STARCHILD
UPDATE
August 10, 2003
Greetings:
Good news and not-so-good news. When the geneticists analyzing the Starchild's
DNA pulverized its bone like a fossil made of stone, they were able to cleanly
recover mitochondrial DNA and compare it with the less-clear recovery in the
second test, which resulted from treating the bone like normal bone. In both
cases the mtDNA proved to be from Haplogroup C, meaning the second test result
was indeed accurate and we can say with certainty that the Starchild's mother
was a human Meso-American from that distinctive group, and was not the human
female found with it (she was from Haplogroup A). That much is settled.
In the all-important search for nuclear DNA, during the third run the geneticists
made four complete attempts at recovery without success. This does not, it turns
out, mean nuclear DNA is not present. The clarity of the mtDNA recovery means
nuclear DNA stands an excellent chance of being there, too. In a normal recovery
from a fossil (say, a Neanderthal from 30,000+ years ago), very little mtDNA
is recovered and no nuclear DNA has ever been recovered. The degradation of
such ancient samples is comprehensive. However, with the Starchild and the human
found with it, such is not the case.
The human's mtDNA and its nuclear DNA were recovered easily on the first test.
Why? Because she didn't suffer any climate-driven ravages after death. She laid
exposed on the surface of a mining shaft, never baked by the sun or soaked by
rain. After 900 years she was in more or less pristine condition. (Compare this
to the famous 9,000 year old Kennewick Man skeleton, which our geneticists also
worked on. Because it was exposed to the open air, it was soaked by water and
scorched by the sun, which leached out all traces of both mtDNA and nuclear
DNA.) The Starchild suffers from having been buried in somewhat acidic soil,
which accounts for the staining all over the skull and the staining at the back
of the human female's head. But the clarity of the Starchild's mtDNA recovery
in the third test means the degradation in the acidic soil was not comprehensive.
Bits and pieces of its nuclear DNA are almost certainly there to be recovered,
amplified, and tested.
Okay, so if it's there, what went wrong? Why no recovery in four tries? Because
it degraded enough so that the primers used by the geneticists of today are
not sensitive enough to capture and extract it. Understand that the field of
ancient DNA recovery is very new, only beginning in 1995. For most of it there
has been no concerted attempt to recover the highly fragile nuclear DNA, with
most primers being developed to extract the more durable mtDNA. Now that is
changing and there are primers for attempting to extract nuclear DNA, but they
are not sophisticated nor, at this point, very effective. With easy-to-recover
DNA of the kind presented by the human found with the Starchild (and, indeed,
with any non-degraded bone less than 50 years old), they work fine. If not,
the pathologists on "CSI" and other TV shows of that ilk would have
little to grapple with.
Our hope all along has been that the Starchild's burial soil would not have
been acidic enough to do terminal damage to either its mtDNA or the nuclear
DNA. There was no way to test that soil in advance, since we have no samples
of it and have no way to obtain any. So we hoped for the best and moved forward.
Now we know the soil was acidic enough to lower the recovery threshold below
what the current primers can access. It is as simple--and as deeply frustrating--as
that. But before we all go letting our dobbers droop, let's look on the bright
side because in this case there really is one....a nice shiny one.
When telling me the disappointing news of no nuclear DNA recovery in four attempts
with the third extraction, the geneticists explained the problems with the lack
of sensitivity of current primers, then they gave me three options. (1) Start
again with a different lab to see if they could obtain a result. I consider
our guys two of the best in the game. If they can't do it, nobody else can,
either. Besides, we only need a second verifying test if they obtain a positive
result. There is no interest in, or need for, comparing and contrasting inconclusive
results. (2) If we could raise something approaching six figures, they could
attempt to construct primers specifically design to recover the Starchild's
DNA. (3) We could allow them to put the extraction they recovered into a nitrogen
deep freeze storage for a couple of years (think sperm storage or the head of
Ted Williams) and wait for the natural course of events in the field to develop
those primers under the auspices of universities and labs with access to millions
of dollars in developmental funding.
While they did not pressure me in any way, I took into account their excellent
work thus far, their obvious passion for and commitment to their science and
the task at hand, and my own inability to raise dust on a dirt farm, so I chose
option # 3. The extracted sample is now on ice, and we all intend to hunker
down to wait until we have better prospects for recovering the Starchild's elusive--but
almost certainly viable--nuclear DNA. Meanwhile, several other things can happen
to directly benefit this project. The first is that the geneticists have strongly
advised me to have every test available applied to the Starchild's bone because
it is so clearly unlike normal human bone. This is not nearly as expensive or
as extensive as the DNA testing proved to be. Fundamentally, it is basic chemistry
at work.
These tests are as follows: (1) Histomorphometrical analysis; (2) Morphological
analysis; (3) Mineral density; (4) Mineral composition; and perhaps most interesting
of all (5) Bone strength. These five tests should provide us with all we can
learn at this time about the Starchild's bone and how it relates to normal human
bone, and we know going into it that we will be getting sharp deviations from
the norm. I have known that much for three years. The problem is that it will
not be enough to sway mainstream scientific opinion toward accepting the Starchild
as anything other than some weird kind of physiological anomaly. Only DNA analysis
and comparison can do that.
