The Starchild Skull

originally posted by: Telepathy3
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 contusion was and was the skull doesn't have it, along with the new findings presented

YOU should search before making the thread the DNA has been discussed on here since at least 2012

As for ancient DNA samples IMPORTANT part in bold.

Ancient DNA is DNA isolated from ancient specimens.[1] It can be also loosely described as any DNA recovered from biological samples that have not been preserved specifically for later DNA analyses. Examples include the analysis of DNA recovered from archaeological and historical skeletal material

DNA may contain a large number of postmortem mutations,increasing with time. Some regions of polynucleotide are more susceptible to this degradation so sequence data can bypass statistical filters used to check the validity of data.

originally posted by: Telepathy3
You didn't quite understand your link you posted

I perfectly understood them, you just do not want to accept that:-

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

What is hard to understand that the skull is from a human child?

The facts from a very accurate comment on the website you posted

David Thompson It's about money, and funding. Their dollars end when the skull is proven to be human.

a reply to: wmd_2008

What do you not understand that if it has a much bigger DNA difference from us to chimpanzees that is a different being

originally posted by: Telepathy3
a reply to: wmd_2008

What do you not understand that if it has a much bigger DNA difference from us to chimpanzees that is a different being

NO what YOU don't dont want to except is that postmotem DNA mutations can account for that

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Thanks for the thread. I, and probably many others, have never heard of the starchild skull, so all this ranting about previous threads is moot. How do I search for something I've never heard of?

How do YOU make a thread of something you never heard of

Sorry, but are you high? I have no idea what you mean...

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Thanks for the thread. I, and probably many others, have never heard of the starchild skull, so all this ranting about previous threads is moot. How do I search for something I've never heard of?

How do YOU make a thread of something you never heard of

Sorry, but are you high? I have no idea what you mean...

You complain about people pointing out it's a subject of previous threads, as the OP knew the subject they should do a search just because YOU had never heard of it is not the point , thats why I posted that.

a reply to: wmd_2008

What's even cooler the your unproven "theory" of its DNA not being fully normal is that you also managed to invent 25 brand new deformations that aren't accidental deformations, genes telling it to grow that way not by accident, and you've managed to put all of your 25 "deformations" into one being never seen before, developed overnight. Amazing

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Thanks for the thread. I, and probably many others, have never heard of the starchild skull, so all this ranting about previous threads is moot. How do I search for something I've never heard of?

How do YOU make a thread of something you never heard of

Sorry, but are you high? I have no idea what you mean...

You complain about people pointing out it's a subject of previous threads, as the OP knew the subject they should do a search just because YOU had never heard of it is not the point , thats why I posted that.

If the OP hadn't made the thread I and many others would never have heard of the starchild skull. After all that's whole point of the forum isn't it? Just because you already know about it you think that's all that matters. What makes you the gatekeeper of knowledge?

a reply to: wmd_2008

well yes they can. But then link us please some other old skull which is like the starchild skull. If it were so then DNA results would be out of human scope for a lot of old bones not just this one?

And also human skull are way to different, even if we group together normal, mutated or sick ones, this one still takes the prize for the weirdest human skull to date. This should ring an alarm that it is different?

I am no scientist or a doctor but it is just a feeling that if it was some kind of sickness than I do not belief that skull would be deformed in that way. Some person on 1. page give us a picture of a diseased skull and it is totally non symmetrical and it is therefore obvious that something was wrong with a person. Here the skull looks natural and there are no such traces of deformation by sickness.

the only potentially realistic explanation for me would be that it was one of a kind mutated human. But that is really unbelievable due to all the differences mentioned in the OP. If the data in OP is real then it is obvious that it is something we do not know.

a reply to: UniFinity

Google this and take your pick ( Or click this for pic's): congenital hydrocephalus

Gotta warn you though, pic's can be somewhat graphic, i could post some here but i might cross the T&C line.

This one is rather innocent.

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

The Starchild site is cited because it is the only true source of unbiased, peer reviewed factual data.

a reply to: Mianeye

thanks for the warning. you were not kidding!

But do the skulls of those have thinner but stronger skull structure compared to ordinary human skull? I bet not!
Also the neck position is even in this case probably similar to ordinary human. But the starchild have different base, as shown in the pictures...

otherwise I agree, this could be possible explanation, but there are a few issues...

a reply to: Mianeye

and I bet those children (or any human) don't have - from the OP:

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

what is that all about? any more info about that? This is a major clue pointing to something different...

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Thanks for the thread. I, and probably many others, have never heard of the starchild skull, so all this ranting about previous threads is moot. How do I search for something I've never heard of?

How do YOU make a thread of something you never heard of

Sorry, but are you high? I have no idea what you mean...

You complain about people pointing out it's a subject of previous threads, as the OP knew the subject they should do a search just because YOU had never heard of it is not the point , thats why I posted that.

If the OP hadn't made the thread I and many others would never have heard of the starchild skull. After all that's whole point of the forum isn't it? Just because you already know about it you think that's all that matters. What makes you the gatekeeper of knowledge?

What you are ignoring is that this is a very old "mystery" that years ago was proved to be nothing more than a deformed human child. Digging it up again is a great way to finance the original authors of the "Starchild is an Alien" books. Or are you saying that people over the last 15 years were all stupid and didn't know what they were investigating?

Since the DNA has been proven to be from both a male human and female human (parents DUH!) the only way any other DNA could be introduced is by some kind of gene splicing or for both the parents to be part human and alien. This lack of 100% DNA proof (due to degredation) is what the OP is clinging to but it leads down a very mad wild path since we now have 3 alien human hybrids, the child and the parents! What about the grandparents .....and so it goes on.

The OP is wrong but this is ATS so we end up with thread that goes round in circles.

Aye, I'm afraid the DNA testing evidence is pretty darned conclusive. Human. Weird. But human.

Looks like a hydrocephalic skull to me. The brain has internal structures that contain water and are used to maintain pressure and temperature. But if the balance goes wrong, the brain starts to expand and that pushes out the skull.

en.wikipedia.org...