was clearly solid brain pressing against bone.
Next I would point to the utter symmetry of the upper cranial "deformity," complete with an unmistakable finger-width "crease" in the bone where the two parietals meet, neatly bisecting the twin "bulges" that look so distinctively hydrocephalic. Even the most ardent supporter of that theory had to accept a zero likelihood that upward pressure of fluid on the brain would cause two symmetrical bulges while leaving a distinctive dent in the bone along the much weaker fault line created where the two parietal bones meet. If anything, that weakened area of conjoining should have been higher instead of lower. Case closed.
As for the cradle-boarding argument, in the many dozens of genuinely cradle-boarded skulls I had been shown or seen in studies, which included the human skull found with the Starchild, every single one stopped at the center-rear of the skull just above the knob of bone known as the "inion." This is because thick neck muscles attach to the inion, and to extend the compression further would severely damage the neck of any infant. Also, cradleboards leave the compressed bone with a glass-smooth surface, with even small convolutions pressed flat by the pressure of constraint. The rear of the Starchild's head, though quite flat by ordinary standards, nonetheless retains its natural convolutions.
The Starchild's inion is missing, replaced by a very shallow, thumb-tip-sized concavity relative to the surrounding surface. Furthermore, its neck muscles attach fully an inch below where they belong, and only an inch (half of normal) from the foramen magnum opening where the spine enters the skull. The foramen magnum itself is shifted forward an inch from its position in a normal skull, placing it dead center under the overall mass of the cranium. This means the Starchild's neck would have been 1/3 to 1/2 the width and volume of a normal neck, and centered directly under the skull case, moving it perilously close to the exact shape and position of nearly every "Gray" alien neck ever described.
My quick demolishing of the "cradle-boarded hydrocephalic" argument won me few friends among the specialists I consulted. After some strained, trying-to-be-polite chit-chat, I would be shown the door. Of course, I don't want to present an entirely one-sided picture. Other specialists had their own pet theories as to what had caused the Starchild's obvious physical deformity. Some said Apert's Disease, others said Crouzon's Disease, still others felt it had to be Treacher-Collins Disease. However, I would then ask if those disorders should leave the skull with normal bone density, and they would assure me it would. I would then hand the skull over to them and their jaws would drop, because the Starchild's bone density is uniformly only 40% of normal (proved by a recent test). In the hand it weighs only half of normal and feels like a dried gourd more than a skull.
I would like to think that had Mr. Hooper taken the precaution of examining the Starchild skull before metaphorically opening his mouth and adroitly inserting both feet, he would have been as gracious as most experts I consulted, who merely showed me their door. But since he called me a "UFO loonie" who "subsists on faith rather than facts," I will have to say to him that he could not be more wrong if he made a lifetime project of it.
To the best of my ability I try to live by facts, as opposed to the hysterical nay-saying of those who simply can't accept the possibility of undeniable proof of a human-like being that is not 100% human. And one fact in this case is clear: this skull is like nothing ever seen before by any specialist encountered. Not one could give it a name or a description that could then be found as a case study anywhere. They were all flying blind, taking their usual stabs in the dark with the assumption I would tuck tail, say, "Oh, well, then, Dr. Expert, sorry to have bothered you," and that would be the end of it.
I would also tell Mr. Hooper that in addition to the scientific specialists I took the skull to for examination, I also took it to roughly the same number of "mystics" and "sensitives" who wanted to "psychometrize" it for me. He will be pleased to know they were no more consistent in their "readings" than the scientists were in their analyses. And in the end, of course, there is only one source any of us can turn to for definitive answers regarding this greatest single physical anomaly on planet Earth-until proven otherwise. That source is diagnostic DNA testing, and the Starchild Project is still struggling mightily to obtain the funding and/or interest from those in position to provide that answer.
For what it may be worth, I am no longer in charge of day-to-day affairs regarding the Starchild. My year with it put me into a deep financial hole I will be trying to climb out of for the foreseeable future. Luckily, one of the experts I consulted was a cranio-facial plastic surgeon in Vancouver, Canada, named Ted Robinson. Upon seeing the skull and giving it a thorough examination, cranial expert Dr. Robinson admitted he was unaware of anything like it, but that he would like to check all reference books relevant to it to be certain of his appraisal. He was the first and only specialist to take that long route to an answer (instead of the glib shortcuts favored by Mr. Hooper and so many others).
