a reply to: kayej1188
13. In any case, they observed, the extreme slant of the rear parietals and the occipital bone challenges whether this skull could have contained
typical brain matter, and casts further doubt that its cerebellum was typical. In a normal skull, the cerebellum rests at the base of the cerebrum,
supported by the internal occipital protuberance and the twin flares of the sagittal sulcus and the transverse sulcus. With this support mechanism,
over the course of a lifetime the cerebrum’s weight does not press down onto the cerebellum and distend it such that it will cease to function
properly. In this unique skull, however, the entire weight of the brain slants directly down on the area that should hold its cerebellum. Instead of
the rounded area typically present for support, there is a wedge-shaped area of perhaps one-quarter of normal. Furthermore, the internal protuberance
and sulcus ridges are significantly reduced. What effect would the weight of a notably amplified brain have on an unsupported cerebellum carried into
adulthood? It presents a genuine conundrum.
14. Personally, I was most concerned with determining how the rear of the skull could have become so flattened, from the atypical fossa (depression)
in the sagittal suture between the parietals, down to the foramen magnum opening. This could not have been caused by any kind of flattening or binding
device because the surface of the occipital reveals the subtle convolutions inevitably present in unaltered skulls. Skulls that undergo any kind of
shaping technique will always reveal such technique with a distortion of the bone surface. Lacking even a hint of evidence of shaping, and of any
unnatural or premature fusing of any sutures, it is entirely safe to say that the extreme flattening of the skull was caused by its natural growth
pattern and is not artificial. This too is significant.
15. Another of my concerns is that the external occipital protuberance (inion) is absent from its notable position in the center of the occipital
bone, and indeed is represented by an actual slight fossa (depression) in the surface. (As mentioned earlier, the same is true for its internal
counterpart, which has been greatly reduced.) It seems clear that the neck of this being attached to its skull much lower than in a normal skull,
centered under the balance point for both lateral and medial flexion. Even more unusual, the neck itself seems to have a circumference somewhere in
the range of 50% of usual neck volume, which presents yet another example of the thorough uniqueness of this specimen.
16. In addition to lacking frontal sinuses, there is no sign of the brow ridges evident in normal skulls. Its upper orbits are thin edged rather than
rounded. Its zygomatic arches are greatly reduced and significantly lowered from their usual positions. Its mastoid processes are less than normal, as
are all connective points for the lower face (which would attach to the coronoid process and condylar process of the missing mandible). Based on these
observations, its lower face may have been as much as 50% reduced from normal. On the other hand, its inner ears are noticeably larger than normal,
again pushing into the range of 50% larger. This is also true for the condyles abutting the spinal atlas.
17. A detached upper right maxilla contains two molars [recent note: one has been lost to testing]. Tooth wear on the molars indicates maturity was
reached, yet another set of teeth are present in the maxilla and appear ready to take the place of those mature teeth when and if they are lost or are
no longer useful. The question of age at death remains open.
18. Carbon 14 Dating has shown the Human Skull to be 900 years old ± 40 years
1. Dr Matthew Brown, a Dentist in London, made close-up x-rays images of the maxilla in September 2004. He states that the roots of unerrupted teeth
are consistent with those of a child who was about 4½ yrs old.
2. Carbon 14 dating was also carried out on Starchild Skull Bone in July/August 2004 which produced the same result - 900 years old ± 40 years
Notice how Steven Novell was not on that list.
There was never an x+y chromosome recovered, there was only a y chromosome, and that was later determined to be contamination. You really should read
the site to get a better understanding of why your only going to get contamination from a 900 year old skull in a lab not equipped to do dating that
old. But again, I can see where once again, if it's scares Evolutionists, they are going to change it, to fit their delusion, and ignore the real
1999, BOLD, British Columbia, Canada: The first DNA test conducted on the Starchild Skull was done at a lab that was not equipped to test 900 year old
DNA, but as it was not possible to access an ancient DNA lab at the time, the Starchild Project hoped that we may get some useful result from a
forensic DNA lab. After multiple contaminations, the BOLD lab recovered a tiny amount of nuclear DNA, 10% of the usual minimum amount of DNA required
to give an accurate result. This DNA was from a human male Y chromosome. As no subsequent testing with more advanced equipment has been able to
duplicate this result, and as the main difference between a forensic and ancient DNA testing lab is that forensic labs are not capable of removing as
much contamination as an ancient DNA lab, the Starchild Project supports the belief of many experts that this result was not accurate, and was likely
the result of contamination of the bone.
mitochondrial DNA from haplotype C
Yes you are correct, and apparently lost the significance of this skull to begin with. It would once again seem that you are merely skimming over the
facts and trying to cherry pick things that aid in your delusion while totally missing whats going on here. Yes mitochondrial DNA from haplotype C was
found, proving this to be a three parent life form. This alien was created by aliens coming to earth, abducting a healthy female human and using her
to carry the child. The mtDNA is scraped out of the original alien DNA package and the human females mtDNA is put in it's place. This child with have
DNA from three parents. Alien mother and father, and human mtDNA which only accounts for about 2% of total DNA. Perhaps it would have helped if you
would have educated yourself with PYE's work before hand, perhaps it would have helped if you had first educated yourself with todays genetics a
little more as well.
Pye calling the results were NOT a cop out as scientifically proven by the next results. Again your just not happy because it's not telling you what
YOU want to hear.
No it's not a human/ alien hybrid, that would imply that it's half human and half alien, which is not the case here. It's nuclear alien mother and
father and human mtDNA. I don't think your understanding this.
Perhaps you better brush up on your genetics a tad. Here is a video dumbed down for the incredulous.
We would not need to adapt if Evolution were real. We would not need to Evolve if Adaptation is available.
Major flaw in theory there.