|
Starchild Skull DNA Analysis Report—2011
A Layman's summary of this
report is available HERE
(También está disponible en español:
http://www.starchildproject.com/dna2011spanish.htm)
SUMMARY:
Early in 2011, a geneticist attempting to recover Starchild
Skull DNA identified four fragments that matched with human
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Comparing those fragments with
matching fragments from human mtDNA produced an astonishing
result. In every comparison, the Starchild presented many more
nucleotide differences than are normally found among humans. In
one comparison detailed in this report, the compared segments of
human mtDNA came from one of its most highly conserved regions.
Across 167 nucleotides in this segment, only 1 single
variation is found among the 33 human haplogroups. In contrast,
the same length of Starchild mtDNA has 17 differences! Of those
17, a significant number should be confirmed by multiple
repetitions of the test. If several are confirmed (which is
highly likely), it will be enough evidence to establish a
new earthly species. [In 2010 just such a new prehuman species,
Denisova, was confirmed by having a significant number of
differences in its mtDNA. This will be explained later in this
report.]
1. Introduction To The
Starchild Skull
2. What You Need To Know About
DNA
3. What You Need To Know About
DNA Testing
4. 2003 DNA Testing
5. 454 Life Sciences
Technology
6. 2010 DNA Testing & Results
7. 2003 vs 2011 Mitochondrial
DNA Testing
8. 2011 DNA Testing & Results
9. What Does This Mean?
10. Conclusion & Call To Action
Introduction To The
Starchild Skull:
The Starchild Skull is a 900-year-old
human-like bone skull with distinctly non-human characteristics.
It was unearthed in a mine tunnel near Mexico’s Copper Canyon
around 1930. The Starchild Project is an informal research group
that has coordinated numerous scientific investigations since its founding in February of 1999.
By 2003, the Starchild Project had
completed
enough research to strongly suspect the Starchild was
something never seen before by science. At minimum, it presented
a level of deformity and function previously thought impossible,
and perhaps something much more significant: a new type of
human-like being living on Earth 900 years ago.
Formal research was carried out by credentialed experts in the
USA, Canada, and UK. It included cranial analysis, dental
analysis, X-ray analysis, CT scan analysis, radiocarbon dating
(C-14), microscopic analysis of multiple bone preparations,
scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
bone composition analysis,
statistical analysis, inorganic chemistry analysis, DNA
analysis, and other investigations into possible natural
explanations such as genetic defects,
birth defects, and
skull
deformation resulting from cultural practices. (Complete
details of these studies can be found in the book "The
Starchild Skull" by Lloyd Pye)
The collective conclusions were that the combination of skull
features were unique and could not be explained by any known
deformity or combination of deformities, mutation, cultural
practices, genetic disorders, or illness. If a human were born
today with physical abnormalities like the Starchild, it could
not survive. Yet something about the essential nature of this
being permitted it to do what would be impossible for a normal
human.
Realizing the ultimate answer could come only from genetic
testing, in 2003 the Starchild Project commissioned a DNA
analysis of the Starchild Skull’s bone by Trace Genetics of
Davis, California. (Trace Genetics was acquired by
DNA Print Genomics in 2005.) Its owners and principal
geneticists were Dr. Ripan Malhi and Dr. Jason Eshleman,
specialists in the recovery of ancient DNA, meaning DNA from
samples more than 50 years old. Dr. Malhi and Dr. Eshleman had
previously worked on the high profile 5,000 to 9,000 + year old
Kennewick Man skeleton found in Washington State in 1996.
Drs. Malhi and Eshleman took samples of the
Starchild bone, along with control samples from a human skull
reportedly found lying beside the Starchild’s buried skeleton.
Carbon 14 dating of the two skulls
confirmed they died at or near the same time, 900 years ago, and later analysis
of staining on both skulls, and the inorganic chemistry of their
bone, supported the C-14 result that both were exposed to
similar conditions after death. That made the human an ideal
control to compare contamination and degradation of its DNA
against the Starchild’s.
