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: 4
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

I can't...because I said I'm not claiming it's alien, and I don't hold that belief, just the possibility that maybe it could be.

Possibility, not probability.

But in any case, at some point, if aliens have been here and left biological evidence, there's going to be a discovery of a "first" example. Until then, no one can show you an example, and I think you know that.




posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Telepathy3
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.





Based on the expansion of what remains of the skulls zygomatic arches, it would show that the lower face of the star child 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.


I edited down part of your post to just include these points. When I look at this "maybe a child" but "grown to adult", scenario, I see a horrific injury to the baby either in vitro or shortly after birth.

The pressed look to the back of the skull and the missing parts at the front make me wonder if the child was maybe carried off by a predator who (horrifically for the baby) held down the infants head and proceeded to tear its face off, but was rescued before the predator could finish. Any number of predators at the time in that region could accomplish this; Pumas, Jaguars, Wolves and Coyotes.

Since the infant was miraculously spared, the adults tried to preserve life and the child somehow survived, horribly disfigured by the encounter.

The other alternative in my mind is some trauma suffered by the mother to be while the child was still in the womb and as yet, not fully developed.

Wouldn't be the first time a predator carried off an infant, nor the first time a mother to be suffered some horrible injury.

As far as Star Children, I didn't know there were other confirmed cases to compare it to.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

What I know is that making the leap from "anomalous" to "alien" is scientifically impossible without knowing what "alien" is. The existence of aliens, much less aliens with skulls and DNA, is the purest of speculation. And yet you'll see people equate the ever diminishing unknown aspects with undeniable proof of intelligent extraterrestrial humanoid life.

All evidence, albeit filtered through Pye's interpretation, points to human and ZERO evidence points to Extraterrestrial... no matter how much green clay you use.
edit on 21-10-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

It does not seem prudent to wait until we find an alien to verify the alien we already found.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: draknoir2

It does not seem prudent to wait until we find an alien to verify the alien we already found.



Strange logic.

Alien, perhaps.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: cuckooold
I particularly like the highly prominent donate button on the Starchild Project site.


Having a highly prominent donate button on a site is not a reason to discredit it...assuming that you don't think that ATS is a discredited site simply because it has a prominent donate button.

Are there people on the internet claiming that ATS is the only reliable source for some otherwise unmentioned scientific information?

Does ATS purposefully promote a particular idea while trying to get people to donate?

I mean, other than "Deny Ignorance," which is what people in this thread are trying to do.

Harte



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
using the Novella article proves you aren't up to date and have missed quite a lot. Explain the Starchild's FOXp2 gene.


a reply to: hellobruce


That only matters if you choose to believe what Pye said about that particular gene.

Harte



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: SlapMonkey

.
All evidence, albeit filtered through Pye's interpretation, points to human and ZERO evidence points to Extraterrestrial... no matter how much green clay you use.


@WMD2008, HelloBruce, others...

IF this is real then you won't have any trouble providing corroborating data.

Although, it appears to me that all of yall are stuck and now require obsolete / invalid data to support your position.

And, Drac...you know perfectly well that an "alien" skull isn't necessary...the fact that DNA differs by as much as it does is sufficient.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
IF this is real then you won't have any trouble providing corroborating data.


Hold on, it is not up to others to disprove the silly "it is alien" theory, it is up to those making that claim to prove it. Which they have not done, as the DNA shows it is human!


the fact that DNA differs by as much as it does is sufficient.


The DNA shows it is human....



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Sufficient for what... reinforcement of personal beliefs?

No amount of "difference" equals aliens, however what we do have is a human mother and father... and a lot of straw grasping.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
IF this is real then you won't have any trouble providing corroborating data.


Hold on, it is not up to others to disprove the silly "it is alien" theory, it is up to those making that claim to prove it. Which they have not done, as the DNA shows it is human!


the fact that DNA differs by as much as it does is sufficient.


The DNA shows it is human....


You misunderstand...

