It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Starchild Forensic Reconstruction.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:11 AM
I'm going to assume you haven't read any of my comments regarding my own theories as to how this deformity came to be, so I'm going to be generous and say that just because there isn't a plethora of these deformities, doesn't mean there aren't more out there.

Absence of proof, is not proof of absence as they say.

I would suggest you take into account the genetic testing thus far, as well as look into why hydro, and brachocephalics do not apply to this deformity.

I took on this project as a skeptic, and today I still am skeptical. I was not paid to make this piece, I did it because I was curious, and wanted to know more. I'm waiting to hear what the genetic results are, and if you had any common sense, you'd wait til all the facts are in until you come to your own conclusions.

I have my own ideas, and have shared them with Lloyd as well as the other people involved with this project and have had a lot of positive feedback on it. I would suggest perhaps you read the stuff on Lloyd's site, and that way you can better aquaint yourself with the facts thus far.

As I have stated before, Lloyd and the rest of the group he works with would be happy with either outcome, as their goal isn't to make a ton of money, it's to get to the truth. I know more about this project through my work with this than most people do, and I'm still on the fence. So is everyone else involved I might add.

I would love for this thing to come back as being extra-terrestrial, but am just as happy if it were some new oddity. So please don't think for a minute I'm here hocking wares, or promoting something as being real when I don't have all the answers. I wish I did. If I could hire a the best genetic analysts and their labs myself, I'd do it.

Then again, there's always the lottery.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:44 AM
Hi Tommy,

Just wanted to say that your modeling skills are impressive, and shows that you are made for your trade!

I don't know if we can ever assume that there is no alien life, especially with the new planet that has come to light.

If there were hybrid projects then this does show in some way the combination of features that appear between a human and what I would guess as being a grey.

However, it is very unfortunate that this is the only one in existence, if only more were found, then it would give credence to the possibility of a hybrid race, but with only the one skull, it would be hard to demonstrate whether or not, like the elephant man, this child was simply nature gone awry or a real genetic result of a hybrid.

Is it possible to determine the sex from the model? I mean men have more prominent features than women, so if you were to guess, which way would you go?

Good luck in your career

[edit on 26-4-2007 by deaman88]

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by tigpoppa
one deformed skull is not proof of an alien race. in fact it proves that aliens do not exist since there is only 1.
it also doesnt take into account the congenital effects associated with this person. autism causes deformations along with more commonly Brachycephaly which if you put the starchild skull over these other people it fits perfectly.
case closed and proof that aliens do not exist.

Nice logic there, If the skull turned out to be an alien hybrid how many skulls would it take to constitute proof? If it turned out to be a deformity and had nothing to do with aliens, how does that prove aliens don't exist?

Excellent work Tommy, The Starchild site has much more information since I last checked it. I'm impressed, it seems there is a real effort to get to the bottom of this.
I find it a little disturbing how they are drawing comparisons to morgellons fibres, although inconclusive if it turned out to be correct what could it mean?
Keep us posted with any new info.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 10:49 AM
great work man

you said that theyre running more DNA tests on it- do you know when they will be done?
[just thinking out loud] could this be the reason why that guy at the Vatican is talking about aliens all of a sudden?

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 10:53 AM

Originally posted by gone_wrong
could this be the reason why that guy at the Vatican is talking about aliens all of a sudden?

If you're referring to Balducci, he was talking about them 9 years ago and has recently been dragged out for what looks like some marketing for a DVD.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 11:17 AM
Hope you don't mind. I just wanted to see your reconstruction with more human elements as well as see how much I could make it look like your typical alien. In the human pic, I changed the skin tone, added eyebrows and hair and toned the eye color to a deeper brown. In the alien pic, I simply blacked out the eyes, changed the skintone and removed the ears.


[edit on 26-4-2007 by tyranny22]

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 01:58 PM
now, that is very interesting to see. it could be seen as either human or alien in that rendition.

With how the auditory and nasal areas are formed on the skull, it is logical to think that the nose/ears may barely be evident. It would also be interesting to see the teeth.

has there been any reasearch done on the skull musculature and how it impacted chewing? I would bet that eating was something this child did infrequently, judging by the ears. The act of chewing doesn't make it very easy to avoid ear infections.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 02:27 PM
It would be wonderful if the data from a 3D scan were to be made available. Is that possible? Has one been done? If you have already mentioned that please forgive. I'm pretty sure there are a few of us here who could do in 3D pretty much what you have done physically. Including the interior of the scull. That would make it possible for anyone with the software to study this scull. Photorealistic renders could be done with hair and skin and even the muscles of the face could be animated to see how that would work.