BACK TO TOP
What You Need To Know
About DNA:
All humans have two types of DNA.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comprises
the genomes of all mitochondria, which are subcellular (within a
cell) elements located in the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells
(those with a nucleus). Mitochondria are responsible for energy
production in cells. They are inherited through female eggs;
thus, mtDNA is inherited only from mothers, grandmothers,
great-grandmothers, etc., for countless generations to a
species’ point of genetic origin.
Nuclear DNA (nuDNA) is the combination of genetic
material from both parents, and comprises the human genome. NuDNA gives humans their unique individual attributes.
All DNA is created from only four building blocks called
nucleosides, which are bound together the way train cars are
coupled, with the help of a binder made of phosphoric acid.
These four nucleosides are adenosine, guanosine, thymidine and
cytidine, abbreviated as A, G, T, and C. Nucleosides with the
attached phosphate couplers are called nucleotides.
The four resulting nucleotides link together
in DNA to form chains that are different in their order and
length for each gene. Whether short or long, when linked
together these nucleotide chains comprise the 30,000 genes
that are organized into the 46 chromosomes (23 from each
parent) within the nucleus of almost every cell in the human
body. Each chromosome is basically an enormously long,
uninterrupted chain of the four nucleotides connected in a
specific order that is unique to the chromosome’s host and
species.
Regardless of length, each chain of nucleotides is complexed
with (connected to) another DNA chain that faithfully reproduces
the connection order of nucleotides in the first chain, but in a
mirrored manner. Each nucleotide in one chain is always
connected to a specific nucleotide in the opposite chain to
create what is known as a base pair. Base pairs always
occur as T-A (or A-T) and G-C (or C-G). Those 46 chromosomes
taken together contain over 3 billion base pairs, which in total
comprises the human genome.
BACK TO TOP
What You Need To Know
About DNA Testing:
In 2003, Trace Genetics began their sequencing
analyses of the
DNA recovered from both skulls. The methodology they utilized
was based on PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction), a powerful
amplification technique that enabled analysis of tiny amounts of
DNA too small to be detected by other methods. The principal
drawback of using the PCR technique was its dependence on
employing correctly designed primers for its
amplification.
To design primers correctly, the target DNA sequence had to be
known from the start, or at least the relatedness of known DNA
to unknown DNA had to be understood, such as that between chimp
DNA and human DNA (97% related). This made using PCR for unknown
DNA sequences (those not catalogued) extremely problematic, if
not impossible.
Primers are designed strings of nucleotides similar to those in
DNA, but much shorter, often only 25 to 30 nucleotides long.
Unlike DNA, which is double-stranded, primers are
single-stranded. When added to a sample of DNA being tested,
a primer is designed to find its complimentary strand and bind
to it at a specific locus (point of contact).
To create primers that accurately reproduce the sequence
of nucleotides (their order of connection) at a specific locus
requires knowing the exact sequence at the target locus. Imagine
a human-specific primer is the string of nucleotides shown in
grey (below left). When such a primer is added to a DNA sample,
it will seek to connect with its other half (shown in blue) in
the mirrored fashion mentioned above.
When a primer locates its counterpart (a
complementary sequence, or complement), the PCR process is able
to proceed and a positive result will register by whatever
measurement an investigator chooses to utilize. Thus, with
primers designed to conform to human DNA, a positive
registration of a PCR result indicates that human DNA is present
in the sample. Conversely, if the primers cannot find their
complements, no human DNA is present.
BACK TO TOP
2003 DNA Testing:
To test the DNA of the
Starchild Skull and the control skull, Dr. Eshleman and Dr.
Malhi used the PCR technique with primers designed on the basis
of known human sequences.
On the first attempt with the control skull, both mtDNA and
nuDNA were detected, revealing it was a female whose mtDNA
belonged to haplogroup A. The Starchild’s mtDNA was also
recovered on the first attempt, but it belonged to haplogroup C.
