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.
originally posted by: hellobruce
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
-- hiddenhumanhistory.com...
Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S 2004:
In general, the skull has the basic components of a human skull: i.e., a frontal bone, two sphenoids, two temporals, two parietals, and an occipital. However, these bones have been markedly reconfigured from the “normal” shapes and positions such bones usually have. In addition, the bone itself has been reconstituted to an equally marked degree, being somewhat less than half as thick as normal human bone, with a corresponding weight of roughly half normal. There is no asymmetrical warping or irregular thinning that is the hallmark of typical human deformity.
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...
originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: bottleslingguy
There was only one point.
originally posted by: tanka418
Yes, Yes...I am aware. Can you account for the 800 - 1600 differences between starchild's mtDNA, and a Human? There should only be about 120...IF mother was actually Human.
Evidence seems to indicate that there may be other "humans" in the neighborhood...the Pleiadians for instance, appear to be a species of Human... (they're not actually from the Pleiades, but a near by star...likely 39 Tauri.)
originally posted by: Agartha
Assuming the DNA tested was really from the Starchild skull and that the analysis is correct (which I doubt as there is no evidence), then what we have here is not alien but simply an unknown ancestor, a hominid / hominoid from planet Earth.
And whilst you believe there is evidence of other humans in the universe, I am yet to see that evidence, I may believe there is intelligent life out there but we are yet to see any. Your quote:
Any other data to discuss?
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
If they want to talk about the cranium they should address the inside contours which don't house a human brain. but they love to skip that part
a reply to: tanka418
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
If they want to talk about the cranium they should address the inside contours which don't house a human brain. but they love to skip that part
a reply to: tanka418
You should notice that they will skip / gloss over any data that doesn't "fit" their preconceived notions...very unscientific!!!
What's funny is they then attempt to use science to justify it...
originally posted by: tanka418
There is absolutely no reason to suspect there is anything wrong with the results. Lloyd Pye has used this "find" in a manner that is quite logical, reasonable, and predictable; IF he wanted to prove it was not Human. So, until you can produce another report that actually contradicts the current findings...
Alternately, IF you choose to not use the available data...leave the discussion until you have something.
The myth / legend of every single "space man" from every single culture ever to exist on Earth makes the "visitors", "space man", etc...a Humanoid1 And you think this is not evidence?!!?
PS: It doesn't really matter IF the DNA is from the Starchild Skull or not...it still represents an "unknown species" which is the whole point of the analysis.
originally posted by: bottleslingguy If they want to talk about the cranium they should address the inside contours which don't house a human brain. but they love to skip that part
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.
starchildproject.com...
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.
originally posted by: Agartha
There are plenty of reasons to suspect the lab 'results' posted on the Starchild sites, as I have explained many times before. And I will leave the discussion when it suits me, thank you very much.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: Agartha
There are plenty of reasons to suspect the lab 'results' posted on the Starchild sites, as I have explained many times before. And I will leave the discussion when it suits me, thank you very much.
1. Perhaps you could reiterate your objections...leaving out, of course the BS!...oh wait...that's your whole argument. Because you insist on playing the insipid "peer review" game. not realizing that it is only a mechanism for third parties to make more money off of some scientists work by promising some kind of ego stroke. I'm sorry kid, but I'm an old engineer, I work with "white papers" and don't need no peer review! Besides, I am sufficiently intelligent, educated, and experienced to recognize the quality of the work being presented...that is what all those years in college afford those who "stick it out"...maybe you should have done that...
2. If you insist on acting the fool and remaining in this, or indeed any other, discussion; then please afford the rest of us the curtesy of addressing the data! As opposed to complaining about it...
Now, unless you can actually say something about the current relevant data; I think you are done!
originally posted by: Agartha
So we have a smaller skull but a larger brain. Nothing alien here, it happens to us humans: it is called Chiari malformation.
originally posted by: tanka418
1. Perhaps you could reiterate your objections...leaving out, of course the BS!...oh wait...that's your whole argument. Because you insist on playing the insipid "peer review" game. not realizing that it is only a mechanism for third parties to make more money off of some scientists work by promising some kind of ego stroke. I'm sorry kid, but I'm an old engineer, I work with "white papers" and don't need no peer review! Besides, I am sufficiently intelligent, educated, and experienced to recognize the quality of the work being presented...that is what all those years in college afford those who "stick it out"...maybe you should have done that...
2. If you insist on acting the fool and remaining in this, or indeed any other, discussion; then please afford the rest of us the curtesy of addressing the data! As opposed to complaining about it...
Now, unless you can actually say something about the current relevant data; I think you are done!
originally posted by: Agartha
Assuming the DNA tested was really from the Starchild skull and that the analysis is correct (which I doubt as there is no evidence), then what we have here is not alien but simply an unknown ancestor, a hominid / hominoid from planet Earth.
originally posted by: Agartha
All I have been doing so far is to critically analyze the data and posting here what I think of it based on the available evidence. I am not complaining about it, I am simply pointing out where it fails to convince me and why. I am not going to agree with something that I think it's wrong or full of faults, I will disagree with it and back it up with my own evidence. This is how grown ups discuss things.
So if you could please go back to my posts you will see that I have been discussing the latest data, my last post to you, for example, is a reply to the mtDNA differences nonsense the pro-alien site talks about, which you have failed to acknowledge. That is an example of me critically analyzing their 'data' and posting my opinion and findings here.
originally posted by: tanka418
originally posted by: draknoir2
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Not much point to discussing the topic with you.
All you are dong is deliberately attempting to disrupt the current discussion.