Starchild Skull: SHOCKING DNA Results Show, The Skull Is Alien- Update 2011 - UFO News | Aliens | UFO Sightings | Space News | UFO 2017
Aug 14, 2011

Starchild Skull: SHOCKING DNA Results Show, The Skull Is Alien- Update 2011

The starchild skull came into the possession of Lloyd Pye in February 1999, 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.

Radiocarbon dating results conclude the skull is 900 years old + or - 40 years

In 2011 the geneticist working on the Starchild Skull discovered that its mtDNA (the part of DNA passed only through the maternal line) was radically different from human DNA.

The maximum number of mtDNA differences between all humans is 120. The Starchild Skull has between 800-1,000. This is a partial result, but it is enough to be definitive: the Skull’s mtDNA is not human.

DNA has two types: nuclear (nuDNA) and mitochondrial (mtDNA). NuDNA is found in a cell’s nucleus, and it comes from both parents. MtDNA is found in tiny sub-cellular units called mitochondria that float in the cell’s cytoplasm (the jelly-like interior). MtDNA passes to each generation only through the maternal line.

The nuDNA genome is the total of all the base pairs (bp) it contains. Base pairs (bp) are the “steps” in the famous double-helix “ladder” of DNA. Each human cell has only one nucleus that contains a copy of the entire genome of more than 3 billion bp, and up to thousands of mitochondria, each containing the mtDNA genome of exactly 16,569 bp.

The DNA genomes for humans, Neanderthals, Denisovans (a new prehuman species announced in 2010), chimps, and gorillas are all the same approximate size. Therefore, it seems safe to assume the Starchild’s two genomes will have approximately the same number of base pairs as humans: nuDNA of 3 ± billion bp, and mtDNA of 16,600 ± bp.

In 2010, dozens of the Starchild’s nuclear DNA fragments were sequenced, adding up to about 30,000 bp. That was enough to be clearly indicative of what the total nuDNA genome will be when it is fully sequenced, but at only .0001% of a 3 billion bp genome, it was well short of the 1% (30 million) needed to establish definitive trends.

Recently, four fragments of Starchild mtDNA were sequenced, totaling 1,583 bp. That is a whopping 9.5% of its assumed 16,600 ± bp mtDNA genome, and nearly 10 times the 1% needed to make reliable projections. Thus, there can be no reasonable doubt that an incredible answer will result from a full recovery of the Starchild’s mtDNA genome. It further indicates that the vastly larger nuclear genome will be even more incredible!

In human nuDNA, only 2% of the 3 billion bp work to keep us alive. 98% is called “junk” because it has no known life-sustaining functions. Mutations in junk are nearly always non-disruptive and accumulate easily, resulting in an estimated 15 million in humans.

In mtDNA, the exact opposite applies. The great bulk of its functions are required for survival, so every mutation is a potential death sentence. Very rarely does a mutation occur in harmless areas, and all of those are well documented. In fact, the physical structure of mtDNA is one of the best-understood aspects of human biology.

Geneticists have been able to utilize the extreme rarity of mtDNA mutations to create a “biological clock” that dates humanity’s origin—the time we became a distinct species—to about 200,000 years ago. During those 200,000 years we have gradually but steadily accumulated a maximum of 120 variations in our mtDNA. The oldest humans (natives of South Africa) have the most (up to 120), and later human types have fewer and fewer.

Humanity’s 120 variations have been divided into 33 subunits known as haplogroups (shown left). Those 33 are derived from seven ancient females whom geneticists calculate were the founding matriarchs of our species [related in the book The Seven Daughters of Eve by Dr. Bryan Sykes, 2001]. Thus, every variation between every haplogroup is well known and chronicled, and every human belongs to one of the 33 haplogroups listed below.

The chart (left) shows how mtDNA is analyzed. At the top is the Cambridge Reference Sequence (CRS), the mtDNA pattern arbitrarily chosen from one individual to provide the human value baseline. Variations from the CRS establish the count of differences in all related species. Among the 33 human haplogroups, no individual has more than 120 differences.

At the chart’s bottom are Neanderthal mtDNA and mtDNA from two samples from Denisovans. Denisovans are a new species discovered in Siberia in 2010 when a finger bone and molar from what seemed to be Neanderthal remains were routinely analyzed. To everyone’s astonishment, the mtDNA in both of the samples produced 385 differences from the human CRS—185 more than Neanderthals (whose 200 differences are only 80 more than the human maximum of 120).

