ABSTRACT
The purpose of this investigation was to determine the validity of the claim that the Starchild Skull, a 900-year-old anomalously shaped skull, belonged to an alien-hybrid being. The first phase of the project was to procure an exact replica and secure legal rights to continue with physical testing of the original. Then, the skull was compared with other human and animal skulls and most closely resembled that of a 5 year down syndrome child. When exact measurements were taken to compare to that of a typical skull of around 5 years old, the most notable discrepancy was its increased cranial capacity. A study of the teeth confirmed the skull belonged to a child about 5 years of age. The final phase involved extracting DNA from the inside of the skull and a tooth. The mitochondrial DNA tests showed that the child was a male and his mother was a Native American from the haplogroup C1. The paternal DNA test revealed the father was Native American haplogroup Q. The Starchild Skull was confirmed to be 100% human.
INTRODUCTION
The Starchild Skull (also referred to here as the “Skull”) has been a topic of intrigue for ufologists and those following the ancient aliens hypothesis alike. The Skull, upon first viewing, presents a bulbous cranium, close-set shallow eye sockets, is missing both the jaw bones and has broken eye sockets, among other things. This anomalous appearance lead many to compare it to the stereotypical shape of a gray alien’s head. The hypothesis that the Starchild Skull could have been an alien or was the product of hybridization with an extra-terrestrial became popular and the Skull became somewhat of a celebrity, being featured in many articles, conferences, videos, and TV shows and soon collected a dedicated following.
History
Sometime around the 1930s, the Starchild Skull was found by a young girl on vacation in a cave or mine outside of rural Delicias, Mexico along with a more typical-looking skull. For many years, the Starchild Skull was stored in a barn until it was handed over to the current owner, Melanie Young, in 1998. In 1999 Lloyd Pye began investigating the origins of the Starchild Skull and continued his quest to prove it was an alien hybrid for nearly the next fifteen years.
A corporation was formed to protect any monetary gains made from the Skull and to secure any holdings being raised to pay for DNA testing. The Starchild Project (TSP) conducted research of their own, including a mitochondrial DNA test in 2003 that showed Skull was from a 5-year-old boy and his mother was a Native American having haplotype C. They had the Skull carbon dated at 900 years (+/- 40 years). Several doctors were brought in to inspect the Skull and concluded it was extremely anomalous, but withheld explanation. A dentist was brought in who stated the child was no older than six. Using a scanning electron microscope (SEM), TSP reported finding strange red fibers in the bone. Many of these results were hidden or altered upon the initiation of the most recent Starchild Skull investigation, for example, reports of the skull being from a child. This fact negates many of the anomalous designations, as the Skull was being compared to adult skull quantities.
Current Investigation
In the spring of 2016, Melanie Young was present at a conference and asked Chase Kloetzke to be the lead investigator on a new project – to determine conclusively if the Starchild Skull was part alien. Soon after, Kerry McClure joined The Field Reports team. The parameters of the project were set: to conduct a scientific investigation using above-normal credentialed professionals to obtain admissible and testable evidence with no agenda other than to discover the truth of what the Starchild Skull was.
Our investigation originated as entirely new and did not rely or make use of any of the previous testing conducted, save for the carbon dating. Additionally, this new project was completely independent of TSP and was solely self-funded, as to not inherit any unnecessary bias nor be beholden to any benefactors. The professional scientists chosen to conduct any examinations were not connected with TSP or any of the previous research. Only after conducting our testing did we compare results to any previous findings. Most importantly, the investigation was conducted in a scientific and open manner with results being published on the website TheFieldReports.com.
METHODS
- TSP was contacted to ensure investigation rights.
- Joe Taylor conducted an osteological exam on the Skull.
- A Starchild Skull replica was made by Joe Taylor at the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum. A mold was made by carefully applying latex to the interior and exterior of the Skull and talcum was applied to the finished latex mold to assist removal . After curing, the mold was used to create an exact replica and identical coloring was applied.
- Forensic Investigators, Bill and Julie May conducted a forensic examination of the Skull.
- At the Museum of Osteology, the Starchild Skull was compared to over 30 human skulls and 8 primate skulls by the Osteologists on staff.
- Bill May extracted samples by cutting tiny slices of bone from the Skull for future SEM testing.
- Samples were sent to Selee Labs and chain of custody was transferred from Chase Kloetzke to Rudy Olson. The samples underwent SEM testing.
- An FBI-trained forensic sketch artist sketched the Skull, illustrating what it may have looked like if the missing bones were replaced.
- An osteological exam was conducted by archaeologist, Aaron Judkins, PhD. He completed an external cranial exam using both straight and elliptical digital calipers. By filling the skull with rice and then measuring the rice to determine the volume inside the skull, he determined the cranial capacity.
- A clean lab was created and DNA was forensically collected by Chase Kloetzke using a dremel tool and assisted by Kerry McClure. Forensic industry protocols were adhered to, including package security measures, evidence tape, chain of custody forms and proper transport containers.
- Bill and Julie May contacted James Gilliam, DDS of Noble, Oklahoma, to examine x-rays and photographs of the upper right maxilla and provide his professional opinion on the age of the Starchild at his death.
- Paleo Labs conducted testing on the recovered DNA to see if it was viable for further testing.