After a few weeks Dr. Robinson called to say he was convinced. He had been through every textbook available and had proved to himself that there was absolutely nothing like the Starchild on record anywhere in the literature of human deformity. I asked him if he, a certified expert, was convinced enough to take over the Starchild Project from me, an uncertified layman, and thankfully he agreed to do so. Now, assisted by an excellent Vancouver anomaly researcher named Chad Deetken, they are doing all they can to move the Starchild Project forward. Ironically, even with Dr. Robinson leading the way, they keep encountering the same stiff official resistance I dealt with during the year I had it.
Mr. Hooper concludes his screed by stating that when the DNA results are in, they are bound to prove the Starchild had "mundane origins." He apparently doesn't know that whenever I discuss the Starchild publicly, I always stress the possibility that we may be barking up the wrong tree. Well-meaning people assured me that was an exceptionally poor tactic for raising funds, but the truth is the truth and I won't pretend otherwise.
Mr. Hooper also states we will reject the results if they are not to our liking. Not on your life, Bari, my boy! No one would be happier than me to just get this intractable problem solved! When the skull's owners first contacted me and asked me to arrange its testing, I told them it would take three or four months, tops. Here we are, 18 months later, and very little closer to any definitive truths than we were early on. Nonetheless, I can assure Bari Hooper and everyone else of this: diagnostic DNA testing cannot be argued with. It will say what it will say, then we will all have to deal with that in our own ways.
Sincerely,
Lloyd Pye
lloyd@lloydpye.com
RESPONSE:
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: [ufos-unbound] Re: starchild debate
Date: 06/25/2000
From: bsh@timelessvoyager.com (Bruce Stephen Holms)
To: ufos-unbound@egroups.com
Bari Hooper:
It is interesting to note that Mr. Hooper does a fine job of writing a ludicrous letter. Why ludicrous? Because he uses a technique that most journalists use in order to create controversy out of nothing.
First, he gives the reader a detailed history of a condition which can be researched and authenticated.
This condition is sometimes known as "water on the brain," and in about a quarter of cases is probably congenital; the remainder originate from prenatal development, perinatal trauma, or as a result of post-natal infection. The condition usually becomes manifest in the first six months of life, with the highest mortality rate occurring during the first 18 months. Cases have been reported from archeological sites in Europe, North Africa, and South America. One adult case of the Roman period is reported as having a cranial capacity of 2,600 cubic centimeters.
Vault deformity in the form of posterior flattening of the occipital region is also evident in both skulls, that in the child being particularly pronounced. Skull deformation of this type is usally caused by regular pressure being applied during infancy, the child having its head bound to a cradle-board. Artificial cranial deformation was widespread in antiquity, being found on every continent except Australia. It is still practiced today in some parts of the world, including Central America.
After completely bamboozling the reader with historical information, then he proceeds to equate the condition with the "Star-Child" by using the technique of ridicule usually used by "debunkers".
UFO loonies, like the religious cranks they closely resemble, subsist on faith rather than facts. If Mr. Pye succeeds in getting a DNA analysis for his skull, it will undoubtedly prove its mundane origins, but no doubt this fact will also be rejected.
I suggest that Mr. Hooper get the logic straight. There is no syllogistic connection between "... 'water on the brain...' ", and the "Star-Child". Hooper doesn't even "KNOW" the facts of the project as indicated by, ... "the Starchild is probably a male," when forensic DNA testing proved beyond doubt it is a female."
Hooper appears to have a "non-scientific" agenda which is evidenced by his refusal or inability to get the facts straight.
Once again, real scientific procedure (Star-Child) is lampooned by a nobody (Bari Hooper) who writes, probably, the only letter offering a counter (productive) complaint to the editors of Fortean Times.
I think the editors should be held responsible for including the letter in their publication. The letter belongs in the likes of "Enquirer, Star, or other rags" not in the Fortean Times.
Sometimes editors will "grab" anything in order to "look" like they are not biased. In this case though, the only bias I see... is the ludicrous logic (it isn't even logic) that Mr. Hooper tries to slide into a "stupid" letter of complaint .
As for Mr. Hooper, I really doubt that he exists in the first place.