With so many undeniable differences, and because mtDNA is so highly conserved and unerringly precise, geneticists had no choice but to classify Denisovans as an entirely new prehuman species closely related to humans and Neanderthals. [For comparison, the chimpanzee mtDNA genome contains 1500 differences from the human CRS.]

Now we will consider one of the four fragments of Starchild Skull mtDNA that has been sequenced, the smallest of the four at 167 base pairs. Below, it is compared to the human CRS, base pair to base pair, and below that is the top left half (outlined by a box) enlarged for visual clarity.
The blue bars show the differences in base pairs between the Starchild fragment (top line—167) and the corresponding segment of the CRS (bottom line—1269). This 72 bp part has 11 differences. In the non-enlarged parts are 95 bp with 6 more differences, for an astounding total of 17 differences between the Starchild and the human CRS!

The down below chart covers the segment of the human CRS that corresponds to the 167 bp segment sequenced from the Starchild. It extends from #1265 to #1432 (out of the CRS’s full compliment of 16,569). At this scale it is difficult to read, but it shows that among the 33 human haplogroups, those 167 bp have only one difference among all types of humans! [Three aqua lines highlight the differences: the first two lines are for differences in both of the Denisovan samples, and the third is for one difference in the Neanderthal and in one human haplogroup (HPT L1b) compared to the CRS.]
This stretch of mtDNA is one of the most extremely conserved in the entire genome, with only one difference among the 33 human haplogroups, one in Neanderthal, and two in Denisova. Yet, somehow, the Starchild mtDNA (see red arrow at bottom of chart below) carries within itself 16 additional differences! Even if multiple repetitions of this analysis should reveal that a few of its recorded differences were due to machine error or to human error, which can happen, the final total will still be mind-boggling!
If a human fetus were conceived with only one or two differences in an area of mtDNA Nature keeps so rigidly intact, it would abort spontaneously. Yet the Starchild grew to full term and aged enough to grind down the enamel of its adult-like teeth. Also, several experts have agreed the Skull belonged to an adult. This is convincing evidence that the Starchild was born, and lived its life, considerably different from any typical human.

Now recall that all four Starchild mtDNA fragments add up to 1,583 base pairs, which is 9.5% of what we assume will be a total mtDNA genome in the 16,600 ± range. Among the 1583 bp are 93 differences, which extrapolate to a shocking total of 976 differences!

[To extrapolate 9.5% out to 100%, divide 100 by 9.5 to get 10.5; then,10.5 x 93 = 976.]

Extrapolating a partial result for nuDNA usually provides only a tentative total, but with mtDNA we can be certain that extrapolating a nearly 10% result is dependably reliable. Why? Because the machines that sequence and analyze the results of that sequencing have become remarkably accurate. However, reading errors can and do occur, so that has to be taken into account. Assume 80 of the 93 are ultimately confirmed, leaving a total of 840 rather than 976. That is 720 more than any human on Earth could tolerate.

Errors or not, we can be supremely confident that the confirmed total of the Starchild’s differences will fall between 800 and 1000 bp, while all humans are 120 or less. Using the most effective techniques science can bring to bear to solve any problem of genetic heritage, techniques that are used with finality in court cases worldwide, the Starchild is shown to be nowhere near the ballpark of human or prehuman. This result is definitive.
Without doubt, without question, without fail, recovering both of the Starchild’s entire genomes will prove it to be so astonishingly far from humans that the only reasonable, logical, acceptable term for it will profoundly change human history forever…. ALIEN!

Below is a greatly simplified 1,200 word summary of a much more detailed report on this data available at:


  1. I just watched this video and I just thought I would like to add.. do you think they mite be trying to breed a alien human kid so that they can breath or adapt to our planets atmosphere??

  2. uggu bear, I don't mean any disrespect to you at all, but who really cares? There's nothing you or anyone can do about it anyway. I used to waste my time looking onto UFOs, aliens and evidence. I even saw 2 or 3 ufos myself. I found that my time was better spent loving my family, being a good husband, dad and trying to get closer to God and understand how he wants us to live our lives. I feel that the end is coming near and we should all be trying to do the same. There are greater things ahead of us in Heaven than ufos and aliens. That's my two cents.

  3. if that skull is 900 years old and if its dna is really part-human/part-alien, then i am most certain that now in 2011 we all (humans) are already PERFECTLY included into that alleged "dna mixing/breeding program" and that all of our species might already be "vastly altered" in their dna!

    that would be really good work, seriosly!