- Paleo Labs conducted mitochondrial DNA (mt-DNA) testing and also tested to see if nuclear or paternal (Y-DNA) was viable for further testing.
- Paleo Labs conducted sex testing and Y-DNA testing.
- The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act was researched, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was contacted to ask about the repatriation of the Starchild Skull, the Treaty of Cooperation Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Providing for the Recovery and Return of Stolen Archaeological, and Historical and Cultural Properties and The National Stolen Property Act were looked into, INAH (Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History) was contacted as well as representatives and attorneys in Mexico.
RESULTS
- TSP gave permission for a new, independent investigation and dissolved their company, officially ending their investigation.
- Joe Taylor confirmed the presence of wormian sutures, or Inca bones.
- The replica produced was museum quality and can be used for accurate measurements and visual examinations.
- Bill and Julie May discovered that the bottoms of the eye sockets were broken and worn off. They also noted that there once was a nose as evidenced by a visible nasal suture.
- The Osteologists found that the Starchild Skull did not correspond to any of the animal primate skulls. They stated the skull was the size and the bone was the thickness of that of a 5-year-old. When being compared to the human skulls, the Skull most resembled that of a Down Syndrome child’s skull. Wormian bones were noted and the flattened head was discussed as a possible reason for the widened occipital area. No banding marks were present, ruling out manual manipulation. The eye sockets were reported as broken and missing edging. The ear regions were lower than normal and the ear canal seemed larger.
- The samples Bill May extracted from the skull were viable for SEM (scanning electron microscopy) testing. The SEM testing at Selee Labs Selee Results showed the following: the Skull yielded the same components and properties of normal human skull material – Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2 , they did not find any red fibers or “fibers” of any kind, they found an unusual amount of Mg/Si (magnesium and silicon) which was most likely caused by the talc coating that was recently used in the replica making process. More can be read about the lab results here.
- The forensic sketch shows an illustration if missing bones were replaced and only the bones that showed signs of once existing.
- In archaeologist Aaron Judkins, PhD’s Starchild Skull Final Report, he found that the maxilla, mandible and zygomatic arches were all missing, the skull thickness measured 3.10 mm which was well within normal limits for a 5-7 year old, the eye sockets were .5 mm deep which was below average, and sutures between the bones were normal and not unusually widened as seen in hydrocephalus. He also stated that the depressed notch in the sagittal suture is not seen in hydrocephalus. Also, the fossa were atypical down to the foramen magnum, fontenelles were closed, and the occipital bone was abnormally flattened. Two wormian ossicles were seen and he concluded that the inion was missing. The cranial capacity was 1640 cubic centimeters, which is above normal.
- From the inside of the skull, where the skull was the least contaminated, Chase Kloetzke was able to extract and package several samples of a powder that contained DNA and forensically package a piece of the maxilla that contained a tooth that had viable DNA for both mt-DNA and Y-DNA testing.
- James Gilliam, DDS stated, in his tooth analysis, based on the remaining 2 baby molars and the presence of tooth buds inside the maxilla, that the Starchild was around 5 years of age at his time of death.
- Paleo Labs concluded the DNA sample was viable for mt-DNA testing.
- Paleo Labs tests mt-DNA Paleo-DNA Labs Report showed that the mother of the Starchild Skull was a Native American Human from haplogroup C1. They concluded that further testing for Y-DNA was possible.
- Paleo Labs tests results were conclusive in their Y-DNA report; the Starchild was a male and his father was a human from haplogroup Q which is what comprises 94% of indigenous South Americans.
- None of the agencies or persons contacted were able to provide a conclusive answer on the legalities of repatriating the Starchild Skull. Legal research is ongoing.
DISCUSSION
Final Results
Concluding the investigation and compiling the entirety of the scientific data from the many scientists involved, we can safely say that the Starchild Skull is not alien, nor a hybrid of a human and alien. He was 100% a human male child with profound deformities. When we began the investigation, we had no expectations besides completing testing and examinations by credentialed scientists to the extent that modern science and technology could take us. We were not working from speculation or relying on any research done in the past besides the carbon dating. We were not hoping for the Starchild Skull to be human or alien, even though that discovery (although unprovable at this time without comparable DNA) would have been groundbreaking. We were searching only for the truth.
Additional Theories for Abnormalities
Our main goal was to determine was the Skull alien or human. Although we have concluded that Starchild Skull is fully human, some of the examinations did find anomalies that were not definitively explained through the DNA testing. Unfortunately, the ancient DNA was not viable enough to be tested for genetic diseases at this time. We will list the anomalies we discovered and then compare our findings to the anomalies found by a previous investigation. Although we were not tasked to find out why the skull was anomalous, we felt we needed to address some of the noted abnormalities.