Yes Pye, et al have made their claim, they have provide a dataset to corroborate that claim. As they should.

YOU have made a counter claim, that the DNA evidence shows it to be Human...yet, you provide absolutely no supporting data. Thus YOU are wrong and need to provide the data upon which you base your opinion.

The fact that the starchild has not proven itself to YOU is actually irrelevant...at least until you support your position.

IF you are correct this should be a "walk in the park"

So...lets see that dataset of yours...

@Drac...so no amount of "difference" will prove its not human? Then what about Chimp DNA, that isn't so distinctly non-human, yet it is an entirely different species. One, by the way, that IF you test it's DNA like you would a Human, would "seem" to be Human with somewhat messed up markers at the second and eleventh chromosomes.

The reality here children is; Lloyd Pye has made an assertion, and provided a good quantity of supporting data. The skeptics here have denied the assertion, and provided absolutely nothing to support their opinion...looks like LLoyde Pye wins that argument!

In view of the datasets available, the only logical position is that the "Starchild" is real, and non-human...at least until there is other data to indicate otherwise.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tanka418
IF this is real then you won't have any trouble providing corroborating data.


Hold on, it is not up to others to disprove the silly "it is alien" theory, it is up to those making that claim to prove it. Which they have not done, as the DNA shows it is human!


the fact that DNA differs by as much as it does is sufficient.


The DNA shows it is human....


That meme was just fabricated by famous celebrity debunkers, but doesn't hold any water. Equal responsibility rests on everyone to prove a claim including your claims.
The moron debunker named James McGaha was one of the first imbeciles to promote that ridiculous argument that he never has to show evidence for his own claims, and all the burden rests on those of the opposing side of the fence. That is ludicrous. Like you.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.


Good question, I suppose some people just desperately want to believe in aliens, so they ignore the facts that the DNA proves this is human to push "it must be aliens'!
edit on 22-10-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.


Good question, I suppose some people just desperately want to believe in aliens, so they ignore the facts that the DNA proves this is human to push "it must be aliens'!


I applaud them for having this done by proper professionals (which destroys the argument that real labs would never do this kind of work) ... but the results are in, time to let the fantasy go.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Telepathy3

I see natural explanations for all the points you have mentioned, for example:

-Main one: human skulls are 6mm thick, the picture you posted is misleading as we are not Cro-Magnon anymore and our skulls have gotten a lot thinner! Also, to properly compare two skulls you need to examine the same area on both as skulls are not uniform in thickness, and the picture they have on the site doesn't show that.

-Aluminum: the area in Mexico where it was found has a very high aluminum levels in its soil which may get into drinking water and thus explain the elevated aluminum levels in the bones. Don't forget that bones chemical composition vary according to the environment (this regarding to the carbon and oxygen).

-High collagen is very common in children with progeria (the skull).

I could go on but really this is all hearsay, I have not yet seen a real report / article about it, only what the pro-sites write about. If it was really alien, they would have sent samples to labs around the world to confirm it, thee are lots of people that would love it to be true... or they would have posted the lab reports for us to see.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
what we are thinking is totally different what the people in power are thinking...well maybe?

If we can agree that there are aliens already visiting us in some form. And the government really is keeping that a secret, than why do you think that they would allow a skull to mess up their plans with the cover up?

I personally have seen a real ufo and know, that something wired is going on in the sky. The only question is who was behind the "wheel".

And if we take into account, for instance that aliens are here already and everything is a secret, then this situation fits exactly with what is happening in this case with the skull. A lot of different research papers with totally opposing opinions so we cannot have a more direct understanding and have to doubt everything.
edit on 14455204001026October2610263115 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.


Its quite simple actually; the DNA results do not indicate it is Human. In fact, the nuclear DNA indicates distinctly non-human...of course, with the Pye camp withholding data as they have, we are left to guess about far too much, thus leading to misinterpretation as is evidenced by your remarks.


(post by Poppcocked removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




top topics



 
49
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join