 |
||
© Copyright 2012
|
||
|
THE STARCHILD
vs WIKIPEDIA It is massively unfortunate that so many people worldwide consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information. By basing its “truth” on popular vote rather than actual facts, it distorts beyond recognition the entire purpose of science and science advocacy, of which it considers itself a bastion. This is not to say there is no truth or reliability in anything found in the mass of Wikipedia writings, but you can be certain that anything they feel is “alternative,” or a challenge to what they perceive as their “status quo,” will definitely be distorted beyond recognition.
Sadly, one or two Wikipedia administrators have made it their personal
responsibility to prevent any meaningful edits to the Starchild Skull
article, promptly reversing any changes back to the biased and
error-filled text they prefer. Doubly sad is that this counterproductive
practice is within the rights of any Wikipedia editor or administrator,
accomplished with a single mouse click, and virtually nothing can be
done to stop it. On many occasions we have made the effort to
resubmit corrections to the article every time they were “undone,”
however this back and forth happened so many times and in such rapid
succession that the article was locked, preventing any of us from making
changes. When editing was finally permitted again, the article had been
reverted to its original and incorrect state, and we were forced to
accept that it would require significantly more public pressure to
effect any real change to the flawed article. |
||
|
Starchild Skull from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, retrieved Sept. 12, 2010 The Starchild Skull is an abnormal human skull … This statement is wrong because no one has ever proven that the Skull is entirely human. In his 2004 report, Dr. Ted Robinson referred to the Starchild Skull more appropriately as “a highly unusual human-like skull,” which is far more accurate than Wikipedia calling it “an abnormal human skull.” The Wikipedia reference for this statement is a poorly researched, badly out-of-date article written for the New England Skeptical Society in 1999, reporting the results of a nuclear DNA test done on the Starchild Skull’s bone at the BOLD forensic teaching laboratory in Vancouver, B.C., which concluded that the Starchild was a human male (Novella, 1999). [Note: A detailed discussion of this article is available HERE.] However, in 2003 the BOLD results were invalidated by Trace Genetics, a well-regarded ancient DNA lab in California that concluded the nuclear DNA could not possibly have been recovered using even the most sophisticated technology available to BOLD, and therefore their result must have been a contamination (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). The 2003 test also indicated the Starchild Skull’s paternal DNA was unlike normal human DNA (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). As these are the only two DNA tests referenced by the Wikipedia article, and since human nuclear DNA was not recovered by either test, it is impossible for the article to state whether the skull is or is not human. In 2010 new DNA tests were conducted on Starchild bone using improved technology, and it was found that a significant portion of the nuclear DNA recovered does not correlate to any DNA yet found on Earth. Thus, there is simply no way to legitimately call the Starchild Skull a “human.” ...allegedly found in Mexico. The story of how the Starchild Skull was found is technically hearsay because it depends entirely on the testimony of a person now dead who cannot be cross-examined. However, mitochondrial DNA analysis confirms the Starchild’s maternal haplogroup type as a typical Mesoamerican, and inorganic chemistry analysis produced a profile consistent with a person living in a high-altitude subtropical environment, similar to the Copper Canyon region of Mexico (Pye, K., 2005). [Note: Dr. Kenneth Pye is a native of England and is no relation to Lloyd Pye. They coincidentally share the same last name.] It (the Starchild Skull) is primarily notable due to claims by paranormal researchers that it is evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Merriam-Webster defines paranormal as “not scientifically explainable” (2010). Thus, the word “paranormal” does not apply to the Starchild Skull because two dozen Ph.D.s in various branches of science have provided written analysis of their opinions about it. In addition, several other Ph.D.s have given opinions they will not sign for fear of retaliation by vindictive peers who “police” the rigid status-quo belief system of mainstream science. Using those signed and unsigned data and opinions, Lloyd Pye has crafted two books filled with scientifically supported arguments. The printed book The Starchild Skull (2007), and the eBook Starchild Skull Essentials (2010). As of this writing, ongoing research has provided proof that the Starchild Skull possesses physical characteristics (Robinson et al. 2004), biochemical attributes (Pye, K. 2005), fibers and residue inside the bone (Pye, L. 2007), and DNA that have never before been found on Earth (The Starchild Project, 2010). We propose that this array of facts counts as valid evidence supporting the theory that the skull is at least partially of extraterrestrial origin. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes it as human.[1] Although Trace Genetics did recover human mitochondrial DNA from the Starchild Skull in 2003, this statement is inaccurate because it is possible to have the mitochondrial DNA (passed down through mothers) of one species and the nuclear DNA (passed down through both parents) of another species (Perdy, 2003). Therefore, human mitochondrial DNA alone does not establish the human species (Meadows, 2010). Examples of this phenomenon include the zebra/donkey hybrid “Zedonk” (BBC, 2010), the lion/tiger hybrid “Liger” (CBS, 2010), and the horse/donkey hybrid “Mule” (Perdy, 2003). In 2003, Trace Genetics determined that nuclear DNA was impossible to recover using techniques developed up to that point in time. Therefore, it was impossible for them to establish if the Starchild Skull was entirely human or not. The citation here is the same outdated Novella article from 1999 (and its equally outdated 2006 reprint). Specifically, he references quotes from Lloyd Pye and Mark Bean regarding mitochondrial DNA, yet Mark Bean ceased working with the Starchild Project in 2000, and mitochondrial DNA was not recovered from the Starchild Skull until 2003, proving that this quote is inaccurate.
DiscoveryThe Starchild Skull came into the possession of Ray and Melanie Young[2] of El Paso, Texas, who entrusted it to Lloyd Pye in February 1999.[3] This is correct, although it references sources from 2001. Pye is a writer and lecturer in what he describes as the field of alternative knowledge. Pye is indeed a writer and lecturer, although he did not coin the term “alternative knowledge.” Alternative researchers like him have always been labeled by terms that describe independence of thought and action that conflicts with established dogma. Alternative knowledge, alternative science, frontier science….these are all terms by which non-mainstream research is known. In their own time, Darwin and Einstein were considered “alternative” researchers until they forced their way into their mainstream. Thus, this statement’s phrasing seems designed to trivialize Pye’s work, which is in direct conflict with Wikipedia’s rule of maintaining neutrality in tone (Wikipedia, 2010c). According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Mexico, buried alongside a normal human skeleton that was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.[4] This references an article from 1999, when the report of how the skull was found had no scientific evidence to support it. Since then, analysis of the staining on the skulls (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21) and inorganic chemistry (Pye, K. 2005) have combined with the synchronistic Carbon-14 dates (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218) to indicate that the provenance story is very likely true.
AnalysisThe skull is abnormal in several respects. This is a considerable understatement. Dr. Kaburda concluded that the skull presents 10 standard deviations from the norm (as cited in Robinson, 2004), is comprised of bone uniformly half as thick and weighing half as much as normal human bone (Robinson 2004), but is significantly more durable (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 171-172). [Note: A comprehensive list of physical and biochemical abnormalities in the Starchild Skull is available HERE.] A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.[5] This is only partly accurate. Several dentists have stated they believe the Starchild Skull to be a child in this age range (Robinson, 2004; Dr. David Sweet as cited in Pye, L. 2007, p. 148). However, other specialists unwilling to be named (Pye, L. 2007) felt that extensive wear on the crowns of the teeth (p. 126) and the extensive size of the roots indicate the skull belonged to an adult (p. 156). However, the volume of the interior of the Starchild Skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[4] These statements are all essentially true. However, the optic foramen (what they call the “optic nerve canal”) is positioned closer to the bottom of the orbit than in a normal human skull, not actually “at the bottom” as stated in the quote above (Dr. Mausolf as cited in Pye, 2007, pp. 100-105). The back of the skull is flattened. This statement is also true, although it neglects to mention that the flattening of the rear of the skull is natural, and not the result of artificial deformation, such as cradle-boarding (Robinson, 2004), nor of deformity such as premature suture fusion (Dr. D. Hodges as cited in Robinson, 2004). The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6] This is fundamentally correct. More sophisticated analyses done later in 2004 by Dr. Ken Pye (no relation to Lloyd Pye) indicated that the bone of the Starchild Skull has abnormally high levels of collagen, the substance that gives tooth enamel its hardness and durability (Pye, K. as cited in Pye, L. 2007).DatingCarbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild Skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both tests provided results of 900 years ± 40 years since death.[citation needed] This is correct, and the missing citation is: (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 206-7 and p. 218).