  4. It is amazing to me how much persuasion is required for Modern Science to get a handle on REAL information like you have provided yet are so EASY to believe with all their blessed little hearts in Global Warming based upon Computer programs produced by biased "scientists" whose whole proof is based on belief in their flawed data.

  5. 1. Junk DNA isn't junk, it's the operating system code for the cells computer.
    2. Carbon dating an alien would depend on alien atmospheric isotope ratios.

  6. MASSIVE logical jump to alien. I dont know if this is a joke or not. Since you're using comparison of mtDNA for your analysis, you're assuming that alien mitochondria from another plant #1 have had the same environmental influences as mitochondria (in order to compare number of mutations, and by extension mutation rates, the environment where the alien evolved would have to be the same as that of Earth throughout the evolution of mitochondria) and #2 have mitochondria at all. Seriously, consider those points for a second. What are the odds that life evolved on another planet in the same conditions AND into the same forms as on Earth?

    Reasonable argument, but the conclusion I would draw is that the starchild skull is that of an extinct, distant relative of humans. Thats what the data points to, especially the colorful histogram. A species that differentiated after chimps but before prehumans would fit this mtDNA profile quite nicely. Why go to aliens? You make a fool out of yourself and absolutely destroy your credibility by making stupid claims from otherwise reasonable data.

  7. This is just terrible. That skull was of a human child with hydrocephalus. You guys are terrible... just terrible. Get a life.

  8. The starchild skull is the ultimate definitive proof that ALIENS really exist!!! This is science.

  9. Wikipedia states that the Starchild skull has wholly human DNA and is the skull of a 4.5 to 5 year old child suffering from Hydrocephaly.

    1. wrong. How can you tell something is pure human with only a handful of DNA fragments? you can't. A reason why a few human DNA fragments cannot tell you what something is is because we are a genetic "medley" (as I say it). 97% of our genome (all of the nuclear DNA in a living thing, or all of the DNA in a bacterium or virus) is found in chimpanzees, 95% is in gorillas, rats share 70%, mice share 65%, fruit flies share 60%, and yeasts and domestic cavies share approx. 20%, and 10%, respectively. they did not recover the whole starchild genome, so how can you say its 100% human? by the logic starchild opponents have, by this logic, it could have been a hydrocephalic fruit fly. the skull is actually of an older being, with healthy, unfused sutures, cracked and worn adult teeth, and a crease between the parietal bones, running down the sagittal suture (it'd be like blowing up a latex balloon and leaving a crease in it when it was full; you can't do it)

      this is why schools do not allow you to use Wikipedia as a source; it can be manipulated by malicious or unscrupulous people, and it can be unreliable.

  10. the Wikipedia article is horribly out-of-date, ambiguous, and biased. If you are serious about the starchild, go to the starchild project; they are actually studying this matter seriously, adhering to scientific principles.

    @Anonymous3/11/2013 02:37:00 AM
    This is just terrible. That skull was of a human child with hydrocephalus. You guys
    . are terrible... just terrible. get a life.


    Hydrocephalic skulls are human, with rectangular, 2-inch deep eye sockets, and optic foramens shaped like tree branch, with no crease between the two parietal bones, and they have an inion; every vertebrate has an inion for the neck muscles to adhere to. the starchild is very symmetrical skull, evenly proportioned but with different proportions, 1/2 inch eye sockets shaped like a spoon, optic foramens shaped like a "golf club", uncrowded, healthy adult teeth (with unerupted adult teeth, like a shark), large inner ears, insanely hard bone, impressions in the bone made by the brain and blood vessels (which was 200 cm^3 larger than a human brain), a dent where there should be an inion... I could go on and on as to why you are wrong.

    Oh, and proponents of alternative science have lives. I HAVE a life. I study the starchild and make things out of phragmites reeds; you call that as not having a life?

    mainstream science is run by conservative, feeble-minded bureaucrats, who ruin all other scientists who oppose them. mainstream science is solidly unchanging in the "fringe".
    Lloyd Pye confronted a problem, generated a hypothesis, gathered solid evidence, and made a theory. He did further studying, and had to toss out his old theory.

    True science welcomes any mystery, confronts any problem... True science is willing to accept any new knowledge, regardless of its nature, and dispose of old ideas (true science moves on, but mainstream science is not moving forward). by this logic, mainstream science is a pseudoscience, while the "paranormalist" Lloyd pye is a true scientist. He fearlessly investigated, and moved forward.

    Those who think the starchild is a butt-ugly human kid are either honestly deluded, or they are being stupid and immature on purpose. Those who say the starchild IS a butt ugly human kid are the ones with sick fantasies.