During examinations, Bill May, Joe Taylor, and Aaron Judkins, PhD all reported finding wormian sutures and small inca bones. This a rare but not abnormal finding, especially among certain groups of people. Judkins also measured the extra-large cranial capacity. There are several different disorders that can cause this, including genetic diseases and tumors. The most obvious difference between the Skull and that of a normal 5 year old’s is the ballooning shape. Aaron Judkins, PhD described this shape as brachycephalic and discounted the popular theory of hydrocephalus. Also, the flattened back of the head is most likely attributed to an immobile child, laid on his back and not rotated on his side or stomach, now referred to as Flat Head Syndrome. This can, in itself, cause the brachycephalic shape of the head widening and the forehead bulging. The inion was noted to be either missing or very small. The inion is the protuberance on the back of the skull that the different ligaments attach to. If the child was immobile, this would not have developed normally, as there was not much use of the muscles being attached to it. The eye sockets were reported to be shallower than average. Several disorders exist that can cause shallow eye sockets, mostly characterized by bones fusing together too early or growing at a different rate from the surrounding bones. Also, the low ear placement could be explained by a number of disorders, including Down Syndrome.
Scientifically, we have now made it clear that these anomalies were not caused by any hybridization of alien DNA. They were caused by a human disorder of some type. Some of the most likely theories proposed are Down Syndrome, Hydrocephalus, Brachycephaly, Crouzon Syndrome and Achondroplasia. The skull most resembled a child’s skull that had Down Syndrome at the Museum of Osteology, and would explain facial anomalies as well as the low ear placement. Hydrocephalus is arguable, but does explain the bulbous shape of the Skull and could possibly be a side effect of another disfiguring disorder, such as Achondroplasia or Down Syndrome. Brachycephaly is more of a description than a disorder, but the characteristics of the shape correlate highly to that of the Starchild Skull and can also be a side effect of various disorders, such as Flat Head Syndrome. Achondroplasia is a genetic disorder that causes dwarfism and characteristics can include shallow eye sockets and deformed facial and bone structure, which can cause immobility and hydrocephalus. Crouzon Syndrome also could explain the shallow eye sockets and facial features as it causes premature fusing of the facial bones. Perhaps it can be theorized that it is caused by one of these or another genetic disease that has now died out but affected children of indigenous South and North American people, as three other similar skulls have been found in Peru. The Starchild’s father does come from haplogroup Q that is so common in South America.
Previous Research
Soon after receiving ownership of the Starchild Skull, Melanie Young came in contact with Lloyd Pye, who dedicated the remainder of his life to proving the theory that the Starchild Skull was an alien-hybrid. He developed a loyal following who adhered to his teachings of intervention theory, an alternative to evolution or creationism which surmised that aliens have intervened in the evolution of man. Based on the bizarre shape of the Starchild Skull, Pye believed it to fit perfectly into his worldview as an example of aliens creating a hybrid. Soon a corporation was formed to protect the Skull(s), any monetary gains, and fundraising for future research. The research was completed under the name The Starchild Project and agreements were made to protect the flow of information published. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised to promote further research to prove it was part alien. DNA tests were conducted, as well as SEM tests. The skull was examined by doctors and scientists. Opinions varied from hydrocephalus to inconclusive to it could only be an alien, because nothing else could explain the anomalies. The following compares our findings to previous claims.
The Claims of Reported Anomalies and the Scientific and Expert Examination Disposition:
1. The Starchild Skull is 5 years old. This is no longer disputed. There are no former or current expert statements, tests or reports located that contradict this fact. The following allegations of physical abnormalities are solved by the undisputed findings that the Skull belonged to a child between the ages of 5-6 years old:
- The skull bone density of the Starchild skull is thinner than normal. The comparison photos of this claim include adult skulls and not those of a child of the same age. The thickness of the Starchild Skull is within normal range of an average 5-year-old, 3.10 mm.
- The zygomatic arch is smaller than a normal human. This is true when compared to an adult. This anomalous claim is only accurate if the Skull is an adult. The arch is in normal measured range of a small child 5 years old.
- There are no visible sinuses. Again, the Starchild has been compared to only adult skulls. There is a faint development line on the x-ray but it is inconclusive if it represents the sinuses. The decay rate and bone characteristics of a child are different from that of an adult. The sinus cavity decay cannot be ruled out. This skull also has a long history of storage, cleaning, being lacquered and mounted and handled by thousands of people over the decades. There is no certification or way to test at this time if sinuses were indeed present. Additionally, up to 10% of people are born without frontal sinuses.
- The eye sockets are irregular. Although on first appearance, there is doubt about the differences. Examinations revealed the bottom of the sockets are missing (broken) but were once there. The sockets sitting lower on the face is also explained by the measurements that revealed a normal depth and placement reading for a small child. The adult skull average depth is “up to” two inches.
- The Starchild Skull weighs half as much as a normal skull. The Starchild Skull weighs the same as all other 5-6-year-old skulls. The previous conclusions were in comparison with adult skulls.
- The neck muscles were much smaller than a normal human. This is not true when compared with a 5-year-old skull, only when sampled and measured with an adult skull.
- The cheek bones and chewing muscles are half the size of an adult skull. This is a true statement but has been used to display another anomalous observation. When compared to a 5-6-year-old skull, the cheek bones and chewing muscles are within the normal range.
2. Starchild Skull bone structure anomalies were reported as irregular or not human.
- Normal skull bone feature lacunae are absent from the Starchild Skull bone. Lacunae are tiny holes in the bone that offer new cell delivery. The SEM test from Selee Labs shows that these are present in the interior part of the bone. The absence of this structure on the exterior part of the bone can be explained by the cleaning, polishing and coats of lacquer that were applied to the skull. The liquid lacquer filled in the tiny holes on the surface.
