Starchild Skull DNA Testing Proves Not From This Earth

Hi guys

I think he is giving enough evidence.

Just the craneal bone is thinner but harder than ours, the general configurations of the face are of a humanoid yet not a primate and not a human being, and the DNA confirms his/her mother was a human, but can't extract the other DNA.

Also, for those that have said that ETs and Earthlings can't mate/mix, I remit myself to the bible where it says that the fallen angels had intercourses with human girls and had children... so if they could why would we think that an ET can't be compatible enough to procreate with a human being?

Originally posted by vigusa
Also, for those that have said that ETs and Earthlings can't mate/mix, I remit myself to the bible where it says that the fallen angels had intercourses with human girls and had children... so if they could why would we think that an ET can't be compatible enough to procreate with a human being?

The assumption that ET's and Earthlings can't mate is not based on any data. It is pure conjecture, based on emotion and speculation. However, the use of the christian bible as proof to the contrary doesn't help either. That book has been so twisted, mistranslated, and in the first place manipulated during its writing and collection (it wasn't written as a consecutive book - it was gathered together from a large selection of writings at what was called the Council of Nicaea, where what was to be included was voted upon, by fallible men, and from questionable sources. Not only that, much of the writing contained therein looks far too much like far older religions which just happened to influence Hebrew culture, to be able to call it a unique book in and of itself.) that there is very little use for it as evidence for much of anything. It might be a starting point for further investigation through other channels, but that is about all. I'm not at all trying to attack the christian religion - I'm just saying that relying on it for historical record is a bit unreliable, to say the least.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by kevintorvalds]

Personally, I think aliens tried contacting us however they got confused on deciding which Internet provider to use and just left. When trying to interbreed they also got irritated at the Eharmony system and gave up.

Hydrocephalus - Link to article.

Hydrocephalus (pronunciation IPA: /ˌhaɪˌdɹoʊˈsɛfələs/) is a term derived from the Greek words "hydro" meaning water, and "cephalus" meaning head, and this condition is sometimes known as "water on the brain". People with hydrocephalus have abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the ventricles, or cavities, of the brain. This may cause increased intracranial pressure inside the skull and progressive enlargement of the head, convulsion, and mental disability.

I thought that scull was debunked long ago. There was a thread at one time from a person who reconstructed the head and it looked identical to a Hydrocephalus persons head.

The argument he makes is ludicrous.

Notice how thin the scull is in the bottom image.

[edit on 12/7/2008 by Blaine91555]

reply to post by Blaine91555


Those who are testing and examining the Starchild skull have considered this. While it may look to be the answer to the weird shape of the Starchild skull, there are differences. From the Starchild Project website: THE STARCHILD: HYDROCEPHALY

reply to post by DroolsAlot


It's a huge leap to say "not of this earth" because the DNA isn't recognized. It could just mean a previously undiscovered branch of early hominids, which is still scientifically very important.

It's still essentially "humanoid" if only on an aesthetic level which to me minimizes the possibility of it being "alien". Why would an alien from another solar system or galaxy have the same characteristics of humans from across light years of distance? If this is a hybrid (just playing along for a moment) or a precursor of homo sapiens then why not have the world's best anthropologists look at this thing?

Originally posted by reaverto

It's a huge leap to say "not of this earth" because the DNA isn't recognized. It could just mean a previously undiscovered branch of early hominids, which is still scientifically very important.
.

True. I think we've established this, but for some reason people keep missing it. However, it isn't proof the other way either.

It's still essentially "humanoid" if only on an aesthetic level which to me minimizes the possibility of it being "alien".

How?! If I were to paint an apple to look like an orange, and somehow crush it and pit its skin and such, so that it seemed like an orange, does its seeming like an orange minimize the possibility of its being an apple? Or how about this. If we take a native born African, modify the DNA of his sperm to remove any racial characteristics, and fertilize a caucasian woman's egg, and when this child is born (yes the genetic stuff is complicated, this is just a simple example so don't get all technical on it, you can clearly see the point of the argument if you just look at it), you see a little caucasian-looking baby, with no racial characteristics of a native born African, does that minimize the possibility that his father was not a black man from Africa? To both the answer is a clear no. So why, if this child has some human characteristics, does that automatically make you assume that it's almost impossible for the child's father to have been extraterrestrial? This is not proof that the child is fully human. It is not proof that the child is part ET. Without the DNA, there's no proof either way. But lack of proof doesn't rule out the possibility, when there is no evidence to the contrary.

