It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Starchild Skull

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
The starchild skull is a very abnormal skull that dates to 900 years old and was found in Mexico in the 1930s. The skull was said to be alien by many and was said to have been debunked by even more. Here the pure facts and abnormalities of the skull will be outlined. It's worthy of note that if you try to look to Wikipedia or any general search of those who use it as a source, your going to get false information. Information that to my knowledge that apparently isn't allowed to be corrected even though its information is long disproven and/or outdated. Here are the several medical conditions that have been given to explain or debunk the skulls anomalies but have been disproven.

-Cradleboarding, when the head is bound at a young age to acquire a certain shape, or any other artificially caused deformations that include any type of force to the skull was ruled out by a study led by Dr. T.J. Robinson.
-Progeria is a condition in which an appearance of highly accelerated age, occurs at a young age. Some similar characteristics of progeria show in the starchild, however osteoporosis caused by progeria results in very thin and weak bone, something not found in the starchild skull.
-A hereditary condition called Cruzon Syndrome is another condition that causes premature fusion of the cranial sutures, but can also cause exopthalmos, or shallow eye sockets, and an under development of the face which will be later mentioned. No premature fusion of the cranial sutures show in the starchild skull CAT scans.
-When a condition called hydrocephaly occurs, the skull expands from within due to an excessive amount of cerebrospinal fluid that leaves the skull appearing to be inflated and leaves behind the effects from the affected skull. This has been ruled out by Dr. Bachynsky and Dr. Robinson.
-A condition called Morgellons Disease produces lesions of the skin and bunched fibers within the skin, these fibers are visible with sight unlike the starchild's fibers that are microscopic and will later be mentioned.
-The condition called Apert Syndrome results in the mid face being retruded, however this also is accompanied by a premature fusion of the cranial sutures, that of which the starchild lacks.
-Brachycephaly is a blanketed term that describes a skulls abnormally wide shape which can occur by, again, premature cranial suture fusion or artificial cranial deformation, those of which are not found in the starchild skull.

The following outlined are the numerous, never seen before aspects that are found in the skull that can't be attributed to any known deformation or combination of deformations:

The starchild skull has a 30% increased brain size then what it should be. The outside appearance of the skull shows that it's some what smaller then an adult human skull and is around the size of a human skull aged 12 years. Despite being smaller then an average adult human skull, which has a cranial volume of 1,400 cubic centimeters. The starchild skull, smaller, has a larger then adult human brain, a cranial volume of 1,600 cubic centimeters. Because any internal pressure by any medical condition has been ruled out, the cranial volume is accurate.

The skull bone thickness of the starchild is 1/3 that of normal human skull bone, it also weights roughly 1/3 of a normal human skull. However, despite having such a drastic difference in less weight and thickness, the skull is more dense, or hard, then normal bone and shows abnormally substantial spikes in carbon and oxygen in its composition. With these as a combination, no known medical condition or deformation can account for these differences.








The eyes that belonged to skull, at least the eye sockets, are very different. The eye sockets are far more shallow then normal. The shallowing of human eye sockets can occur when the skulls bones grow into each other the wrong way, however this process isn't shown to have occurred in the starchild. In psychical recreations of what the starchild would look like, normal eyes didn't fit in its sockets and would be bulging out of its head, an obvious hazard. Because of the lack of evidence and explanation of its shallow sockets, along with normal eyes that couldn't fit, this has lead to speculation of the exposure to zero gravity. Astronauts experience a very minimal flattening of the eyes due to long term weightlessness conditions, but on a far less scale then that of the starchilds, which could lead to speculation of significantly long zero gravity conditions. What's more, in the starchild the openings in each eye socket where blood vessels and optic nerves enter, the optic foramens, are shaped differently and are in completely different positions from where they would normally be.





CT scans revealed that the starchild skull has inner ears that are nearly thirty percent larger then normal. This, along with such a light and thin skull bone have lead to more speculations. Ones that show the starchild undoubtedly had much greater hearing, as lighter bone allows higher frequencies to be heard, even of sounds that wouldn't normally be heard. The speculation of thIs could also have allowed senses of change in certain vibration. Larger inner ears can also lead to the assumption of far greater balance capabilities.

The starchild has a complete and utter lack of frontal sinuses. This can occur in the rare condition called progeria as already mentioned above, but as already relayed, the starchild did not have this condition. This lack of sinuses, combined with its very shallow eye sockets, are the apparent reasons that allow the much larger brain to fit into its skull. Sinuses could effect, or is of use for voice resonance. In this light of working vocal resonance and speaking capabilities, it's unknown what this would mean in the case of the starchild's complete lack of one. This has lead to the speculation of nonverbal communication via telepathy.





When examining the skull with a scanning electron microscope at the Royal Holloway University in London, unknown microscopic fibers were found to be embedded within the bone. These are not yet known and mycologists who've examined them say they don't resemble any known fungus or bacteria. The fibers appear to be apart of the bone itself and it's growth, or even possibly put into it. When cutting into the skull with a bone saw, the unclean cut of the fibers showed high resistance. It's further speculated that these could play a role in the abnormal strength of the skull's bone.






