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: 10
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

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


Well, this really isn't data...its more like opinion. But...


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.
-- hiddenhumanhistory.com...

You should check it out; several medical professionals say it is not any of the deformities you hypothesize. This is an example of the "straw grasping" you are exhibiting. You have an empty argument.




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.


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.

This is another "straw", you very simply cannot tailor the data to suit your desired outcome...data is sort of an "all or nothing" sort of thing!





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...


Obsolete data, otherwise, it is hardly conclusive...other animals also have them...(X and Y chromosomes)

Is that the best you can do? Isolated opinion, misinterpretation, and obsolete data? Sorry man; but, that don't feed the Wolf...

Go to the previous page of posts and see my post about mother's data.



edit on 25-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: bottleslingguy

There was only one point.



I don't think snarkiness is on topic. this line of bs you're speaking is all there is left to "debunking" this skull. lol it's called desperation



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
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


edit on 26-10-2015 by bottleslingguy because: anal



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


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.



Chimpanzees mtDNA contains 1462 differences from the human mtDNA (and they are our closest living relative, sharing 98% of our DNA).

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.

thenaturalhistorian.com...

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:



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.)


Any other data to discuss?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

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.



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.



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?


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?!!?

Other data...be very careful what you ask for!

While I'm not sure IF this is really a different species...here is evidence of non-terrestrial Humanoid species, known to visit Earth.

alien.wolfmagick.com...

This of course covers the Zeta Reticulan Grays...a creature of modern myth, that while probably not Human, are most certainly Humanoid, from a star 40 ly from here, and of course visiting and interacting with Terrestrials.

Arguments for the other two Humanoid species visiting aren't as strong, but extant nonetheless. Though it is a good "bet" that the Nommo are what most refer to as "reptilian", and the others (Pleiadians) are Human. But there is rather little evidence...only several thousand years of Terrestrial (Human) history.

Anyway...you asked for other data; there it is! Please be sure to address the data, not your fantasies.


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.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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...



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

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...


That they do. Or they will move the goalpost and special plead results contrary to their claims.

Wait... you were talking about Pye and his gang, right?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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.


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.



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?!!?


Myths and legends are not real. Or are we also suppose to believe Minotaurs were real? Vampires?
You may choose to believe old tales as evidence of alien visits and that's fine, but don't expect others to do so too.
I need tangible 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.


We are discovering unknown hominid species all the time, nothing unusual about that, but they are all terrestrial.

And regarding this:




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


You are probably talking about this, point 20 in your Starchild site:




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...



What is so alien about it?
There is nothing to say about it as deformities happen all the time, even in this time and age: children born with very small brains, half brains, brains outside the skull, etc, but that doesn't make them alien - microhydranencephaly, anencephaly, etc.

But this (from the OP):



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.


So we have a smaller skull but a larger brain. Nothing alien here, it happens to us humans: it is called Chiari malformation.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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!



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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!



Here's an example of what you consider relevant data, Anthra... err, tanka:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not much point to discussing the topic with you.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

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.



You can't be serous!!!

This isn't even a fair "straw grab"...seriously, this condition doesn't even talk about the brain being "to large", though it probably could. And, in the starchild skull; it isn't so much that the brain was larger than normal in a smaller than normal skull...it is the fact that the internal volume of the starchild skull is greater than a Human adult, while being the size of a human child's skull...

You may have difficulty grasping that, but it makes the skull quite unique I'm sure.

You are grasping at straws, and making absolutely no progress or sense.


edit on 26-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)


(post by tanka418 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

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!


LOL You do like to repeat you are of age and educated, eh? For your information I am not a kid, I am a 45 year old woman with a degree in Medical Sciences, but we are not here to talk about our CV, so can we continue with the topic?

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.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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.



Was just thinking about this; it seems logical that IF the DNA was from some source other than the skull, that Pye would have dropped the skull like a hot potato and used the "real" source instead.

And, on the "correct analysis" part...you are aware that all of the analysis is carried out by a robot that can't be easily influenced by Human attempts. The only two "entry" points in the procedure is the selection of the "primer" and the preparation of the sample. The primer is designed by their geneticist, the sample prepared by a technician. There is little probability of the introduction of "strange" results. for instance; in the mtDNA there area few missing elements, and more than a few extras...it would be virtually impossible to design a primer that allow that if it wasn't actually there.

Let me explain that another way: think of your DNA as a compressed and encoded file. The primer is the "key" that unlocks the file, and, serves as the decoding key as well, kind of like a "public encryption key". If the "key" is not correct...there are no results.

So...the data becomes kind of "self validating"...This may be difficult for you to grasp, but, I assure you it is real. Perhaps you should ask another computer scientist...



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

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.


Okay...

I find the reasons you state to be based on a misunderstanding of the content.

For instance; you object to the notion of "alien". While I can understand that, the use of the term "alien" is entirely appropriate, given the definition of the word: "alien". If you want to argue that its not extraterrestrial; you won't find much argument from me. However, IF you want to argue that it is entirely Human; you will find great resistance here.

Personally; it seems that if all you want to do is incorrectly and inappropriately argue the semantics of "alien", then we should quit the discussion.

Another instance: You missed the point of the bit about the internal nature of the skull. You mentioned something that might share some features, but, clearly are not otherwise related...the important point there is that the internal volume of the skull is larger than a typical adult Human. This is significant, and vastly different than the condition you brought up.

These kind of "misses" are the kinds of things I see in all of your arguments, they give the impression that you are cherry picking the data...something we simply cannot do (Drac would do well to understand this...actually; we all would).



edit on 26-10-2015 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

I read your post about the mtdna and it did not make sense to me.

You stated the differences in monkeys to human and tried to relate that to proving this starchild is human and that the starchild mtdna and those of a human mtdna are different. Guess what the starchild does not match the dna of a human or an ape fully.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.




Actually I'm attempting to clarify your perspective [bias] on the topic of extraterrestrial DNA analysis with your own "prior art", which speaks for itself.

edit on 26-10-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
There is absolutely no reason to suspect there is anything wrong with the results.


Very true, and the results show it is human! But some people are trying to push the agenda it is somehow alien!



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
as far as what you said about myths, it's interesting how ancient myths have similar themes even though, supposedly those cultures never had any contact with one another and they all accredit their histories to space people.


a reply to: Agartha



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
what do the results of the cranium laser scan prove? that the brain was not human. add to that non-human eyes, non-human ears, non-human sinus, non-human muscle attachments, non-human foramen magnum, non-human sets of teeth, you are clinging to old data.


a reply to: hellobruce




top topics



 
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join