- The dip in the superior or top part of the skull is a result of an abnormally developed sagittal suture. There is a defined dip, but this is often found with Brachycephaly because of the widened bone structure or “short skull symptom”. Before any determination for the cephalic shape of the Starchild Skull can be made, we must rule out genetic and rare conditions associated with this form. Some of the suspected genetic causes can be tested but this was not part of our examination as we stayed focused on our main objective: is the Starchild human, hybrid or alien. Further tests to these suspected genetic disorders are recommended.
- The “fibers” and red residue woven in the Starchild Skull’s bone is reminiscent of rebar and increases the strength of the bone by as much as six times stronger than a normal skull. One of the most interesting parts of the Starchild claims were the announcements and photos of the fibers and a red colored substance in the bone of the Starchild Skull. This was considered a priority examination because it offered physical evidence that could be tested and reproduced. A sample of the skull was sent to Selee Labs for SEM testing. The analyst was asked to find the fibers and red residue and to perform an elemental test for claims that will be later discussed. No previous test results from prior testing were located that explain how the “strength test” was conducted nor who did the testing, when it was conducted or where the testing was done. NO fibers were found. NO red residue was located. It is important to remember that the Starchild Skull has been handled by hundreds, stored in boxes, wrapped in material for transport, lacquered, and a host of other events. The collective theory for the fibers is – they are contamination particles that were not removed before varnishing the exterior of the skull. As the varnish soaks in, it will embed the dust and debris into the pores of the bone causing this isolated effect. It was after The Field Reports’ Selee Lab testing that we learned other earlier tests were done to corroborate the first findings and no tests have found the fibers or residue from the original claim. Our testing does have the same result as the previous test by TSP, NO fibers found. When asked to review and test the same sample from which the original claim was made, we were told the sample no longer exists. The red residue has also been declared as a contamination spot as it too has not been located on the skull since the original examination and claim. It is hard to determine if there are more fibers and residue because of the damage required to the skull every time a test is run. What can be determined with certainty, not the fibers nor the residue are a continuous anomaly causing any extra strength or abnormally.
- The ears on the Starchild Skull are considerably lower and the “hearing region” is twice as big as a normal skull. The ear placement is lower than a normal child. There are many genetic reasons for this anomaly and this cannot be ignored. However, the genetic testing for disease is expensive and the certainty of reliable DNA results with disease markers from a 900-year-old skull are almost impossible at this time. The lower ear placement is not so uncommon that it would be a significant reason to believe it was not human. Even adding this anomalous claim combined with all of the other reported anomalies starts to define medical answers such as down syndrome. This comparison with a 6-year-old skull with down syndrome was completed at the Osteology Museum in Oklahoma City, OK. The abnormal features presented on both were so striking and similar that Down Syndrome could NOT be ignored as part or most of a reasonable or scientific explanation and must be further tested. All experts agree.
- The Starchild teeth prove the skull is much older and has 3 rows of teeth. There is no verifiable report and the name of the expert that made this claim of “adult teeth” or 3 rows of teeth has been withheld. When the x-rays and photographs were examined, the claims proved to have no merit. James Gilliam, DDS. of Noble, Oklahoma, was given the photos and x-rays to examine. He concluded that teeth and tooth buds, were what you expect to find on a young child, approximately 5 years old. The “tooth buds” are forming as the child reaches the age to lose the baby teeth. Adult teeth do not form completely until they are ready to be exposed. This is what causes the loosening of the baby teeth. No professional on the record has claimed there are 3 rows of teeth. The one “tooth” that survived in the small piece of the maxilla has caused the only controversy in the actual age of the Starchild as one un-named “expert” concluded the wear on the tooth was more of adult status. Unfortunately, we cannot verify this proclamation. All experts and testing since have concluded the disposition as approximate age of 5.
- The exterior occipital protuberance (inion) is missing. Two differing expert opinions about this claim make it a difficult call. The inion can be located but it is so very small, it could also be another anomalous part of the skull. The inion is responsible for a neck muscle attachment (trapezoid). If this small protrusion is indeed the occipital protuberance, this would lend more information to the theory that the Starchild was not as mobile as a healthy child. The muscles would have not developed as normal therefore leaving little need for a prominent inion. Bones will strengthen with activity and with weight-bearing functions. This under-developed part of anatomy could lend corroboration to “Flat Head Syndrome” as seen today, and a child with a condition of little or no normal activity.
- The head boarding theory: the Starchild Skull was shaped on purpose. No visible or normal indications were found on the Starchild Skull that have been documented or examined on thousands of skulls known to be shaped by cranial deformation. The banding marks are noticeably missing. Although this practice cannot be 100% ruled out, there are NO reasons or evidence found to support head boarding except the shape of the skull which can be explained by other factors. All experts agree.
