Paleo Labs tests results were conclusive in their Y-DNA report; the Starchild was a male and his father was a human from haplogroup Q which is what comprises 94% of indigenous South Americans. Mason County, Virginia, 1821: Seven skulls found, so large they could easily fit over a man's head; with double rows of teeth on the upper jaw, and but two solitary teeth on the lower jaw. Starchild Projectγνώριζανότιομόνοςοριστικόςτρόποςγιανααποδείξουνότιτοκρανίοδενήτανανθρώπινοήτανμέσωτηςεξέτασης DNA.Έτσιπερίμενανσχεδόνμιαδεκαετίαμέχρινατελειοποιηθείητεχνολογίαγιατηνανάκτησηκαιτονπροσδιορισμότηςαλληλουχίαςτουαρχαίου DNA, όπωςήτανκαιτο Starchild’s, δηλαδή 900 ετών. The starchild skull came into the possession of Lloyd Pye, a writer and lecturer in the field of alternative knowledge, in February 1999. [1] According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of the Mexican city of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, buried alongside a normal human skeleton which was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel. [2]

In addition to the external occipital protuberance on the outside of the skull, there is an "internal occipital protuberance” on the inside. This functions like a shelf holding some of the weight of the brain. While the Starchild does have this internal shelf, it is much smaller than it would be in a normal human. The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.Aristotle described Pythagoras as a wonder-worker and somewhat of a supernatural figure.According to Aristotle’s writing, Pythagoras had a golden thigh,which he publicly exhibited at theOlympic Gamesand showed to Abaris the Hyperboreanas proof of his identity as the “Hyperborean Apollo”. Problem with the Answer:It didn't have any of these conditions as proven by X-Rays and CT scans, andthe 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 State-of-the-art at the time, this test was only able to recover human DNA, any other DNA in the sample was ignored. The test recovered a small amount of human mtDNA fromthe Starchild Skull, but despite six attempts and evidence that there was some sort of nuDNA in the sample, no human nuDNA could be recovered. This led to public speculation about a human-alien hybrid, but this has since been dismissed in favor of the more plausible explanation that it is a new species that has some genetic similarities to humans.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1312-national-stolen-property-act-goods-wares-merchandise A frequent visitor to Santa Rosa Island off California in 1860 often discovered numerous Indian skeletons in caves, many of which had double teeth all around.mt-DNA results can also be found here – https://thefieldreportscom.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/mt-dna-paleo-dna-labs-report.pdf The scientists running the Starchild Project knew that the only definitive way of proving that the skull was not human was through DNA testing. So they waited nearly a decade while the technology for recovering and sequencing ancient DNA, such as the 900-year-old Starchild's, could be perfected. The surface of normal human bone is covered with tiny holes called lacunae, which perform the vital function of replacing old bone cells with new ones. The Starchild bone shows virtually no lacunae.

On five occasions (observations of the bone being cut by other people), it was apparently obvious that there was difficulty when cutting the skull. At our last meeting, in Sept 2013, Lloyd explained to me that Matthew Brownstein, following his own research, proposed that they form an agreement and a company as a vehicle for furthering the goals of the Starchild Project. Although Lloyd didn’t go into minute detail about the agreement, he did tell me of the formation of an agreement between himself, Amy (his ex-wife), Ray and Melanie Young and Matthew Brownstein. The reasons I am explaining this will become clear below. This DNA was submitted to the US National Institutes of Health BLAST for comparison to all other DNA in their database. Some of the DNA was similar to that of a human while some could not be matched. If these results can be reproduced and verified, it will show that the Skull is a previously undiscovered species.To date, the Starchild Skull has been subjected to several rounds of DNA testing. In 1999, there was an attempt to recover DNA using a lab equipped to recover forensic — classed as less than 50 years old – DNA but it was a failure due to contamination. What was really needed was a lab capable of recovering not forensic DNA but ancient DNA and capable of removing more contamination. As with the falsified claims to the DNA testing showing abnormal FOXP2 genes (the lead investigator, Chase, literally called the NIH Human Genome Research Institute and they had no record of the reported genetics test from 2012) We know that the person who reported these findings also falsified his profession as he was not a geneticist but a virologist. We question many of the previous findings that do not have explicit proof of the tests conducted, including VERIFIABLE tests done by credentialed professionals. Extroidinary claims require extroidinary proof. We were so hoping to find extroidinary proof, but as you can read, what we had was a deformed Skull of a human child that had been the source of much speculation. The initial report of the Starchild anomalies given to the staff of The Field Reports was extensive. What remained a central point in our examinations were two factors: Robinson έγραψε: «Μπορείκανείςεύλογανασυμπεράνειαπόαυτέςτιςστατιστικέςμελέτεςότιτοκρανίο Starchild είναισαφώςδιαφορετικόαπότοανθρώπινο».Ωστόσο, οιιατρικέςαναφορέςκαιέρευνεςδενήταναρκετέςγιαναπείσουντουςεπιστήμονεςότιτοκρανίο Starchild δενήτανσίγουραανθρώπινο.Έδωσανμίααόριστηεξήγηση, ότιμετιςανωμαλίες«ηφύσημπορείνακάνειταπάντα».

Concluding the investigation and compiling the entirety of the scientific data from the many scientists involved, we can safely say that the Starchild Skull is not alien, nor a hybrid of a human and alien. He was 100% a human male child with profound deformities. When we began the investigation, we had no expectations besides completing testing and examinations by credentialed scientists to the extent that modern science and technology could take us. We were not working from speculation or relying on any research done in the past besides the carbon dating. We were not hoping for the Starchild Skull to be human or alien, even though that discovery (although unprovable at this time without comparable DNA) would have been groundbreaking. We were searching only for the truth. Additional Theories for Abnormalities

German UFOs – Did the Nazis Build Flying Saucers?

A Mr. Robinson excavated a burial mound on his property in Brewersville, Indiana in either 1879 or 1891 and found a skeleton said to be nine and a half feet tall. Although Mr. Robinson declared that it had been examined by scientists from Indiana and from New York, the bones were suddenly washed away in a 1937 flood before they could be documented. Lloyd Pye μίλησεσυχνάγιατηνπροκατάληψηκαιτονφόβοπουείναιενσωματωμένοςστηνκουλτούρατηςκυρίαρχηςεπιστήμηςκαιτηςακαδημαϊκήςκοινότητας, καιείναιτοσυναίσθημαπουωθείτουςσκεπτικιστέςσεμιααρνητικήγνώμηγιατοStarchild Skull,πρινακόμαμάθουνόλαταγεγονότα. »εξηγείηιστοσελίδα Starchild Project.Ηενασχόλησημεαυτάταθέματαπροσελκύειαυτόματακριτική, αλλάταμέλητουέργουμαςκαλούνναακούσουμετιςεπιστημονικέςεξηγήσειςτους, ωςτώραδεντοέχουνκάνει. Rancho Lompoc, California, 1833: Soldiers digging a pit discovered a twelve foot tall skeleton, its skull featuring double rows of teeth on the upper and lower jaws. In 1829, in Chesterton, Ohio, a mound was excavated in which was found a jawbone with "more teeth" than modern humans, and which was so large that it could fit over the face of a man known for his large jaw. Again, I have nothing to compare the claim of 50 strokes to. Is that a normal amount? What kind of blade was used? How worn was the blade? There are many things to consider here when conducting a scientific investigation before assuming the claims lead to something extroidinary.