Haplogroups are how geneticists classify macro groups of people
with similar yet slightly different mtDNA. The exact number of
haplogroups differs depending on which reference is consulted,
but 33 groups are commonly used for genetic comparisons.
This result indicated that the female and the Starchild could
not be maternally related because their mtDNA did not belong to
the same haplogroup. (Remember, everyone inherits only their
mother’s mtDNA, their grandmother’s, etc.)
Recovering mtDNA so easily from
both samples meant they were well preserved during 900 years in
a dry mine tunnel. The fact that the Starchild’s mtDNA
apparently belonged to a normal human haplogroup indicated that
its maternal line was entirely human.
If the Starchild’s nuclear DNA responded positively to primers
designed to recover human nuDNA, that would establish its nuDNA
as also human, confirming it as an astoundingly bizarre
deformity, but 100% human. However, if its nuclear DNA proved to
be other than entirely human, the Starchild Skull would
represent a new type of humanoid—period.
In six full attempts (above),
Dr. Eshleman and Dr. Malhi could not detect the Starchild’s
nuclear DNA by PCR. Given that nuDNA was easily recovered from
the control skull with the same level of DNA degradation, and
the Starchild’s mtDNA was also easily detectable by PCR, the
failure strongly indicated its nuclear DNA was present, but too
different from human DNA to be detected by human-specific
primers.
Though compelling, this result was not absolute proof that the
Starchild had a non-human father. Also, if it were some kind of
human-alien hybrid, the presence of mtDNA inherited from a human
mother would suggest that a large portion of its nuDNA should
also come from the mother. So, why wasn’t this clearly human
counterpart more easily detectable?
With only PCR-based detection techniques at their disposal in
2003, Dr. Malhi and Dr. Eshleman had no way to address the
critical question of exactly how far the father was from
human. Was it a razor-thin margin, barely enough to avoid
detection by primers? Or was it a substantial margin, enough to
confirm that he had an alien genetic heritage? (In
this context, “alien” can mean anything from “foreign to normal
human genetics within the framework of that subject as it is
currently understood,” to “definitely not from planet Earth”….
or anything in between.)
With Trace Genetics unable to determine how different the
father’s DNA was from human, the Starchild Project could offer
no conclusion that would stand up to the intense scrutiny
certain to descend on a claim that the Starchild’s father might
be of non-terrestrial origin.
The upside was that the mtDNA result proved the Starchild
Skull’s DNA was viable (not degraded to a point where nothing
could be recovered from it), leaving open the possibility that
later, using improved technology, its all-important nuclear DNA
could be recovered.
BACK TO TOP
454 Life Sciences
Technology:
In 2006, a company called 454 Life Sciences of Branford,
Connecticut, announced they had developed a new DNA analysis
methodology that enabled sequencing of any unknown DNA sample
without prior knowledge of any of its sequences. The only
requirement was that the sample to be sequenced had to actually
be DNA (in a chemical sense).
The 454 technique was also based on using primers, but these
primers were standardized for every imaginable analysis, not
specific to the DNA to be analyzed. It was exactly what
was needed to recover and sequence the Starchild’s elusive
nuclear DNA.
Unfortunately, the first full genome analyses using the 454
methodology were extremely expensive (millions of dollars each),
and so could be afforded only by those involved in well-known,
high-profile cases such as sequencing the Neanderthal genome.
By 2009, 454 sequencers were in use worldwide and were competing
with next-generation genome sequencers from other companies, so
the cost of sequencing entire genomes was decreasing steadily.
The Starchild’s DNA was now a candidate for such comprehensive
genetic analysis, even though its burial for 900 years meant
that as much as 90% of the DNA recovered from its bone would
come from contaminating bacteria.
Nonetheless, as demonstrated by the Neanderthal genome project,
even very extensive contamination can be identified and
eliminated from data sets by modern bioinformatics. Specialized
computer tools enable various degrees of filtering, one of which
removes all bacterial sequences to isolate only information
pertaining to the Starchild Skull’s nuDNA. That means its entire
genome derived from the genetic package provided to it by both
parents—its human mother and its potentially non-human father.