Let me give a background story here. Over three years ago we commissioned a
bone scan comparison between the Starchild and the human. Under a microscope
the two slides could not have been more different. I was delighted by what I
saw. However, the pathologist I was working with doused a bucket of cold reality
on my enthusiasm. "Yes, Lloyd," he said, "they're like apples
and oranges. So what? That doesn't mean your Starchild is of alien origin. All
it means is that it's a VERY weird human."
"Wait!" I protested. "If it's far enough from human, why CAN'T
that mean it's alien?"
"There is no distance far enough from human that will permit a scientist
like myself to conclude it might be alien bone. We are trained to always look
for the simplest, most economical explanation for anomalies, and the simplest,
most economical explanation for what I see here is that it is a VERY weird human.
Period."
So let's understand what to expect from the upcoming bone tests. We can come
in with numbers that will boggle our own minds...distances from normal bone
densities, strengths, and mineral content that will scream at us that it can't
be human or even a terrestrial creature (say, if beryllium is grossly abundant
in it). Even if we get results like that, science can hold us at arms length
and explain it away with "histological deformity" and "unique
morphology" and all kinds of technical mumbo jumbo that we will not be
able to overcome.
In the end, all that counts in this game is DNA, so we have to accept that
and play within the rules laid out by our competition, which we will continue
to do as long as I'm involved with it. We can't win playing dirty. On the other
hand, we can serve notice that the pendulum has swung in our direction, which
is the great value that the bone testing will provide. If we come in with five
major results deviating from the human norm, we can rest assured that scientists
will no longer be able to dismiss us as a bunch of howling cranks. They will
have to take the Starchild seriously because of the extreme likelihood that
the DNA results will be a clear reflection of the bone analysis. Bone analysis
alone they can dodge and weave and work around, but DNA is a skewer through
their hearts because it is the bedrock of their own testing protocols. In every
case it says what it says, independent of their own dogma or anyone else's (i.e.,
organized religion, government....even my own).
Two other things I would like to do, and I think would be quite useful, are:
(1) another dating test other than Carbon 14, which is not as precise as some
of the newer techniques. And (2) I'd like to go ahead with the long-awaited
forensic sculpture so we can all have a glimpse of how the Starchild might have
looked in life. To do all of this--the bone testing, the new dating, and the
forensic sculpture--in total should cost somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000
depending on the quality of the labs we use and the forensic sculptor we select.
We do not have this amount in the Starchild Fund at present, but I am hoping
many of you can see the value in what we are doing and will choose to dig down
one more time to get us past this final obligation before we settle into however
long we must wait until the geneticists feel fully prepared to go after the
nuclear DNA again.
Another thing I need to mention is that a comprehensive technical report is
being written by the geneticists, which will be more for the benefit of curious
and/or doubting peers than for non-specialists (wait till you read even a little
of it!). They hope to have it ready for posting on the Starchild website by
the end of this month (August 2003) at the latest. When I post their report
I will also be posting a long wrap-up report of my own that will cover all of
the developments in the four-and-a-half years I have been working on this project.
That long report will cover all I've learned about it up to this point, which
I expect to serve as a helpful introduction to individuals who will hear about
it in the intervening couple of years and come to the site to learn more.
If you are a fan of the Starchild Project and feel disheartened by these results, please try to focus on the incredible things we have accomplished while obtaining them. Unlike nearly every other alleged relic or artifact in the field of alternative knowledge, we have taken the Starchild skull and shoved it like a huge pile of chips right out into the middle of science's great crap table and said, "Throw the damn DNA dice!" We all stood there--you, me, all of us who have supported this effort--shoulder to shoulder, and watched those dice roll. As it happens, one (the nuclear DNA result) ended up standing on edge. No winner, no loser. So now we have to wait a couple of years before rolling it again.
Please don't miss the point we've made loud and clear to anyone who would listen during this long, often tortuous process. It harkens back to one of the stanzas in Rudyard Kipling's classic poem about courage, "IF..."
"If you can make a heap of all your winnings,
and risk it all on one turn of pitch and toss,
and lose, and start again at your beginnings,
and never say a word about your loss...."
Well, that's what we've done. We risked it all on one turn of
pitch and toss. We didn't flinch. We were ready to take the hit if that's what
came our way. It didn't. Now it looks very much like the hit is going to go
the other way. To me it looks very much like all we have to do is be patient,
keep playing within ourselves, and we're going to walk away from this table
as winners in the greatest gamble any of us will probably ever take.
**********************
For those willing to contribute, please send a check, bank draft, or money order
to “The Starchild Fund.” Don’t make it out to me. Be sure
to have your address on your check or on the envelope so I can contact you if
necessary. Then mail it to me at:
Lloyd Pye
6805 Veterans Blvd.
# L-3
Metairie, LA 70003
These are the last few hurdles in this long, difficult race. Let's clear them cleanly and finish standing tall.
Lloyd Pye
August 9, 2003
lloydpye@cox.net
lloyd@lloydpye.com