Response To Skull Skeptics

© Copyright 2013
All rights reserved.
Materials on this site remain the property of the Starchild Project and Lloyd Pye, and may not be reproduced without written permission.

Starchild Skull and its detached maxilla piece (left)
and the adult human female
reportedly found in situ with it (right).

Share |

HOW DO I KNOW THIS IS REAL?

This is one of the most obvious and frequently asked questions regarding the Starchild Skull. In early 2013, one skeptic began to troll the internet insisting we could have fabricated the entire Starchild Project. His trolling became so widespread and so persistent that we had to ask one of our earliest and most important researchers to personally respond to the accusations.

In response, Dr. Ted Robinson (you can read one of his official reports here) wrote the letter below. We regret that a craniofacial plastic surgeon as distinguished and respected as Dr. Robinson had his credentials and even his very existence questioned, but we loudly applaud him for the good humor and patient grace with which he replied.

From the desk of Dr. T. J. Robinson
Suite 879, 1641 Lonsdale
North Vancouver, B.C. CANADA V7M 2J5
Dec. 30, 2012

Dear Mr. [BLANK]:

If you wish to check out my credentials, I graduated from the University of Manitoba School of Medicine in May of 1963, and I obtained my specialty degree in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada in Sept. of 1971, Certificate # 169.

I have known Lloyd Pye since about 1998, having met him at a conference at the University of British Columbia. Although not a man of letters, Lloyd has always relentlessly sought the truth wherever it might lead him; consequently he has earned my respect with his intellectual honesty and attitude towards scientific research. He approached me about a year after we first met, and asked me whether I would participate in research on the so-called Starchild skull as he was aware of my background in medicine and plastic surgery with knowledge of cranial surgery and cranial anatomy. Having agreed to his request, Lloyd delivered the skull to my possession in 1999. It remained in my possession for a period of about two years. This afforded me the time required to carry out extensive investigation of the skull, and I involved numerous specialist friends and colleagues of mine in the investigation. These gentlemen were specialists in the disciplines of radiology, ophthalmic surgery, oral surgery, craniofacial surgery, neurology and pediatric neurosurgery.

The skull is remarkable. It is humanoid but unlike any skull I have ever seen. In my 49 years of experience as a medical doctor and plastic surgeon I have never seen anything like it:

Carbon 14 dating of the skull places its age at 900 years ago, plus or minus 40.

It is remarkably light and weighs about half of the weight of a human adult skull. The cranial capacity is about 1600 cc, which is 400 cc. larger than an average human adult of the same size.

It is composed of a bony material which is so hard that a standard Dremel blade had great difficulty cutting it to harvest samples for DNA analysis, making a diamond coated blade more useful. The bone material is more akin to tooth enamel, as Lloyd has stated.

The biochemical/mineral analysis or bone histochemistry shows a different composition than mammalian bone. This analysis was conducted in England at a later date.

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) indicates the presence of strange fibers of an unknown nature. These are not artefactual. There is also a mysterious, red residue that can be seen in the cancellous holes on SEM microscopic cross-sections of the bone.

The frontal sinuses are absent on X-ray and CT scans. The X-rays and CT scans were carried out by Dr. David Hodges at the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, B.C. On Sept 3, 1999 I met with Dr. Ken Poskitt, an experienced pediatric neuroradiologist at B.C. Children’s Hospital. Upon reviewing the photos of the skull, the X-rays and the CT scans, he stated “that he had never seen anything like it”. Dr. Poskitt has reviewed tens of thousands of pediatric skull x-rays.

A bony prominence on the posterior aspect of the skull known as the inion, to which the ligamentum nuchae and trapezius muscle consistently attach in humans and primates, is absent.

The eye sockets are very shallow, and there are other characteristics of the configuration of the posterior orbital foramina that are highly unusual and that differ significantly from that of humans. Dr. Anthony Townsend. An experienced senior eye surgeon was struck by the shallowness of the orbits. He said that this could be consistent with anophthalmos (congenital absence of the eyes). What contradicts this, however, is the presence of large optic foramina which suggests that the being was sighted. Dr. Hugh Parsons, a prominent retinal surgeon, further states that if the being were anophthalmic, the entire orbit would be small. I therefore conclude that I am on solid grounds in stating that the being was most likely sighted.

There is no evidence that the flattening of the posterior aspect of the skull was the result of cradle-boarding, and the type of flattening that is present is distinctly different from what would be present in cradle-boarded infants.

I have worked with Paul Tessier, a pioneering leader in craniofacial surgery in France. I have seen every type of craniofacial deformity known to exist. This skull did not result from any known congenital deformity.

The being was not hydrocephalic: hydrocephaly is a common deformity which is characterized by entirely different deformities from the anatomical characteristics seen in this skull.

The CT scans were reviewed by two prominent craniofacial surgeons, Dr. Ian Taylor (who was at the Mayo clinic at the time), and Dr. Joe Gruss of Seattle. Both said they had never seen anything like it.

Standard measurements of the skull normally conducted by an oral surgeon in New Westminster B.C. revealed that the measurements of this skull were 10 standard deviations away from the median of the Bell curve. This is an extraordinary finding. The baseline studies to establish the norm for these measurements were conducted by an oral surgeon in Michigan and were done on a database of several thousand aboriginal or First Nations North American skulls. One can only reasonably conclude from these statistical studies that the Starchild skull is distinctly different from human.

In conclusion, the skull is a fascinating enigma. It is real, and it is different from any human skull I have ever seen personally or found in the medical literature. Despite my age, I continue to be involved in aspects of medical research at U.B.C. and I follow the Starchild story with great interest. I hope that Lloyd will one day soon have raised sufficient funds to analyze the entire DNA/genome of this specimen. Research to date on about 10% of the genome indicates significant differences from human, or from any known primate or any other specimen in the NIH database.

I do not care to speculate on its origins, extraterrestrial or otherwise, as I prefer to base my opinions on evidence-based research.

If you have any other questions, I shall be happy to answer them.

Yours truly,

T.J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S.(C)

Dictated but not signed/kf