- The debunking theory: hydrocephaly explains the Skull’s shape. This theory cannot be ruled out nor ignored. However, a hydrocephalic anomaly should appear symmetrical, which effects the entire skull. The Starchild Skull does not display the symmetrical “ballooning effect” that would include the back of the skull, unless a condition for inactivity caused the very common “Flat Head Syndrome” as seen today. This is highly unlikely and expert examinations have ruled this out. DNA cannot test for this condition. We cannot find a test for this. This possibility must stay in an honest assessment when considering the larger cranial capacity that is NOT in dispute at this time. The skull is bigger. Normal head boarding or cranial deformation does not increase the cranial capacity which is another corroboration that it was NOT cradle boarded. Pressure on the brain would not cause two symmetrical twin “bulges” while leaving a distinctive depression where the two parietal bones meet. Hydrocephaly would cause unfused sutures to expand out. The cranial sutures in the Starchild are not separated. The sagittal suture in the Starchild Skull was normal at the time of death. No abnormal widening of the sutures is noted. When this specimen is compared to known brachycephalic cases, striking similarities in skull shape are notably apparent. While hydrocephalus can cause malformation of the skull, it does not cause specific deformities in facial features. Juxtaposed, brachycephaly can cause symmetrical distortions of the skull with severe flattening of the back of the skull. Brachycephaly can also cause shallow, almond-shaped eye orbits and a small face all of which is present in the Starchild specimen. These characteristics are inconsistent with hydrocephalus. Two experts on cranio-facial abnormalities, Dr. Patricia Hummel and Dr. Jeffrey A. Fearon, both agree this specimen fits the description of brachycephaly.
3. The FOXP2 gene fragment reveals 56 differences which confirms the Starchild Skull is not a human being.
- NO valid evidence exists for this claim. From an undisclosed lab, by an unnamed geneticist came the highly irresponsible claim that a key finding in the genetic sequencing found unusual mt-DNA in 2012. The name of the lab was kept confidential for alleged, security reasons. This lab is a public and functioning company. There are no obvious reasons why a lab would require confidentiality when presenting documented test results, as we see with all other DNA reports past and present concerning the Starchild Skull. This claim also continues that the anomalous sequences were submitted to the NIH Basic Logical Alignment Search Tool (Blast) at the U.S. National Institute of Health Blast. There is no record of this sample number [c-14393 or c-45729] at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) as the inquiry to the Research Institute was made by The Field Reports Investigators. The website posts continue with, “This finding, if proven, will raise many questions about how it developed and what abilities it may or may not have had. The results obtained need to be reproduced, verified, and extended.” – The Starchild Project. To date, there is no evidence that any part of this claim is valid or documented except for 3 “screen shots” of an alleged test that has NO reference to the Starchild sample. Simply put, this test result could be of the result of any non-human entry. There are different reference numbers or “Query ID” numbers on the screen shots of the alleged tests that have since been removed from the website. These claims and screen shots have been viewed by legitimate geneticists and they have found NO merit or validity to the statement or the screen shot. Gary Nolan PHD. Geneticist at Stanton University commented on the results.
“The facts are not open to interpretation unless they want to rewrite the rules of genetics. There is no analysis available by which they can take the data they have provided me, or on the web, to make the claims they do about FoxP2. I can only guess at the reasons they want to keep up such an obviously incorrect claim…DNA tests have shown it is human (and both parents were human) suffering probably from congenital hydrocephalus.” – Gary Nolan
4. Previous DNA Test Result Inventory
- Bolds Lab – In 1999, Bold Lab, (Bureau of Legal Dentistry) in Canada was contacted to do the DNA test on the Star Child Skull. Two samples were tested. They reported “conclusive evidence” that the Starchild was male and human. As both chromosomes are present in males, X and Y, both parents must be human. The Y chromosome can ONLY be inherited from the male or father.
- Trace Genetics – In 2003, Trace Genetics, a lab that specializes in extracting ancient DNA concludes the Starchild Skull and the companion skull are not related as each belong to a different haplogroup. The Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA (inherited exclusively from the mother) has origins in haplogroup C. The companion skull has origins in haplogroup A and is female. Both haplogroups are Native American.
- Undisclosed Lab – In 2010 the key finding was the first recovery of nuDNA from the Starchild Skull. Nuclear DNA (from both parents, gives individuals their unique qualities) was recovered from the Starchild Skull for the first time. No documents, evidence of the sample, reports, or records found regarding nuclear DNA findings. This DNA was submitted to the US National Institutes of Health BLAST for comparison to all other DNA in their database. Some of the DNA was similar to that of a human while some could not be matched. “If these results can be reproduced and verified, it will show that the Skull is a previously undiscovered species.” – The Starchild Project. No documents, evidence of the sample, reports, chain of custody or records found regarding a FoxP2 sample to the “Blast” data bank or Genetic Facility was available to The Field Reports. An un-named geneticist conducted this test and the information reported is controversial at best. There is no room in any investigation to repeat proclamations from people who will not allow their name, work place, and credentials to be published. The Field Reports team does know the identity of this alleged scientist but have promised confidentiality to TSP on this matter and only on this matter. We will always honor our word. What we can reveal is that this “geneticist” is NOT a geneticist but a virologist that has worked on Lyme disease and is no longer employed with his University.