Although access to advanced DNA recovery technology was rapidly
expanding, the price for recovering and sequencing ancient DNA
remained well beyond the Starchild Project’s meager financial
resources. Then, in early 2010, that tide of frustration
suddenly turned.
BACK TO TOP
2010 DNA
Testing & Results:
A geneticist from an established and well-accredited research
facility in the U.S.A. offered to attempt to analyze the
Starchild Skull’s nuclear DNA using sophisticated genetic
analysis techniques such as genome amplifications and classic
shotgun sequencing, which were not available to Dr. Malhi and
Dr. Eshleman due to the narrow specialization and commercial
nature of the Trace Genetics business model.
As with any DNA analysis that involves enzymatic amplification,
the techniques used by the new geneticist still relied on
primers, but he used different approaches that were not narrowly
connected to the origin of the DNA samples, and were not
species-specific.
It was very labor-intensive work, and thus not cost effective
for a full genome recovery. However, the geneticist’s goal was
to find a few fragments of the Starchild’s “missing” nuclear
DNA, which would clearly demonstrate that the entire genome was
recoverable and therefore an investment in 454 sequencing would
be warranted.
In February 2010, the geneticist was provided with a bone sample
from the Starchild Skull. In March, he had recovered dozens of
fragments of DNA from the sample, much of which resulted from
the inevitable bacterial contamination. Nonetheless, others were
clearly fragments of the Starchild Skull’s nuclear DNA, so after
11 years of effort—success!
All of the recovered fragments were completely characterized
using the classic Sanger sequencing technique, and analyzed by
capillary electrophoresis (also known as automated sequencing).
These are standard DNA sequencing techniques. After obtaining
sequencing data, the geneticist compared the new sequences to
millions of sequences recovered by other researchers from all
over the world, looking for a match.
Those worldwide results have been deposited into a massive
database maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
in Washington, D.C. That database was created by NIH scientists
from genomes and partial genomes of thousands of plant and
animal species—from sponges to humans—that have been recovered
with the help of NIH funding.
The comparisons were conducted using a sophisticated computer
program called the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), an
NIH application that can analyze nucleotide sequences of any
length, short or long, and attempt to match them to any of the
millions of sequences in the database that represent essentially
every living species on Earth.
All of the sequenced fragments recovered from the Starchild
Skull DNA sample were run through the BLAST program. As
anticipated, a large percentage of recovered fragments were
matched perfectly with DNA catalogued from various species of
bacteria.
Also anticipated were the results for several fragments like the
one seen below. That fragment was 265 base pairs in length, and
it was found to correlate with a segment on human chromosome #1.
This proves some of the Starchild’s nuclear DNA is analogous
with segments of human DNA, and those parts of its genome are
human or human-like.
These results were not
surprising since the 2003 Trace Genetics test concluded that the
Starchild had a human mother. However, these were not the only
results. Other BLAST results, like the one below for a 342
nucleotide fragment, gave a very different answer.
It states that within the
millions of DNA base pair strings catalogued in the NIH
database, none were even “similar” to this section of the
Starchild Skull’s DNA! And please note that this astonishing
result was obtained with the search parameters set to the
broadest match criteria that seeks even a “somewhat similar”
match, not only an exact match.
For all of the Starchild’s DNA fragments, a wide net was cast
into the NIH database with the hope there would be minimal doubt
about results. Indeed, they were unequivocal: Some of the
Starchild’s nuDNA is different from anything previously found on
Earth!
The largest composite fragment that could not be matched in the
database was several thousand nucleotides long! However, until
some biological sense can be extracted from these non-matching
nuDNA fragments, it’s too early to draw any definitive
conclusions.
So, how can “biological sense” be extracted from them? One way
would be if such DNA fragments are found to represent the coding
part of a gene. That would mean it could be translated into a
protein, and attempts could be made to predict the function of
the protein.
