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.

 

Science and the Starchild Skull

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I've never been convinced by the "alien" explaination of the Starchild skulls. My personal theory was hydrocephaly, although I know this was contested. On the World Mysteries site I came across a page with better explainations, including x-rays and photos of children with similar conditions... children who are very much human.

Intriguingly enough, it appears to be a homework assignment for an ancient histories class!
www.world-mysteries.com...

In any case, it's the best explaination I've seen so far, and the photographic evidence showing the other children is fairly strong.




posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Byrd

Could that affliction account for the fibrous bone material ? Ive listened to some interviews of Loyd Pye and I have to admit he is less that convincing.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
These skulls are so weird .. I mean scarry



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I agree 100% with Byrd. This seems the most plausable explanation for the skull. These are also very well documented disorders.

Mazzroth- I don't know if these disorders could account for the bone material, I can do some research on conditions that may cause that. Genetic disorders can be the culprit for a wide range of problems. However it is interesting.

UltraLara- It's not very wierd or scary. The remains of a person that had Crouzon’s syndrome, and Hydrocephaly would look very similar if not identical. The starchild skull is somewhat of a mystery but I believe there is a perfectly "human" explanation for the anomalies in the skull.

[edit on 3/10/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
Byrd

Could that affliction account for the fibrous bone material ? Ive listened to some interviews of Loyd Pye and I have to admit he is less that convincing.


What fibrous bone material? I can't seem to find a reference? Can you enlighten me??



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by mazzroth
Byrd

Could that affliction account for the fibrous bone material ? Ive listened to some interviews of Loyd Pye and I have to admit he is less that convincing.


What fibrous bone material? I can't seem to find a reference? Can you enlighten me??


Listen to anything Loyd Pye has to say in interviews by C2C Byrd, he has examined this Skull more than anyone. He continually makes reference to this fibiferous material the skull is made of and says its unique to any of the vertabrates.

[edit on 11-3-2007 by mazzroth]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   

mazzroth
Listen to anything Loyd Pye has to say in interviews by C2C Byrd, he has examined this Skull more than anyone. He continually makes reference to this fibiferous material the skull is made of and says its unique to any of the vertabrates.


I've heard the same thing, I'm still searching for possible genetic disorders though I'll let you know if I find anything. I still believe it can be explained by way of a genetic disorder, but if not, then I'm truly at a loss for words on what it may be.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by ShAuNmAn-X]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzrothListen to anything Loyd Pye has to say in interviews by C2C Byrd, he has examined this Skull more than anyone. He continually makes reference to this fibiferous material the skull is made of and says its unique to any of the vertabrates.


Uhm, I don't have time to listen to sixteen webcasts, waiting for him to make the reference. I did see a site with pictures, and some of the "fibers" are actually bone fibers (bone has a fibrous structure to it.) I'll try to run this past the paleontologist to see what he knows since he's familiar with electron microscopy and microscopic structures of bone.

Some of the microscopic pictures of bone are pretty much what I've seen in human skulls. I'm trying to find a good set of pictures of bone under the microscope for comparison.

While I think he's trying to do a good job, I do have a question about the tools he's using... he seems to be indicating that he's doing this with a dremel tool. That's a possible source of contamination. Biological material is sliced using certain techniques... can't tell what he did or didn't do. The red sure looks like jeweler's rouge or perhaps hematite.

But I'll go look up what I can find.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Here are the most recent DNA test results that lead them to believe that the baby was half alien. Here is a quote from the March 5, 2007 Coast to Coast AM interview regarding the DNA testing that is ongoing.

Full Article

"These two images are the actual gel sheets from Trace Genetics, showing the working copies (not doctored for a more appealing appearance) of the tests that were run on both skulls in the summer of 2003. Notice how they come in bright and clear in the gels, indicating very little degradation.

The top left one shows the results of the mitochondrial DNA (which comes only from mothers) analysis for both skulls. The Adult on the left shows a mother from Haplogroup A, a very typical Mesoamerican type. The Starchild on the right shows that its mother was from Haplogroup C, a rarer but not really unusual type of Mesoamerican. So this proves they were not biologically related; i.e., not a mother and her child, which is what we believed they could be until this result came in.

The 3rd slide shows the gel sheets for the nuclear DNA testing, and this is the money shot. The nuclear DNA comes from inside the cell nucleus, so it reveals the DNA of both the mother AND the father. With the Adult on the left, she is revealed to be a normal human female. With the Starchild on the right, there is NO reading in six attempts! What this means is that, since we know its mother is human, if its father was also human, it WOULD show something in this gel sheet. The fact that it doesn't can only mean that its father is not entirely human or it would produce a human result. "





[edit on 3/11/2007 by infinite8]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I don't think Lord Pye or whoever made the above comments regarding mito DNA (mtDNA) and ancestry actually understands what they are talking about.

Firstly, of course there is little degradation, we are working with mtDNA! This type of DNA is incredibly resilient and lasts thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of years. Just think about it: it's in a semi-condensed, non-reactive form, it's encased in a thick, double membraned structure, and there can be dozens of copies in each cell. Makes sense that it would survive. We even got mtDNA sequence out of fthe Iceman.

Secondly, the haplogroup designations mean just about diddlysquat when you're trying to figure out if someone is related to another person. I personally am a member of haplogroup B. All that means is that after leaving the Middle East, my ancestors migrated to eastern Europe and stopped. All the haplogroup indicates is where your ANCESTORS are from, not where you yourself are from. My mother is American, and my father is Italian, however, if someone were to analyze my haplogroup as this man has, they would think I was from Romania or the Ukraine. See how it doesn't work? You CANNOT apply nuclear DNA (nDNA) logic with mtDNA results. It just doesn't work that way.

If you have any other DNA questions, feel free to ask.

~Mariella



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join