Origins
Utilizing known facts about the Starchild Skull: aged 900 years, found near Delicias, Mexico, and having Native American blood, we were able to form a solid theory of his origins. Around 1100, the Mogollon tribe occupied the area where the Starchild Skull was found. They were going through a transition period, from living in pit houses to pueblo-style homes, from hunter-gatherer to more agrarian, and it is believed their area was migrating north due to the influence of the encroaching Anasazi. The Mogollon performed a death ritual that involved placing a bowl decorated with geometric images and depictions of various gods over the face of the dead and then punching a hole through the center to free their spirit to continue living amongst their people. The dead were then buried beneath their home. The Starchild was found alongside an adult woman’s skeleton in a mine or cave. Joe Taylor had discovered the woman’s skull had been severely damaged. She rested above ground next to the body of the Starchild who was buried underneath a mound of dirt. Neither were given a ceremonial burial. It is possible they were deemed unsuitable to live amongst their people in “spirit form” or were unable to travel north with their tribe because of the child’s handicaps and an unknown reason for the female. Although the Starchild Skull was proven to be human, it should be noted that many indigenous people claim to have origins from “Star People.”
Repatriation
During the search for a reputable DNA lab, we came in contact with Justin Lund, from the University of Oklahoma, who brought to our attention the newly published 2003 DNA results on TSP’s website. The Starchild was haplogroup C which is Native American, and there were laws protecting the remains and artifacts belonging to indigenous peoples. After contacting the Bureau of Indian Affairs, they were unsure of what the legalities were, and basically washed their hands of it because the Skull was found in Mexico. Emails were sent to the INAH without reply. Lawyers were contacted without answer. It is believed that the Mogollon tribe didn’t necessarily disappear, but migrated and inter-mixed, resulting with the Tarahumaras of Mexico, who are believed to be their descendants. Perhaps the Starchild Skull should be repatriated to these people or laid to rest near the area where he was found, along with the female counterpart, and no longer the subject of interstellar mystery and debate. So far, no tribal people have argued for rights to the Skull. These decisions are up to the owner, Melanie Young, however, and subject to any new legal direction.
Conclusions
The initial report of the Starchild anomalies given to the staff of The Field Reports was extensive. What remained a central point in our examinations were two factors:
- Can we effectively solve each claim with a scientific and testable conclusion?
- Can we solve the main mystery we were asked to answer: is the Starchild an alien, hybrid or human?
Keeping these two questions at the front of our every move proved to be more difficult as the allegations of “not normal” or “mysterious features” have been confusing at times. Adding to the difficulties, were the claims of expert analysis or comments without a name or title from the said individuals. Many statements and declarations have been very public about the Starchild Skull without a single scientific or vettable source or document. These statements are indeed inconclusive and speculative at best and motivated by agenda at the worse. We sorted through the investigation claims with vigor. As investigators, we do not have the luxury of “what ifs” or “could it be?” We promised and accepted the responsibility to conduct a scientific investigation and this is exactly what we have finished. Is the Starchild alien, hybrid or human? The collective scientific data that has a repeatable test result concludes: the Starchild is human.
Of course, we were disappointed that the investigation showed no proof of alien life. Ufologists the world over are searching for the smoking gun and many thought the Starchild was just that. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Science demands that extraordinary evidence needs to be retested to produce repeatable results. We invite scientists and investigators to continue research and repeat our tests to produce independently verifiable findings. We give you our findings and invite the reader to come to their own conclusions. We are most excited about new information that people cannot ignore about the actual origins of the Starchild. We found his people, and although they weren’t from the stars, this anthropological discovery is important. He had a name – a Mogollan name. We understand that some people have such deep held beliefs and hopes of what the Starchild represents, that no amount of provable results will be accepted, but science doesn’t care what you believe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are most grateful to the following people, businesses and organizations who provided or donated their time, equipment, and knowledge to the new investigation of the Starchild Skull:
Forensic Investigators Bill and Julie May
Dick and Marilyn Carlson
Joe Taylor and the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
Jillian Peck
The staff at The Osteology Museum
Rudy Olson and the Engineers at Selee Labs
Ruben Uriarte
Paul A. Sandberg PhD – paul.sandberg@ou.edu
Justin R. Lund OU DNA lab graduate student -justinlund@ou.edu
Kama King – Forensic Institute at the University of Central Oklahoma – kking@uco.edu
TEST RESULTS
- Selee Lab SEM test – Selee Results
- SeLee Lab results can also be found on the following page – https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2016/09/07/what-do-the-starchild-skull-and-albert-einstein-have-in-common-new-test-results-may-hold-the-answer/
- Aaron Judkins, PhD’s final report – Starchild Skull Final Report
- Aaron Judkins, PhD’s report can also can be found here – https://thefieldreportscom.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/starchild-skull-final-report.pdf
- James Gilliam, DDS tooth analysis – tooth analysis
- The tooth analysis can also be found on the following page – https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/the-16-things-you-thought-you-knew-about-the-starchild-skull-and-what-science-says-about-them-may-surprise-you/
- Paleo Labs mt-DNA results – mt-DNA Paleo-DNA Labs Report
- mt-DNA results can also be found here – https://thefieldreportscom.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/mt-dna-paleo-dna-labs-report.pdf
- Paleo Labs Y-DNA results – report
SOURCES
- The Field Reports – thefieldreports.com
https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/about-the-team/
- Increased head skull size – http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/symptoms/macrocephaly_in_children/causes.htm
- Inca bones and wormian sutures – https://radiopaedia.org/articles/inca-bone
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/wormian-bones