DNA testingDNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes".[1] This quote comes from the 2006 re-dating of the 1999 Novella article, which was based on the invalid DNA test results from the BOLD lab in Canada. In 1999 the BOLD lab was a forensic teaching lab where students performed the majority of the work being done in it. The lab was not equipped in the many special ways necessary for handling samples more than 50 years old (the Starchild Skull is 900 years old). After the lab’s student technicians contaminated its first two attempts (Pye, L. pp. 153-162), they claimed to recover nuclear DNA from a “Y” chromosome (not the “X”). However, this was only 200 picograms of material, 1/5th of the minimum amount of genetic material normally required for a valid result. This small and dubious recovery was shown to be another contamination in 2003 by Trace Genetics, a DNA lab capable of recovering ancient DNA (over 50 years old), and whose founders (Dr. Jason Eshleman and Dr. Ripan Mahli) had previously worked on the high-profile Kennewick Man skeleton (Eshleman & Mahli, 2003). Dr. Mahli and Dr. Eschleman (2003) state: “[t]he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time.” That statement means it was impossible to recover nuclear DNA from the Starchild Skull using the technology available in 2003, which made it equally impossible to do so four years earlier in 1999, thereby invalidating the BOLD result as yet another contamination. Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. This is correct and here is the missing reference: (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.[7] This is true up to a point. It fails to mention the critical fact that Trace Genetics was easily able to recover both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA on the first attempt from the adult human female skull reportedly found with the Starchild Skull (Eshleman & Malhi, 2003). That skull had the same general time of death as the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, p. 212), and was exposed to similar conditions post mortem (Pye, L. 2007, p. 21). Therefore, the Trace Genetics team expected the Starchild’s nuclear DNA to be similarly easy to recover, and indeed the Mitochondrial DNA did recover easily. However, in 6 full attempts no nuclear DNA could be recovered from the Starchild Skull (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 177-183). ExplanationsPotential explanations for the skull's unusual features include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child,[8] brachycephaly, Crouzon syndrome,[9] congenital hydrocephalus, or potentially progeria.[citation needed] All of these deformities and many others have been investigated as possible explanations for the Starchild Skull, and none of them match the attributes of the skull (The Starchild Project, 2010b).Cradleboarding and all other artificial deformation techniques leave evidence on the surface of the skull bone, and no such evidence is present on the surface of the Starchild Skull. Thus, Dr. Robinson (2004) concluded that “the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth pattern and is not artificial.”Hydrocephaly (also called “congenital hydrocephalus”) is a condition where excess cerebrospinal fluid in the cranium causes internal pressure that pushes outward against the skull, expanding any unfused sutures to give the skull an "inflated" shape (MedicineNet, 2010). According to Dr. Bachynsky and Dr. Robinson (cited in Robinson, 2004) the sutures in the Starchild Skull were unfused and healthy at the time of death, with no expansion present at the suture lines. Thus, the Starchild’s unusual shape could not have been caused by internal pressure or the sutures would be expanded. Dr. Bachynsky specifically ruled out hydrocephaly in his examination of the skull (Robinson, 2004).Brachycephaly simply means a skull that is abnormally wide, and is a possible symptom of multiple illnesses, deformities, and disorders. Therefore, it isn’t any kind of explanation for morphology; it is only an observation of a physical trait (Kelly, 2010).Crouzon Syndrome is a condition where symptoms include the complete premature fusion (obliteration) of two or more cranial sutures (Matusiak & Szybejko-Machaj, 2010). In 2003 Dr. Bachynsky, a radiological expert, concluded unequivocally that there was no abnormal or premature fusion of any of the Starchild Skull’s sutures (as cited in Robinson, 2004). Therefore, Crouzon Syndrome is impossible as an explanation.Progeria (also called Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome) is a fatal condition that causes the appearance of premature aging in children (Progeria Research Foundation, 2010). In Progeria, bones can become thinner and weaker, and premature fusion of sutures can cause abnormal skull shape, which in turn gives the lower face and eyes an unusual appearance (Medline Plus, 2010). One of the primary symptoms of Progeria is open fontanelles on the top of the head, the “soft spot” on a baby’s head (UM Medical, 2010). This condition is not present in the Starchild Skull (Robinson, 2003).The Starchild Skull’s bone is thinner than normal, but instead of being more brittle, as is caused by Progeria, it is observed to be much stronger than normal human bone (Pye, L. 2007, p. 176). Progeria does not remove the inion, change the location of the optic foramens, change the shape of the hardest sections of bone while leaving the weak sutures untouched, or increase the collagen content of bone (UM Medical, 2010), all features of the Starchild Skull (Pye 2010b). The only symptom that Progeria has in common with the Starchild Skull is “micrognathia,” an abnormally small jaw (UM Medical, 2010), leaving all of the other unusual features of the Starchild unexplained, and making Progeria a thoroughly incorrect diagnosis.Paranormal interestThe skull has been of significant interest with those interested in ufology and extraterrestrial visitation. This is true, and that fact has often hampered efforts to have the skull evaluated by mainstream researchers. Nonetheless, perseverance has allowed the Starchild Project to gather a respected team of highly credentialed experts who have gone on record with their findings (Pye, L. 2007, pp. 111-112). Some contend that it is the skull of an alien or a human-alien hybrid as the shape of the skull bears similarities to the common representation of aliens known as "Greys".[citation needed] The Starchild Project no longer suggests the Starchild Skull might have belonged to a pure alien. The DNA test of 2003 found it has human maternal lineage, which confirmed that it cannot be a pure alien (Eschleman & Mahli 2003; Pye, L. 2007, pp. 125, 134, 155). However, a strong possibility remains that it will be proved to be a human-alien hybrid. Proponents of a paranormal explanation for the skull's origin reject plausible scientific hypotheses involving non-paranormal causes. This is flatly untrue. We consistently and continuously search for any provable explanation for the Starchild Skull, and we do so with complete disregard of whether the cause is “normal” or “paranormal.” Many mainstream scientists dismiss the work of the Starchild Project as “unscientific” because we allow for the possibility that the skull may be a human-alien hybrid. To those people we say, “Check your history books.” Most of what is known as “science” today started as a theory that was then proven, or has not yet been disproven and so is treated as fact by those whose interests are served by the assumption. These unproved but near universally accepted theories include cosmology’s Big Bang, biology’s evolution-by-mutation, and much of the work of Pythagoras, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking. We believe it would be irresponsible for us to close any avenue of exploration until hard evidence exists to justify doing so. We carry an obligation to continue to theorize that the Starchild Skull may be the result of alien interference, and to continue trying to prove ourselves wrong at every turn. That is how the truest scientific method is utilized. They contend that it has other abnormalities such as the thickness, density, and strength of the bone that support their beliefs.[citation needed] This is true, but it is far from complete as a list of the characteristics that have led to the theory that the Starchild Skull may be something other than entirely human. It should be noted that the author of this “Wackypedia” article fails to use a neutral unbiased tone, calling our theories “beliefs” and their theories “plausible scientific hypotheses,” a clear violation of Wikipedia’s guidelines (2010c).
Summation
by Lloyd Pye:
I hope anyone who reads this has no trouble seeing or understanding how
unfairly the Starchild Project’s efforts have been treated at the hands
of Wikipedia and its biased editors and administrators. As much as I
would like to argue that they are victims of the errors that they
inaccurately reference, I think their continual "undoing" of our
corrections and those of our supporters indicates that this is a
concerted effort on their part. They obviously don't want the truth
about what we're doing to be reported on Wikipedia for reasons we can
only speculate, but which I theorize about in my article
Why Science Is Wrong.
|
||
|
|
||