Such a coding fragment is yet to be found among the recovered
samples of the Starchild DNA because, as it happens, only about
3% of the total human genome is coding sections. Therefore, it
is extremely unlikely that random sampling will miraculously
discover a coding section, and all of the Starchild fragments
have been obtained randomly.
The Starchild Project’s team considered this development a vital
step forward in the quest to establish the truth about the
Skull’s genetic heritage. However, skeptics and would-be
debunkers soon pointed out that the submission parameters of a
BLAST search could be manipulated by an unscrupulous
researcher adjusting them to gain a favored result.
When those trying to discredit the Starchild Project suggest its
results have been faked or fudged, they fail to acknowledge that
all Project members have put their professional and personal
reputations at stake. Project members have by far the most to
lose from invalid results—much less faked results—so each of
them works hard to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to
secure accurate, repeatable results at every point in the
process.
To serve that policy, the nuclear DNA results so far obtained
have undergone sequential verification, but it must be stressed
that they are now, and will remain, only fragmentary, and they
will ultimately require subsequent repetitions for absolute
confirmation. This will be completed by our geneticist and his
colleagues as time and funding permit.
BACK TO TOP
2003 vs 2011
Mitochondrial DNA
Testing:
Early in 2011, the geneticist sequenced some fragments from the
Starchild Skull DNA sample that, when examined by a program
similar to BLAST, revealed they were segments of mitochondrial
DNA rather than nuclear DNA. This was an intriguing development.
Up to that point, he had accepted the Trace Genetics result of
2003 (that the Starchild’s mtDNA was entirely human) as
accurate. However, the primer series utilized in 2003 recovered
only relatively small and quite specific segments of human mtDNA.
The situation at that time left room for error and therefore
should be clearly understood.
When the primers employed in 2003 found corresponding fragments
on the Starchild’s mtDNA, the primers rendered a positive signal
from the PCR indicating “this particular part of the mtDNA is
human, or highly human-like.” However, that did not mean other
untouched sections of the mtDNA would not vary considerably from
the human mtDNA. And this, apparently, is what happened—the 2003
sampling proved to be too small.
2011 DNA
Testing & Results:
Mitochondrial DNA is quite distinct from nuclear DNA. While both
mtDNA and nuDNA exist as double-strand molecules forming the
famous “double helix,” nuDNA is segregated into 46 chromosomes
(in humans). Due to the massive amount of DNA in chromosomes
(each consisting of millions of base pairs), DNA is tightly
packed into multiple folds and is encased in a shell by large
amounts of proteins called histones.
In contrast, mtDNA forms a tiny circle consisting of 16,569 base
pairs. Despite its small size, its function is crucial to life.
Unlike nuDNA, the vast majority of it works, so mutations seldom
become permanent. In fact, in the entire course of human existence, mtDNA has
accumulated only 120 ± variations across the entire population.
Compare that to nuDNA, whose 3 + billion base pairs have as much
as 15 million variations.
Human mtDNA contains 37 genes,
15 of which are larger and depicted above, and 22 of which are
tiny bits of transport RNA (tRNA) not included. Of the 15
larger, 2 encode for mitochondria-specific RNA (ribonucleic
acid) that constitutes a crucial component of mtDNA’s
protein-making machinery (called ribosomes), but does not
actually encode proteins. That is carried out by the 13 other
large genes in the mtDNA, which do encode proteins for the
production of energy and other critical functions of the
mitochondria.
Mitochondria are the power plants of all cells that contain
them, with a similar function in the biology of all species on
Earth. MtDNA is one of the most thoroughly researched and
well-understood aspects of human genetics. The coding capacity
of mtDNA is used very efficiently, having exactly enough genes
to carry on its job of producing proteins.
Since the beginning of eukaryotic cells (those with a nucleus)
around 2 billion years ago, the mitochondria in them have
carried out the most fundamental aspects of sustaining life.
This has been true from yeasts to dinosaurs to humans. Their
critical functioning is why very few differences are found
between the mtDNA sequences of closely related species.