- Achondroplasia – https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/achondroplasia/
https://www.genome.gov/19517823/
http://applications.emro.who.int/imemrf/Iran_J_Pediatr/Iran_J_Pediatr_2012_22_1_121_124.pdf
https://radiopaedia.org/articles/achondroplastic-base-of-skull-abnormalities
https://www.nemours.org/service/medical/skeletal-dysplasia/achondroplasia.html?tab=about
- low placed ears – http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/pinna-abnormalities-and-low-set-ears/overview.html
- large inner ear – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7877418
- Flat Head Syndrome – http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/plagiocephaly/Pages/Introduction.aspx
- Brachycephaly – http://www.dictionary.com/browse/brachycephalic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalic_index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiocephaly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_suture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambdoid_suture
- Crouzon Syndrome – http://www.faces-cranio.org/Disord/Crouzon.htm
- Similar skulls in Peru – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-AOZGBxkM
- Repatriation Law – https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
https://eca.state.gov/files/bureau/treaty01.pdf
http://www.inah.gob.mx/en/about-us
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n12/full/jhg200998a.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup
- Origins story – https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-dna-results-are-in-plus-bonus-starchild-skull-origin-story/
- Native American Information – https://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/junta/reconsidered.html
http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/firecracker/mogollon.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogollon_culture
http://www.desertusa.com/ind1/ind_new/ind7.html
http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_p4501_0095e.pdf
http://www.pottery-magic.com/pottery/history/indian_pottery.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rarámuri_people
- Previous research – http://www.starchildproject.com/
http://starchildmelanieyoung.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull
- Removed 2012 DNA post – http://web.archive.org/web/20131231054638/http://starchildproject.com/dna-testing/2010-nuclear-dna-report
- Skull replica process – http://www.mtblanco.com/
- https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/how-do-you-make-a-replica-of-a-900-year-old-anomalous-skull/
- Museum of Osteology – http://museumofosteology.org/
https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/the-starchild-skull-visits-an-osteologist/
https://thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/results-at-the-museum-of-osteology/#more-311
- Sinuses – http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/page/Frontal_sinus
- SEM – http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/techniques/SEM.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(material)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxylapatite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rudolph_Olson
- Aaron Judkins, PhD – http://www.aaronjudkins.com
thefieldreportscom.wordpress.com 
May 31, 2017 at 9:02 am
lol how is deleting comments fair? You lost any credibility the moment you claimed its a deformity. Lloyd Pye has permanently ruled out deformities.
I am not an idiot to believe such extreme level deformed human child with that many genetic mutations can even be born much less survive, it will be same as believing in a miracle.
As i have told you before, DNA has the final say. Extract entire starchild skull genome and compare with human genome, do it without any agenda and be open sourced and live videograph everything on Youtube. Then only you “experts” have any say or credibility.
Rest is already ruled out by Lloyd Pye, it is impossible for you “experts” to debunk him when even mainstream science community couldn’t debunk Lloyd Pye.
Don’t believe in aliens? Look in the mirror, you are looking at one because humans themselves are partial aliens on earth, the hybrid descendants of humans who came from another planet to mine resources.
LikeLike
March 11, 2018 at 8:40 pm
Please do your research. There are several deformities anyone with a computer and internet access can read about that can explain some of the issues the child suffered from. You are right about DNA having the final say, and it was conclusively 100% human – in fact, indigenous to the Americas. We will keep searching though. Remember, Thomas Edison failed many times before inventing the light bulb.
LikeLike
July 19, 2017 at 10:55 pm
Hello:
Could you please tell me what would account for the extra-ordinary amount of collagen found in the StarChild Skull. The following below was an observation made by the the late Lloyd Pye concerning the difficulty in cutting the Starchild skull versus an ordinary skull.
The fascinating aspect about this 900 year old skull that was located 100 miles Southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico known as the “Copper Canyon,” is its physical characteristics. During the initial stages of the research a small sample of the skull was needed for DNA analysis. It was soon discovered that the physical characteristics of the skull were extraordinary. This is what was discovered:
1.) The skull bone is half as thick (or less) than normal human bone, it weighs half as much, yet, amazingly, it is two to three times as durable!
2.) On five occasions (observations of the bone being cut by other people), it was apparently obvious that there was difficulty when cutting the skull.
3.) When cutting the Starchild’s skull for the first time using a small hand saw, It became quite apparent that in order to make a cut 1 inch into the Starchild’s bone , It required around 200 strokes of the blade.
4.) To cut 1.25 inches of the human bone took 50 strokes. This demonstrates how amazingly hard the Starchild’s bone is.
5.) A Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis revealed that spikes in oxygen and carbon, and reduced calcium and phosphorus, made this skull bone much more like the compacted collagen found in human tooth enamel.
6.) The human’s bone looks like alabaster, while the Starchild’s bone is milky due to its extraordinary levels of collagen, which is abundant in animal teeth.
7.) Woven into its Starchild bone matrix are various kinds of fibers that are astoundingly durable (to resist the Dremel blade that cut the bone). Whatever these fibers are, they are never found in any other bone on earth.
LikeLike
July 26, 2017 at 2:49 pm
Hello! We did say we were going to delete comments because, well, there were many that were rude and they obviously did not care enough to read the report, but I wanted to thank you for so respectfully asking your questions! I will attempt to address your questions, although we do not know all of the answers.