Bruce Stephen Holms, Timeless Voyager Press
Subj: Results of Starchild genetic testing
Date: 5/17/2003
From: lloydpye@cox.net
Hi, Everyone:
Down the rabbit hole we go! This is the first report from the geneticists regarding the DNA testing on the Starchild skull. If you're interested, read on. If not, take the blue pill. If annoyed, let me know and I'll remove you from my mailing list.
STARCHILD UPDATE – MAY 17, 2003
Some of you may have noticed that in the last update I didn’t mention money for the Starchild Fund because, frankly, I didn’t know if we would need any more beyond this first test for Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Remember, mtDNA exists outside a cell's nucleus and is passed down from female to female; male cells have it but they don't pass it on. It’s not DNA from inside the cell's nucleus (Nuclear or Diagnostic DNA), which is what we most need to sequence because that reveals information about both parents.
If the Starchild is an "alien-human" hybrid, as we suspect, and its mother was human, then its mtDNA will be human also. Only if it is pure alien will its mtDNA skew away from human. (Recall that if it is “other,” wholly or partially, we have nothing to compare it to. “It” could well be a form of “us,” an “us” we don’t fully understand or recognize.) Also, we assume it had a human mother because eggs are so much larger and easier to genetically manipulate than sperm, which makes a human “Mom” the most technically efficient way to hybridize. This is reinforced by the so-called “Star Being” legends handed down by indigenous tribes from North and South America (Meso-Americans).
With all that said, I can report that the Mitochondrial DNA of the skull found with the Starchild skull was extracted without difficulty, and she is indeed a human female. She also proved to be classically Meso-American, as determined by our two geneticists who happen to specialize in this arcane area of expertise. In other words, she’s clearly a native of where she was found, which is what we anticipated from Day One. What we needed to know was whether she and the Starchild were genetically linked to conform to the Star Being legends about native women impregnated with alien hybrids. It turns out these two were not related, which means she wasn’t his mother but rather a dedicated companion or guardian, willing to take her own life to die alongside him after she buried him.
Unfortunately, the Starchild's Mitochondrial DNA did not extract cleanly. The "bars" that are “read” (you've seen the strips of darkened gel bars that constitute a DNA fingerprint) were "fuzzy" and "indistinct" in the places they did appear, but fewer were present than is normal. This provides some interesting possibilities. One would be physical degradation of the specimen, which is possible because the Starchild was buried for 900 years in soil that could have been acidic. We have no soil sample to test, but we can take note of the staining pattern on the skull, particularly the charred-looking areas of the right-side eye socket, sphenoid bone, and temporal bone. That could easily be a result of soil acidity.
Acidity or not, the degradation was such that the few readable "bars" produced a pattern that did not match the expected Meso-American template. Instead, and quite surprisingly, it was closest to Europeans! Naturally, this can quickly get the blood pumping: ("What? A European in northwest Mexico in 1100 AD?? That’s 400 years before Columbus!!"). However, there is another option, which the geneticists addressed with heartfelt chagrin. Although they did everything possible to avoid contaminating the sample, there is always a remote chance it happened. The fact it was “fuzzy” and “indistinct” mitigates against a recent contamination, because recently recovered mtDNA would most likely have been clean and easy to read. Yet degradation of a recent sample is also remotely possible.
So where does this leave us? Where do we go from here? Farther down the rabbit hole, of course. We have no choice but to run a 2nd test to try to clarify the first ambiguous result. However, this 2nd test will be carried out using a different protocol in order to speed the process considerably. Recall that this first test used "softening gel" discussed in the last update. Instead of the normal week of submersion in that gel, a full month was needed to soften the Starchild's bone enough to initiate processing it. Rather than go through that ordeal again, this time they will use the “detergent” method.
The gel method was used to test the largest possible piece of the sample. The detergent method will include sanding away the entire top layer of the 2nd sample, down to the matrix where the marrow is stored. That thin top layer is the part I estimate was held by approximately 3,000 pairs of hands during the 18 months I showed it to audiences in the U.S. and Canada. If there has been seepage into the bone by the oils from human hands, that thin top layer will contain it. Naturally, they removed the topmost portion of that layer prior to starting the 1st test, but looking back, it might not have been enough.
With the entire layer abraded away, it will leave only the core matrix and the inner layer of parietal bone that no human could ever have touched (which is why a parietal section is being analyzed). This will provide a much smaller sample to test, but it should also be absolutely "clean." Furthermore, the detergent method requires only two to three weeks to complete, so the geneticists have assured me they will know by the first week in June.
