Is It Just A Deformed Human? Trying To Debunk The Starchild Skull
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Missing Frontal Sinus
Skeptic's Answer: This does occur in rare cases in humans, and is a known feature of the rare genetic disorder "Progeria".
Problem with the Answer: Other features of the skull prove it did not have Progeria
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Extremely strong bone
Skeptic's Answer: Osteopetrosis (hardening on the bone, the opposite of Osteoporosis) can cause bones to become denser and harder, as can osteosclerosis, and even fossilization!
Problem with the Answer: It didn't have any of these conditions as proven by X-Rays and CT scans, and the Starchild Skull is not a fossil. (Fossils are over 10,000 years old, the Starchild Skull is only 900 years old, reference the C14 dating report
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Thin, lightweight bone
Skeptic's Answer: Progeria causes thinning and ligthening of the bone.
Problem with the Answer: The thinning and lightening of bones in Progeria is caused by osteoporosis, which makes the bones weaker, the opposite of the Starchild Skull, and never thins them to the extent seen in the Starchild.
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Shallow Eye Sockets
Skeptic's Answer: Lots of conditions can cause this, including Aperts, Crouzons, and Dubowitz syndrome.
Problem with the Answer: All of these conditions rely either on abnormal fusion of the cranial sutures (craniosynostosis), or microcephaly (small skull), neither of which are present in the Starchild Skull, as proven by CT Scans and visual examination of the Skull. Dr. Robinson and some of his colleagues are on the record stating that the sutures, the lines where the bones of the skull meet like puzzle pieces, were unfused and healthy at the time of death, reference Dr. Robinson's 2004 report
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Fibers in the bone
Skeptic's Answer: Fossilized collagen in the form of protein strands.
Problem with the Answer: It isn't a fossil, and the size of the fibers doesn’t match these protein fibre bundles, or individual strands of collages, which are much smaller. There is nothing natural in the human body that can cause fibers like these, and mycologists have ruled out bacterial and fungal contamination.
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Reddish residue inside bone
Skeptic's Answer: Bone marrow residue, or some sort of contamination
Problem with the Answer: After 900 years bone marrow would be black (dried blood is never red and turns black very rapidly), and if it is a contamination then why is it absent in the human skull that was found beside the Starchild burial, and was exposed to identical contaminants?
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Flattened Rear of the Skull
Skeptic's Answer: Cradleboarding or other artificial deformation
Problem with the Answer: It is flattened at an angle so steep that would tilt a child's chin down into its chest so far it would suffocate. Dr. Robinson also noted that there were none of the tell-tale signs of artificial flattening. Reference Cradleboarding, Dr. Robinson's Report
Feature of the Starchild Skull: Confusing combination of child and adult teeth
Skeptic's Answer: It is a child of about 5 years old, and possibly had Progeria, which causes dental problems.
Problem with the Answer: No child could grind its teeth down so much in such a short period of time, and the teeth do not exhibit the crowding or uneven enamel that are the hallmarks of Progeria.
Feature of the Starchild Skull: 30% larger brain
Skeptic's Answer: The actual brain tissue was the same size as a human, but it looked bigger because of Hydrocephaly. Fluid inside the brain pushed it outwards and made it look bigger, but it was "hollow" (filled with fluid) inside.
Problem with the Answer: Fluid inside the brain causes pressure that would have pushed the weakest points, the suture lines where the plates of the skull join, outwards, and this did not happen. There is no evidence of internal pressure, reference Dr. Robinson's Report
Feature of the Starchild Skull: DNA possibly different from human
Skeptic's Answer: It is either a contamination, a problem with the test, or a one-off genetic mutation.
Problem with the Answer: While contamination is indeed the biggest challenge for dealing with ancient DNA, the sample from a bone buried in Earth soil can be contaminated with only DNA of earthly origin, which could be identified by at least a partial match to sequences in the existing databases. The extent of genetic variation found in the preliminary DNA tests on the Starchild Skull is far greater than normally observed in viable (able to survive) offspring within the human species. NOTE: The DNA results mentioned here are only "single coverage", meaning they have not been verified and should not be relied on until the result can be repeated several times.
Over the years, experts and amateurs alike have attempted to dismiss the Starchild Skull by cobbling together an assortment of conditions that can cause most of the individual components of the Starchild Skull to occur in a human. Alternatively, they don't even bother with known conditions, they just say that any kind of deformity, any combination of DNA, is possible, and therefore this skull is a wildly deformed human who’s DNA just got confused.
And over the years we have patiently explained that we have already considered these various "diagnosis", and given irrefutable, see-it-with-your-own-eyes evidence showing that they do not fit with the reality of the Skull. And not matter how clearly we explain this, or how obvious the evidence, some skeptics still choose to believe that their cobbled together explanations show this to be a deformed human. For the record, until we have recovered and sequenced the rest of the Starchild Skull's DNA we can't prove whether or not it is a human, and therefore we still leave this option on the table and fully explore it at every opportunity, however we refuse to accept a flawed explanation and continue to seek the full truth about this remarkable skull.
Well we have decided to make it easy for all the would-be skeptics, and tell them exactly what each of those conditions are, and leave it up to the public to decide.
Comparison of a collagen fibre bundle in tissue at 50um (magnification) with the Starchild Skull fibers at 200um (magnification)
Adult Human Female (AF) X-Ray left, compared to Starchild Skull X-Ray on right
It is possible to find a way to "explain" virtually every aspect of the Starchild Skull if each unusual feature is taken individually, but when you start trying to add all of these up, it soon becomes obvious that no human could survive so many conflicting deformities. And that is the key factor that keeps getting swept under the carpet. Not "is it possible in a test tube in a lab", but "it is possible to create a live being that can live long enough to wear down its teeth"? The most plausible answer here is "No." No human could survive all of this, therefore, it is possible-and some may argue "probable"-that this is not a human.
Is the Starchild Skull a deformed human? No.
For proof, read Dr. Robinson's report where 11 experts go on the record saying it is not a deformity, watch the video Starchild Skull Snarks Critics (right) for Lloyd Pye's "it's so easy a caveman can get it" explanation of the Starchild Skull and deformity, or read on to see the debunkers get a taste of their own medicine...