I understand the owner(s) may not be agreeable. There is also free software available to view if one of the common formats is used. It would also make rapid prototyping possible. I think the original to create a mold from could be produced for around $400 to $600. I was on a link to a company yesterday that is doing wax and plastic for very low prices in that size range. They came highly recomended and guarantee confidentiality on prototypes.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 03:15 PM
I am thinking Dan Dare Pilot of the Future here but does it not look a bit like The Mekon?

I can understand the "skin tone" and appearance are basically the result of the process but would not a normal forensic recon have variants in style and colour of hair, eyebrows?

If you done a forensic recon of an unidentified John Doe and didn't attempt to give it some kind of familiar look I doubt the John Does own mommy wouldn't recognise it.

I know the DNA studies etc are not helpful for giving the genetic orientation of the "Starchild" but surely a few good guesses? Or is it that the custodian of the "Starchild Skull" would only allow recon if it helped to sell the story?

I am not dissing you bro but it is amazingly convenient that the first released pix look like The Mekon.

IMHO terming the artifact "The Starchild Skull" has removed objectivity from any investigation, the very phrase will bias opinion one way or the other depending on your belief and assumption.

My personal belief and assumption is that it is just a mutation. I have no fancy relevant degrees but consider that there are 6 billion on this piece of rock right now and none are perfect. Infant mortality takes many forms. How many billions of humans have been born over the millenia and how many were born imperfect but viable "biologically"? I can see the scenario where a deformed child could be considered a gift from the gods rather than a visitation of the devil. Perhaps worshipped and nurtured.

It is not beyond the possibility that its deformed cranium allowed significant brain differential, perhaps making it useful. On the other hand maybe it was totally useless but was lucky enough to be born in a loving community.

To be honest I do find the whole thing a bit distasteful and disrespectful to the life it once was. Any ancient remains should be respected for what they once were...not treated merely as a curiosity like some Victorian Freak Show.

2 cents

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 04:09 PM
I have no idea what a Mekon is. Therefore, there is no "Convenience".

Second, I used this material called Apoxie Sculpt which in its Natural tone, usually dries either flesh tone, or an eggshell color depending on the batch.

If I had been working on a real skull, I would have likely used plasticene clay on it, and it wouldn't have had the translucency, nor would it have been a permanent medium.

When you see the thing with hair on it, and with the skintone altered, you get what looks like a goofy looking kid, which is what it would look like if I'd put hair on it.

I used a PROGERIAN template for the reconstruction, along with meso-american features, coupled with that of what was available with the skull. Why would I do this? Because the progerian template is about as close as it gets to the right aesthetic.

What is starting to irritate me, is the presumption that I gave Lloyd what he wanted. Nope, that's not the case at all. If I wanted to sculpt an alien, I would have went the whole nine yards, gave it black eyes, more scaly skin, and that would have been that. I wouldn't have wasted hours of my time, or hundreds of dollars making molds off a skull and partial palate, when I could have just as easily taken the photos, scaled them to size, made a rough form, and done the exact same thing.

I worked with the information that was there, and filled in the blanks.

I've already stated adinfinitum that I am a skeptic, and am skeptical of any and all claims that this is an alien. There are DNA tests that are in the works as far as I know that will not be known for some time. I think it has to do with the fact that they're doing extensive testing, and you'd have to talk to Lloyd about it. He's happy to answer questions.

I do not mind if people alter the images so long as they do NOT use them without crediting me as the source of them.



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 04:41 PM
I think its just constructive conversation going on TommyChaos, I don't think anyone is accusing or anything.

One question, what age do you peg the owner of the skull to have died in your opinion?

Also here is Lloyd Pye sites for reference:

Also here's a question for all (i'm not taking sides as a skeptic or believer):

What would both sides say/do/act if another similar, and even go as far to hypothesize, if an almost exact skull was found (taking into account age and other minor differences)?

[edit on 26-4-2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:02 PM
Greatlakes, I think for me, a big part of the answer would be in where the skull was found. Another in the same area as the first, assuming we could pin down that to at least a few hundred square miles, would mean something different than one found in Australia.

Another from the same area would point more towards a genetic factor, whereas one from a completely new location would, IMO, be more likely pointing towards mutation.

Having said that, it is only an opinion as to likelyhood, and an argument could be made either way using the same data.

btw, Tommy, I for one accept your work as stated, a job you did well and without bias. Alien skeptics, just like true believers, tend to see EBEs in everything.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:21 PM
I'm jealous of you being able to participate in something like this. No judgment from my end whatsoever. I'd be thrilled if it were proven to be Alien. I agree skepticism is mandatory at this point.

