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.

 

Starchild bump

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
The part of the skull that is most baffling is the nasal area. Where there is normally the nasal cavity is absent and there are a pair of strange triangular bones on either side of a thin nasal slit extending to the middle of the eye sockets. It seems Starchild did not breathe air the way all land animals do through a nasal cavity. What's your take on this?

3.bp.blogspot.com...
edit on 23-3-2016 by TaiHaiChen because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-3-2016 by TaiHaiChen because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Looks to me like the front nasal plate is missing from the star scull..




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Has anyone ever attempted to do facial reconstruction on that skull..?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
In my opinion, ETs or Atlantis civilization did genetic engineering on a person and resulted in Starchild. Some of these features are insanely bizarre. Recessed cheek bones. Keep in mind Native Americans have prominent keep bones. No brow ridge. Keep in mind Native Americans have prominent brow ridges. Straight rather than the normally L shaped optic canals. It is the nasal part that defies all logic. It seems Starchild did not have a nose but rather had a book lung that filters air through an organ where the triangular bones are.
edit on 23-3-2016 by TaiHaiChen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Has anyone ever attempted to do facial reconstruction on that skull..?


There is but I don't think it's accurate. How can Starchild have a nose when it does not have a nasal cavity?

img15.deviantart.net...



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Has anyone ever attempted to do facial reconstruction on that skull..?


Yep



www.google.co.uk...=Starchild+skull+reconstruction
edit on 23 3 2016 by skywatcher44 because: Removed



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

beat me to it I see mod delete


edit on -05:00amWed, 23 Mar 2016 10:37:23 -0500am320163723AM03 by ParanoidAmerican because: beat to the punch



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

Snap.. Dont delete yours...

edit on 23 3 2016 by skywatcher44 because: Added



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I heard a lot of mentioning of hydrocephalus. This is hydrocephalus.

www.thedoctorstv.com...

Hydrocephalus does not remove the nasal cavity. It seems, from the Starchild skull, Starchild did not have a nasal cavity, therefore no nose, instead having another organ where the triangular bones are. If so, this would mean Starchild is unlike any land animal on Earth.
edit on 23-3-2016 by TaiHaiChen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Oh, no, not this again. It actually makes me sad that people are so desperate to believe that they cling to this as an example. So, so tiring.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Oh, no, not this again. It actually makes me sad that people are so desperate to believe that they cling to this as an example. So, so tiring.


Why?!!? Because your expectations are unreasonable, or because Pye & company are terrible report designers?

Perhaps IF you actually looked at the data, you might see/find truth and reality! It is after all right there in the data.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just a thought...

Ood perhaps? (Dr Who)

ixquick-proxy.com... a630ffdcc9a435c190999457a31
edit on America/ChicagoWed, 23 Mar 2016 13:39:54 -0500Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:39:54 -05002016Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:39:54 -05002016-03-23T13:39:54-05:00201623America/Chicago by errorcode because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Oh, no, not this again. It actually makes me sad that people are so desperate to believe that they cling to this as an example. So, so tiring.


Why?!!? Because your expectations are unreasonable, or because Pye & company are terrible report designers?

Perhaps IF you actually looked at the data, you might see/find truth and reality! It is after all right there in the data.


You mean the data that has irrefutably shown the skull to be human?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Perhaps the star child absorbed O2 directly through the skin and exhaled CO2 through the nasal slit. After all we are talking alien.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Oh, no, not this again. It actually makes me sad that people are so desperate to believe that they cling to this as an example. So, so tiring.


Why?!!? Because your expectations are unreasonable, or because Pye & company are terrible report designers?

Perhaps IF you actually looked at the data, you might see/find truth and reality! It is after all right there in the data.


You mean the data that has irrefutably shown the skull to be human?


If you manage to find any like that, please send it my way...I'd like to see it!



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Here you go, read over it. Read the citations. You're welcome. Not sure why you'd be so dead set that an obviously deformed, and damaged skull is a secret alien hybrid, but to each their own, I guess.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
There have been billions of humans on this planet. Countless physical deformities throughout time and people find one that fits their narrative and won't let it go. Can we just stop.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: obscurepanda

How about something from a scientist, rather than some person with a blog.

What you have provided is a layman's explanation of something he doesn't understand. It can't possibly be useful for anything! And we most certainly should not base any decision on that article.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: obscurepanda

How about something from a scientist, rather than some person with a blog.

What you have provided is a layman's explanation of something he doesn't understand. It can't possibly be useful for anything! And we most certainly should not base any decision on that article.










This really the sword you wanna fall on mate?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: obscurepanda

How about something from a scientist, rather than some person with a blog.

What you have provided is a layman's explanation of something he doesn't understand. It can't possibly be useful for anything! And we most certainly should not base any decision on that article.




This really the sword you wanna fall on mate?


How about you? I am familiar with the data available and its quality...you haven't enough data to make your case, neither do I. LLoyd Pye was "clever" in that respect and did not release adequate data.

Of what is available, I have some knowledge of the subject (microbiology, genetics) and the testing protocols. As a data professional I have some knowledge of the data that results from the testing, and of course the databases they are contained in. I've actually done some work in that area of science, but that is unrelated...

What I trying to convey is that I don't make these kinds of decision easily, nor for little reason.

Now, IF you want to discuss Pye's data, sure, but you will have to put up with the frustrations of collecting it...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join