- Scroll down to continue reading -



www.starchildproject.com...
www.starchildskull.com...
www.starchildskull.com...
www.starchildskull.com...
www.starchildskull.com...
www.starchildskull.com...

edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
An early x-ray of a piece of the skulls upper maxilla with two teeth showed there was five still embedded tooth crowns within the bone. This, along with the small size of the maxilla fragment that held the crowns, lead to the initial belief that the skull was that of a child's. However this is now believed not to be true. Among other aspects, even though the maxilla fragment is child sized and had crowns, it's two teeth that were attached showed the wear equivalent to that of an adults with many years of use. It's unknown how it's age could show to be of at the very least a mid aged, to young adult, but have such a small maxilla and more teeth yet to come down.

As shown below, the starchild's external occipital protuberance, or "inion", is not only not in the position it normally should be, but it's barely visible upon a first look. The inion is the bump on the back of ones skull where neck muscles attach to the head. On the starchild, the inion is nearly half as big and is placed in a different position altogether, far lower down on the skull.






The hole at the bottom of the skull, along with its muscles may show its neck having the volume of half the normal size. As mentioned, the lower point at which the neck is attached to the skull, along with a centered balance point of the head seems to be due to the apparent brain weight difference from the front to the back of the skull.






Based on the expansion of what remains of the skulls zygomatic arches, it would show that the lower face of the starchild was greatly reduced to around half that of a normal, same sized counterpart, having its cheek bones close on the face and much smaller then normal.





Finally, the skulls difference in its mitochondrial and nuclear DNA base pairs that have been sequenced so far, when fully projected to reasonable estimates, show there is likely going to be a far greater difference in DNA percentage then that of human to chimpanzee DNA percent difference.


www.lloydpye.com...
starchildproject.com...
starchildproject.com...
starchildproject.com...
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Plenty of threads re this so do we need another



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Telepathy3

Well if that is starchild wtf is this?:



Your excuses for reverence of this deformed human skull from a few centuries back are lame. I'm sure if they analyse Johnny Boy's skull they will find a few mighty strange mutations, too. I think John's skull is far more weird than starrychild's. If that is a child of the stars' skull then John's must be from another dimension.

"My naammmeee is John Mewwick"! Bless his memory!
Thanks for letting me use you as an example to counteract this crazy starchild nonsense.

With an avatar like mine you should know that I am an authority on skulls, etc (joke).
edit on 20-10-2015 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yea we do when the others don't show all of the facts
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Telepathy3

So much threads on this. Have you used the search function?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Sorry you didn't read it, but your way out of your league is guess.. I'm stating facts about the skull found by various fields of science and their conclusion that the skull is no known deformation or combination of. Do you understand that? You bringing up some skull with a terrible medical condition has no meaning here. No need the attack me or anything, because again, I'm just stating the facts of how and why it's declared not to be caused by any known deformation, mutation or medical condition.
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

All threads on this skull are false information that's been proven wrong since, and/or has missing information
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
if there is so much threads on this skull. Than please link one here which has so many details and evidence or zip it...I am very glad that you posted this. A lot of new information was provided and thank you for that!

It is obviously that it is not human, if your information is correct then we are looking at something different. Maybe another old human category (not likely) or maybe an alien.
To throw away all that is posted and say it is human is well...ignorance?


If it was sick, mutated human child then for starters the teeth would not be so used and DNA would match, eyes socket would be deeper...and that is only small portion of what is wrong with that theory.

but some people will be stubborn and not accept the facts when they should. This is science after all, is it not!?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
a reply to: angryhulk

All threads on this skull are false information that's been proven wrong since, and/or has missing information


All of your references go back to the Starchild Project and Starchildskull.com, hardly unbiased sources. I particularly like the highly prominent donate button on the Starchild Project site.

Why are all other threads on this skull false or missing information? Because you say so?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
a reply to: wmd_2008

Yea we do when the others don't show the facts


EVERYTHING you posted has been discussed before a SEARCH will show you that



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: cuckooold

I don't say anything, the starchild site is sited because it's the only one that uses actual facts found by studies of professionals of various fields of science



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
a reply to: cuckooold

I don't say anything, the starchild site is sited because it's the only one that uses actual facts found by studies of professionals of various fields of science


JUST



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

##Attention Please##



The subject of the OP is the 'Starchild' skull and not the numerous times it's been posted before.

Please discuss the 'Starchild' skull or refrain from comment.

Don't reply to this post.


Thank you



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
the pure facts and abnormalities of the skull will be outlined.


The pure facts are:-

books.google.com.au...=onepage&q&f=false


Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.



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.



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. Novella considers this "conclusive evidence" that the child was both male and human, and that both of his parents must have been human in order for each to have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes

www.theness.com...

So just a human skull



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

The DNA sequencing is relatively new and is ongoing, unless you've got a link, I'm sure that no other post listed every medical condition given as an explanation and described what the condition was and why the skull doesn't have it, along with the new findings presented in this post
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

"Just a human skull"

I'll just refer you to the links above, everything you mention and more is outlined, no deformations and the DNA finding so far that will address your links you posted
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

And by the way, your links are not only outdated and it isn't a full DNA recovery, but having human DNA doesn't mean anything, that means it shares some of the same DNA. Dandy lions and plants share more the 50% of our DNA. The projected estimates from the differences already found will show that it's DNA removes it far further away then the mere 5 percent that differences us from chimpanzees. Just a mere 10% DNA difference and sharing 90% DNA can make an alien being. You didn't quite understand your link you posted
edit on 20-10-2015 by Telepathy3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join