Sunday, August 14, 2011

DNA Results on the Star Child - 2011 Updates

Although this has been around, the updated report on the star child DNA analysis is still startling to this day revealing an alien born to human mother. The owner Lloyd Pye has further DNA research and 2011 updates here.

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 early 2011, a new analysis of the Starchild's DNA produced a startling result. Four fragments of mitochondrial DNA were sequenced, and their total base pair count of 1,583 amounted to 9.5% of the 16,569 base pairs found in every mitochondria of every human alive.

In humans, those 16,569 base pairs have as many as 120 differences between the 33 haplogroups we all belong to. Neanderthal mtDNA contains 200; Denisova, the new prehuman, has 385; chimps have 1,500.

The Starchild's four fragments of mtDNA, 9.5% of a human's base pair total, contained 93 differences. If we extrapolate out to 100% by multiplying 93 by 10, we project that the Starchild's mtDNA has 930 differences. Read the report HERE.
Rate this posting:


Beartoe said...

Can someone simplify this? Didn't the Starchild skull contain fibers in the bone? Can they extract the DNA and do create more little Starchilds?

Beartoe said...

What does this all mean? Can we extract the DNA and create more Starchildren or even better yet inject me with it and alter my DNA?

Beartoe said...

What does this all mean? Can we extract the DNA and create little bastard Starchildren? The bone in skull contains little fibers, you won't see that trait in any 100% human bone.

Anonymous said...

I have heard, that ET. is walking amongst us "TODAY," and looks just like us,you can't tell them apart from us,that is one Group!!which I find a bit disturbing..but the DNA result on the Star Child, shows that ET. obviosly was amongst us over 9 hundred years ago, which is not that long ago! and in away, backs up the story of them being here where is all this going to go, now??

A story is one thing, that we consider, but proof of it, is another!? is, interesting though!! makes you think about just what is so disturbing about "Disclosure" that it has to be held back from us!?

Michael said...

Nah. Science only has only has an understanding of a small percentage (about 5%) of all the different fibers that make up human DNA. The purpose/function of the other 95% is relatively unknown, &'s (for now) labeled as junk by the scientific community researching human DNA. Basically what's shown here is that there are unknown attributes in the biological make-up of this star-child skull in reference to anything ever documented/discovered before (the thick/tough fibers where the bone marrow should be, the shape, the structure, & the genetic code) in any known example of human genetics. The only way they could duplicate this would be if the function/purpose of these unknown genetic anomalies where identified in both the star-child skull & human DNA, & scientists could link the 2 somehow.

Anonymous said...

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), 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".[8] Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged 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

Keep Reading - Click 'Older Posts' above to read more posts  >>