I should first state that the Skull was found in Delicious, Mexico, according to the owner, Melanie Young, who heard firsthand from the previous owner where it was found. She has stated that Lloyd did not want to hear that was the origination of the Skull and we cannot confirm where his information is from.
1) As stated in the report, the Skull thickness is normal when compared to another 5-year-old’s skull. The Starchild Project previously where comparing it to that of an adult skull. Several experts, including DNA tests confirm the Skull to have belonged to someone around 5 years old. We have found zero evidence showing it is more durable than that of a normal skull of the same age group. Please display proof.
2)Skull bone is difficult to cut, although we have no quantifiable evidence showing it is any harder than that of a normal skull or even that of another 900 year-old-skull.
3) Again, we have no proof of this claim. The osteologists did not report having higher than average efforts cutting the skull and they are experts in the field and have cut many skulls.
4)Again, I have nothing to compare the claim of 50 strokes to. Is that a normal amount? What kind of blade was used? How worn was the blade? There are many things to consider here when conducting a scientific investigation before assuming the claims lead to something extroidinary.
5)Our SEM testing did not show that the bone was closer to collagen. We conducted the study using forensic methods to avoid contamination. I am also not aware of this report. Please provide with proof of who conducted and how.
6) I have seen the skull, including freshly cut areas, with my own eyes and do not agree with this claim.
7)If you read the full report, you will see that we address the issue of the fibers. We did not find any fibers in any of our tests. None whatsoever. We contacted the Starchild Project to see if we could test the exact sample they found the fibers in and they said the sample was lost or missing. All we can conclusively prove is that there are no fibers throughout the skull. We also question the validity of these fibers providing increased strength to the skull. What tests were done to make this claim?
As with the falsified claims to the DNA testing showing abnormal FOXP2 genes (the lead investigator, Chase, literally called the NIH Human Genome Research Institute and they had no record of the reported genetics test from 2012) We know that the person who reported these findings also falsified his profession as he was not a geneticist but a virologist. We question many of the previous findings that do not have explicit proof of the tests conducted, including VERIFIABLE tests done by credentialed professionals. Extroidinary claims require extroidinary proof. We were so hoping to find extroidinary proof, but as you can read, what we had was a deformed Skull of a human child that had been the source of much speculation.
LikeLike
March 11, 2018 at 11:30 am
Also when you look at the fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars were donated to Lloyd Pye and that the folks who did so where promised test results and future documentaries…. it becomes even more important to take previous claims with an ounce of suspicion.
Kind of hard to listen to folks tell you that its a down/hydrocephalus 900 year old human skull when you already collected hundreds of thousands for testing and documentaries.
LikeLike
March 11, 2018 at 8:31 pm
We collected zero dollars, in fact, we used our own money for testing. We are not connected in any way with the Starchild Project. We independently studied the skull without ties to anyone – we let science be the voice and we listened.
LikeLike
March 13, 2018 at 9:05 am
Hi Kerry,
I did not mean to imply you collected monies for the skull. Now that the dust is settling it turns out that the late Lloyd Pye did. This does not mean he did not use these funds to pay
documentary producers or for tests… but after his death, no one seems to know where the money actually went. Seems there are folks that feel duped.
I really like the work your group has done, and the fact that you guys did not stoop to those levels. You did not look at this skull as a vehicle for donations, but instead did the work that Lloyd was claiming he wanted to do all along. Thank you.
LikeLike
August 6, 2017 at 1:07 pm
A beautifully and expertly written article. I’m watching “UFO Hunters” and they make some very different claims.
LikeLike
March 11, 2018 at 11:05 am
I have to say I am really impressed and have a lot of respect for the owner, Melanie Young to do the hard thing and change the direction and motives of the investigation when it became obvious that it was being done for other motives,
I know this must have been extremely difficult considering she was friends with Lloyd Pye.
The key to me was the statement, that if unknown DNA is being found, you can’t call it alien but possibly a new species. The leap of going off-world, right off the bat shows serious bias and flaws in thinking. New species are found all the time, why is the conclusion this is ALIEN? Obviously, the previous investigation was thinking Grey and working backwards, this in itself show how susceptible to bias even very intellectual individuals like Lloyd Pye can be.
BTW, I am a UFO believer. I do believe we are being visited/studied and we were genetically tampered with. So I would of loved for this to be true…. but I am incredibly happy that Mrs Young was honest to us and allowed for the mistakes in the past research to come to light. This kind of attention to detail is what the community needs. Thank you so much. This may not be the smoking gun, but at least it shows that some of us are capable of discerning smoke and mirrors, even when we want to believe in the fantastic.
My Respect,
Saturnin Kepa,
Port Rowan, Ontario, Canada
LikeLiked by 1 person
March 22, 2018 at 10:11 pm
This is exactly what’s needed when researching claims of ET/alien items! Let’s get started on some of the many anomalous items that need further research such as the “Baltic Sea Anomaly”. What’s up with this shape that resembles a spacecraft but appears to be made of stone? Is there any further research being done on this? Thanks for publishing the star child results. I’d like to see more published research like this because there are ET’s visiting us! Let’s get serious about it and find out why!!!
LikeLike