Mutational change in the human mtDNA nucleotide sequence is
exceptionally rare (only 120 ± among all humans), and each
mutation is well documented. The chart below is a screen capture
of the output from a computer program that compares the entire
mtDNA sequences of 33 different human haplogroups, one sequence
for Neanderthal, and two for the recently discovered Denisova
type of hominid. This output is called DNA alignment.
At the top, highlighted in dark blue, is the Human mtDNA Cambridge
Reference Sequence (CRS), which represents the sequences of one
particular individual chosen as a reference, so everything else
can be compared to that standard. The sequence depicted here
starts at nucleotide #1255 (out of 16,569) and continues across
to #1350. Notice this block of 95 nucleotides contains no
variations in any haplogroup. Every base pair nucleotide
is identical across all 33 groups of humans, the Neanderthal,
and the two Denisova.
Both Neanderthal and Denisova
have mtDNA more varied than human mtDNA, but they still contain
many long unvarying segments. Neanderthals differ from the human
CRS by 200 ± base pairs. The Denisova differ from it by 385 ±
base pairs, which is why they are designated as separate from
humans and Neanderthals. As a comparison, chimp mtDNA differs
from the human CRS by 1,500 ± base pairs, as seen in the
following graph.
MtDNA is so highly conserved
because nature applies a very strong selective pressure against
changes in its most critical regions. When changes do occur in
such places, it can lead to disruption of a crucial activity,
which can lead to dysfunction and death. As a result, an
unfavorable mutation is not passed along. However, mutations
that do not change proteins, and those in regions that do not
encode proteins, can and do slowly accumulate.
This explains why only 0.0072% (120th of 16,569 bp) of human mitochondrial DNA has
any variation across its 33 haplogroups. Below is an example of
variation in human mtDNA. The haplogroup L1a has a C (cytidine)
nucleotide, while at the same location all the other haplogroups
have a T (thymidine) nucleotide. (The program’s output
highlights all variations to aid researchers.)
Each variation like the one
above is called a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP), and for
human mtDNA such “snips” are catalogued in databases maintained
by the National Institutes of Health. The fewer substitutions a DNA segment has, the more
conserved it is. Human mtDNA, with only 120 ± variations in
16,569 base pairs, is considered very highly conserved.
Notice that the first haplogroup in the chart below the Control
Reference Sequence (CRS) is haplogroup A (HPT A). This is the
haplogroup that was matched to the human female skull found with
the Starchild Skull. The next down is haplogroup C (HPT C),
matched to the Starchild with small fragments of its mtDNA in
2003.
When Trace Genetics detected the Starchild’s mtDNA, they used
human-specific primers that amplified segments only a few dozen
nucleotides long. These segments were targeted for diagnostic
analysis because they contained human haplogroup-specific
changes that could determine whether mtDNA belonged (or not) to
a specific haplogroup.
If the targeted segments also happened to be a part of a highly
conservative sequence of human mtDNA that has a crucial
biological function, the segments could be similar even among
very different species (i.e., humans and chimps), leading to
confusing conclusions.
In early 2011, our geneticist analyzed four newly sequenced fragments
from the Starchild Skull’s mtDNA samples. A computer program
similar to the BLAST program mentioned earlier matched the four
Starchild fragments to catalogued fragments of human mtDNA.
BACK TO TOP
One fragment matched a segment in the chart shown earlier, seen
expanded below. This is a highly conserved segment of human
mtDNA, with only 1 nucleotide variation among 33 human
haplogroups present (L1b). There is also one in Neanderthal and
one in Denisova .
click for larger view
This chart goes from #1262 to
#1426 (164 nucleotides). Now imagine a line added across the top
labeled “Starchild Skull” containing 167 nucleotides, but
covering only 157 of the human mtDNA nucleotides to which it
matched. Discrepancies like this (167/157) occur because the
computer program is designed to find matches between two or more
DNA fragments, in this case the human CRS and the Starchild
Skull’s mtDNA. If it calculates that a sequence would match if
more or fewer letters were in either code, it inserts gaps
containing dashes to produce better aligned results, as seen in
the diagram below:
In the comparison above, the
first four letters match. However, at the fifth space a jumble
would begin within the sample if the gap (containing a dash) was
not inserted where it is. This is how the computer program
works; it seeks to record the highest possible number of matches
between two samples, so it inserts gaps, and each gap provides a
negative penalty score as the program calculates the highest
total of matches.
