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: 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
originally posted by: tanka418
IF this is real then you won't have any trouble providing corroborating data.
the fact that DNA differs by as much as it does is sufficient.
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....
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....
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.
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'!
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Why do people still talk about this when the DNA tests have proven it's human.