I'm still curious about the question I asked in my last post? For my part I'd use the scan more for practice in my hobby than for anything serious. I could easily understand if putting the data from a scan out there was not an option. Just asking?

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 05:26 PM
I think Tommy did a great job as well.

As for the "second find" question.

Dunno. There are all kinds of misformed skulls that have been found. None quite like this one though. Most other misformed skull's physical characteristics have too many likenesses to a normal human's skull, such as ear placement, normal eye sockets, etc.

Isn't the skull rather thick compared to a normal human's skull. It's very intriguing to say the least. I'm not going to say this is a human/alien hybrid, but it's definitely a unique find. I'll have to go with genetic defect on the evidence we currently have. Were another one found, I'd maybe I'd rethink my stance. I gotta wait for the DNA evidence to give a solid opinion. But, then I guess all the work would be done and we'd have a definite answer. btw, why's it taking so long to evalute the DNA? I know it's a long process, but I heard of starchild a while back. seems like they could have some sort of conclusions by now if it's definitely 100% human. wouldn't you think?

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 06:07 PM
In comparison to a human skull aged between 5 and 10 years old, it is slightly thinner. At least that's what I can ascertain from the MRI Rapid Prototype I have.

When you look at it, there's a lack of a sphenoid bone inside. The sphenoid inside your skull is shaped like a bird, or a butterfly, and this one doesn't seem to have one. It's as if the skull absorbed it.

With that said, it's definitely unusual. As far as where it was found, it was found somewhere in Chihuahua Mexico. Even that could be debated as it was removed from a cave I believe, set under a tree along with the complete remains, and for some reason or another when the girl who found it went back, there was some kind of flood or something that washed the things away. Again, I have no idea what the true story is on this as I got a sample copy of Lloyd's book, and haven't had time to read it yet.

I know that there are plenty of skeptical people out there, I would know, I'm one of them. What I don't enjoy is having to tell people over and over again that I'm not the owner of the skull. I'm not a guy who sees aliens behind every tree and bush. I didn't get paid, so there was no bias towards making it look like an alien. The materials did that alone. If I'd painted it, it definitely would have looked far more alien like.

As far as getting a rapid prototype of the lower mandible to see how the whole thing works, not possible as there was no lower mandible, I fabricated it based on the partial upper maxilla, so there's no code to work from in that regard.

I know a lot of people would love to do the CG thing with the piece, but they'd likely be just doing the exact same thing I did, only likely making theirs more alien, or basing their work on the parts that I created.

If people want to do their own rendition of the Starchild, which like another poster said, elicits a preconceived notion of being alien, do what I did, and start from scratch. Copying, or building on other people's work is taking the lazy man's route. When I saw all of Lloyd's other artist's interpretations I realized that they all had the same look, the same generic features and they were based on nothing more than speculation. I actually had something tangible to work from.

I encourage everyone to contact Lloyd and talk to him about this project of his.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by tommychaos
When I saw all of Lloyd's other artist's interpretations I realized that they all had the same look, the same generic features and they were based on nothing more than speculation. I actually had something tangible to work from.

I encourage everyone to contact Lloyd and talk to him about this project of his.

Yea I agree the artist impressions are not so hot! Heres the page link:

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 11:15 PM
Thanks for the info.
Credit to you of course. Just sharpening my skills. Please don't judge by this I'm on a laptop with no tablet or brush presets. I left out any scalp hair as it hides the shape.

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 11:19 PM
Good work to all I like it, the last pic is a nice compromise.

TommyChaos, has Lloyd seen your model yet, just curious to know the reaction from your client? I mean going from a skull to what you made has to be surprising for him. Beats the hell outa all those renderings too.

[edit on 26-4-2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 11:32 PM
I looked at those "artists" renditions earlier. He needs to pop a few dollars into a pro's pocket and beef up his site. He will get more attention that way.

Very interesting topic. I'd never seen this so thanks again

I just read your last post. I hope you did not misunderstand my questions. I know this is not your skull and your position was clear. I thought you might have had info like that before I ask the other person.

Very nice work and the material clearly has the right tones for skin. It was easy to enhance and the detail is great.

[edit on 4/26/2007 by Blaine91555]

posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 01:54 AM
The reconstruction seems to conclude a very earthly disease. Progeria.
Although I would love it if the skull remnant was an alien or hybrid it seems very logical to compare this reconstuction to the below picture.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in