If the 2nd test contradicts the first, then obviously we will have to run a 3rd test to act as a tiebreaker (it’s hard to imagine three contaminated tests in a row). If the 2nd test confirms the first, which is that the Starchild had a European mother, then we have opened up an entirely different can of worms from what we expected. Most of you will be aware of the so-called “Kennewick Man,” a skeleton found in Washington State in 1996. Because it was 9000 years old and had European features, Native Americans went ballistic because that would indicate they did not have “squatter’s rights” to all of the Americas. So if the Starchild bloodline is indeed European, it’ll be the Kennewick squabble all over again.
If that eventuates, we’ll worry about it then. Now our concern is making sure we do whatever can to try to sequence the Starchild’s Nuclear DNA, which is what we must have to determine the heritage of its potentially alien father. And let’s all keep in mind that if the 2nd test results are as indistinct as the 1st, then even if a nuclear extraction is possible, it might be equally difficult to interpret. But let’s not dwell on negatives.
We are still solidly in the hunt to do what we set out to do on Day One, which remains the heart of this entire effort. For the first time ever, we in the Alternative Knowledge community have within our possession a bone relic that could scientifically prove our contentions about alien life forms, and with a degree of evidence no one can effectively dispute. If Nuclear DNA is recoverable and clearly says "other than human," it will be only a matter of time before our controversial position is acknowledged as a fact.
With that said, I end where I began, pointing out that I didn’t mention the Starchild Fund in the last update because I didn't know if this first test would recover anything at all. We now know there is recoverable DNA within the Starchild, and now the trick is to tease it out in a usable fashion. Thus, it is clear that we will need more money to extend beyond the funds allocated by our British benefactors. We still have to consider the two tests the geneticists suggested, the bone chemistry and the bone histology. We could easily need another Carbon 14 test to double-check our date for it. We need to formally calibrate the hardness of the bone, which has proved so surprising to the geneticists. And we've always needed a forensic sculpture of how the Starchild might have looked in life. This would be a clay model wrapped around a replica of the skull, which costs several thousand dollars.
If you go to the Starchild Project website, www.starchildproject.com, you will see we have added a "Donation" button from PayPal. As you know, I have tried hard to keep from "commercializing" this endeavor, but I think we're past the point where we can be criticized for making our financial requirements clearly understood. We need money. We always have. This is not easy work, nor inexpensive work. These updates make that clear. If you have considered helping us in the past but never got around to sending your check, maybe the ease of PayPal is right for you. If you have already contributed but feel you could again, please do so. And now I have something to sweeten the pot a bit.
The recent slide presentation I gave in London was filmed by Cognoscence, Ltd., which sponsored the lecture. They have sent me 50 copies of "An Evening With Lloyd Pye" to make available for shipping to purchasers here in the U.S. and Canada. It is 2 hours and 10 minutes long, covering 90 minutes of "origins" material, both of life and of humans, which lays a solid groundwork for the Starchild's potential place in the grand scheme of life on Earth; then it closes with 40 minutes of astonishing Starchild material. This is an impressive, high-quality videotape that provides an excellent distillation of my best work in all the areas of my research. I'm very proud of it. Also, it's not just available in the U.S. and Canada. This goes for any country in the world, period. Cognoscence, Ltd., charges the approximate equivalent of $25 U.S., which includes shipping and handling.
These hot-off-the-press videos can be ordered through Cognoscence in London (contact: b.mckenzie@btinternet.com), or in the U.S./Canada through me (lloyd@lloydpye.com). However, anyone donating at least $100 to the Starchild Fund, by PayPal or check or direct deposit, will receive a videotape as a bonus reward for your generosity. Also, as another incentive, anyone who prefers a signed copy of my book, Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins, can choose that instead of the videotape. Again, I apologize for finally edging into commercialization, but at this point we have no choice. The testing ball is now rolling, hard, and it will clearly continue to roll for quite a while.
[One last point: for those who have already sent in $100 or more, the videotape and book offer is not retroactive at this time. We all realize that is not fair, and we intend to correct it as soon as we can in the future. However, the simple truth is that tapes and books cost the same money we don’t have, so all copies are currently limited and must be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. If this incentive program causes our financial pressures to ease, then we will purchase extra tapes and books and pass them along as warranted.]
Lloyd Pye
www.lloydpye.com
Lloyd@lloydpye.com
New Orleans, LA