To make the Starchild’s mtDNA match the human CRS, the program
added gaps marked as dashes either to the Skull’s mtDNA or to
the CRS to obtain the highest matching score between them.
Adding spaces to such misalignments in both samples provides a
total cumulative difference, which in this case is a10-gap
differential (167 – 157 = 10).
It is important to distinguish that adding gaps is not the same
as outright changes in the nucleotides, as was seen earlier with
the single C found in a row of Ts. Such changes are only one of
three ways that differences are recorded when samples are being
compared.
(1) The SNP just referenced is a substitution, when one
nucleotide is replaced by another; (2) an insertion is
when an extra nucleotide is found in a sample and the program
has to introduce a gap into the other sequence to accommodate
the extra nucleotide; and (3) a deletion, which is when a
nucleotide is missing from one of the samples, and once again
the program introduces a gap into the sequence to align it with
the other sequence.
In the latter two cases, insertions and deletions, the program
makes no distinction between which is the cause of the gap. All
it does is insert the gaps into either sequence to keep the
matching count as high as possible. Those gaps are called insertion-deletions,
or indel(s).
Indels are clear points of variation between samples, but not
all of them can be considered ironclad. All DNA testing requires
multiple “runs” to be certain of every result. When the same
sample is sequenced again and again, any of the three
possibilities above might be corrected. Several runs will
establish which variations can be catalogued as confirmed.
Now return to the Starchild’s 167 mtDNA nucleotides compared to
157 nucleotides of the human CRS in a highly conserved region
where only one single variation is found among 33 human haplogroups. In such a strongly conserved area, multiple
differences in a matched sample would immediately alert
geneticists that something major might be unfolding.
Below is a screen shot of the 167 Starchild mtDNA nucleotides
compared to the 157 in the human CRS. The top line of each row
(highlighted in pink) is the Starchild Skull sequence, which
starts at 167 and works backward to 1. In the complementary
Human CRS sequence (the second line of each row) the base pairs
start at #1269 and end at #1426 (157 total) in the mirrored
fashion mentioned earlier.
Within the 167 comparisons
above are 17 variations! Seventeen! That is 17 indels
of difference between the Starchild mtDNA and the mtDNA of 33
human haplogroups!
After repeated sequencing, some of those 17 differences
could be confirmed as reading errors by the program, but
it is virtually impossible that all of them would be
errors.
BACK TO TOP
What Does This Mean?
In any comparison of DNA
samples between the human CRS and an “unknown” species (which
technically categorizes the Starchild), even a few
variations between them in a short stretch of highly conserved
nucleotides strongly indicates that the entire mtDNA genome of
that species would contain many more than the 120 ± carried by
the human haplotypes.
Such a difference, which is not hypothetical but actually exists
within the Starchild Skull, is by itself sufficient reason to
suspect a new species has been identified! Clearly such
an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, but the
preliminary results achieved so far with the Starchild DNA are
immensely encouraging, to the point of near certainty.
To calculate the exact percentage of difference between the
Starchild Skull and humans will require its entire genome to be
sequenced using sophisticated technology such as the machines
provided by 454 Life Sciences and/or similar companies such as
Illumina. We intend to perform that sequencing as soon as we
have the financial ability to do so.
In the interim, our research team is releasing this report to
focus on the 167/157 RNA segment of mtDNA because it is easy to
understand. Several other mtDNA comparisons have been carried
out, each much longer than the one here, and three of those are
depicted and analyzed in the
Starchild Skull Essentials eBook (available HERE).
Remember that the information found by comparing mtDNA segments
cannot and should not be considered thoroughly verified, as some
sequencing errors are undoubtedly present. Each mtDNA segment
must be sequenced several times to establish exactly how many
differences exist between the Starchild Skull and the human CRS,
and this kind of targeted testing, rather than shotgunning at
random, is time-consuming and expensive.
Nonetheless, based on the preliminary results now in hand, our
research team is very confident that when the Starchild’s entire
genome is recovered and sequenced, the total number of confirmed
differences will be so staggering that it can only lead to a
conclusion that the Starchild represents an entirely new
humanoid species, and that species is “alien.”
How could an “alien” have any human DNA, or even survive on our
planet? Surprisingly, the genomes of many animal species have
certain similarities (or homology) with humans. Proteins are the
building blocks of all animal life on Earth, and the DNA that
guides the production of proteins is very similar across all
species. The genome of chimps is ± 97% the same as humans.
Gorillas are 95% the same. Rats are 70%, mice 65%. Etc.
As mathematicians like to say, “Numbers don’t lie.” In this
case, the 17 differences found in one short segment of Starchild
Skull mtDNA makes it seem possible—even probable—that when the
entire 16,570 ± nucleotides in the Starchild’s mtDNA are
sequenced, they will contain far more than the 120 ± variations
shared by the 33 human haplogroups.
Add to those 17 the number of differences found in three much
longer fragments discussed in the eBook, and the total is
mind-boggling. That number convincingly indicates that the
Starchild will carry far more differences than the 200 ± of
Neanderthals. It will carry far more than the 385 ± of Denisova.
Can it possibly, or conceivably, reach the 1500 ± of chimps?
Only further investigation will tell, but this is already a
monumental discovery.
BACK TO TOP
Conclusion
& Call To Action:
After 12 years of struggle, the
Starchild Skull is truly poised to make history. When we have
secured the funding needed to carry out the recovery and
sequencing of its entire genome, it will provide uncontestable
proof that at least once, 900 years ago, a being somewhat like
us but definitely not human lived and died and was buried on our
planet.
Unfortunately, achieving that historic moment requires far more
than the Starchild Project team can deliver without substantial
help. A wealthy investor—not merely a donor, an investor—must
be found to provide the funding necessary to do what must be
done.
In this extraordinarily special case, the investment needed is
$7 million USD. Why that amount? Every step of the DNA recovery
and sequencing process will have to be verified with multiple
repetitions until no possible doubt remains about any specific
result. Also, in order that those completed results can be
confirmed by independent researchers, the entire process must be
recorded on film for academic scrutiny and historic posterity.
The Starchild Project intends to incorporate some of that
footage into creating two theater-quality documentary films
during the 1.5 to 3 years required for the DNA’s recovery and
analysis. These films will cover the Starchild Skull’s entire
story, from its discovery to completion of the DNA analyses.
They will be valuable both historically, as the record of this
milestone event in human history, and financially, as market
research indicates they will be enthusiastically welcomed in
virtually every country on Earth.
It should be obvious to anyone that much more than $7 million
can be made from two high quality films about such a pivotal
shift in human awareness. If anyone reading this report
personally knows anyone who might be interested in taking a
front-and-center position as this historic event unfolds, please
ask them to email:
contact@StarchildProject.com.
A business proposal is available to any serious potential
investor. The film project already has its producers, director,
entertainment attorney, accountant, production team, and the
enthusiastic cooperation of a state film council. Everything is
in place except for the investment, the final hurdle that now
requires only one astute decision to clear it.
Final Note:
Explanations and terminology in this report are aimed at
non-experts. Those with expert knowledge in genetics will
naturally find its concepts and descriptions simplified.
The identity of certain research team members requires temporary
anonymity. Their names will be revealed when they are ready to
formally release reports for peer scrutiny.
Potential investors who want to know more, or to verify our
geneticist’s work, can meet with him and tour his lab if they
sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement. This will be on a case-by-case
basis.
BACK TO TOP
|
PRINTABLE (PDF)