[quote Why would an alien from another solar system or galaxy have the same characteristics of humans from across light years of distance?


Why not? Or how about this: why would such and such fish in this lake on such and such continent have the same characteristics of this so and so fish in this completely separate lake, clear on the other side of the planet? That's a nice simple example.
Again, does the lack of evidence rule out the possibility, when there is no evidence to the contrary? No. This is simple fallacy. Mere speculation. Until proper evidence is brought forth stating that there is no such thing as intelligent life on other planets with the same characteristics as humans on Earth, the possibility still stands. Neither theory nor statistics can prove one way or the other without physical evidence.

If this is a hybrid (just playing along for a moment) or a precursor of homo sapiens then why not have the world's best anthropologists look at this thing?

Why not have the same scientists who studied other parts of the pyramids and such in Egypt study the remaining areas? Why instead seal them off completely with no valid reason for doing so?
Why not get every person on earth who can translate Sumerian writing to work on translating the numerous tablets sitting in storage?
Why not allow archaeological exploration of the ruins around Hayu Marca, Peru?

When you have the answer, please let us know. Because I doubt we'll have it any time soon.

Originally posted by NavalFC
However fermi's paradox also calls into question why they havent colonized the entire galaxy yet

How do you know that 'they' haven't?

Humans have colonised Earth, so at least this particular part in the Galactic rim IS colonised.

You assume so much in your posts, NavalFC, when you really don't know much at all.

reply to post by tezzajw


No, I dont assume. I go based on empirical evidence.

And if evidence comes up that changes something, I refine my view. That is the beauty of true science, soemthing many UFO proponents dont have. Science is self correcting. Science is not above changing a view.

As far as the rest of the galaxy, I dont know but I can certainly tell you they havent colonized the solar system we inhabit

reply to post by kevintorvalds


I have to disagree with your assessment that the speciation argument is based on emotion and speculation. It isnt.

Evoltuion is a response to the environment. A creatures environment creates selective pressure which guides evoution to the point of the creature being best suited for its environment.

To say a ET and a Human could mix, you are assuming that the 2s genome would be nearly identical, as is required for this. This is talking of course of hybridization as a result of normal intercourse and says nothing of the idea as a result of genetic engineering, but any how continuing.

In order for sexual hybridization to occur the species would have to both be based on DNA, and have a near identical match. to give you an idea, look how closely simian and Human DNA are closely related, yet you could not engage in intercourse with an ape and give birth.

However the aliens will likely be coming from a differet environment, and while I am highly skeptical of the so called alien abduction reports, if any of them are true then the creatures responsible are not at all like human beings other then being bipedal and humanoid.

Furthermore coming from a different planet means a species would come from a different environment, and would have as a result evolved in a different way, resulting in a very different species, resulting in the speciation barrier described.

As far as the skull, I suggested and another user after me also seems to have suggested a Hydrocephallic skull, which would explain the anomalies.



[edit on 8-12-2008 by NavalFC]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by NavalFC
However fermi's paradox also calls into question why they havent colonized the entire galaxy yet

How do you know that 'they' haven't?

Humans have colonised Earth, so at least this particular part in the Galactic rim IS colonised.

You assume so much in your posts, NavalFC, when you really don't know much at all.

No we did not colonize Earth. Earth is our HOME.

reply to post by NavalFC


ummm....u do realize that once upon a time...we humans thought the earth was flat.......just one example of how primitive our species is...yes you could say that was a long time ago...but think about it.....what will we know 1000 years from now......its absolutely astonishing that people like you still exist...to think that somehow what we know is the absolute truth.....its not.... for you to say that we know so much about genetics is absurd.....because im sure we havent even scratched the surface of that knowledge.....not to mention everything else we know to be true.......

reply to post by zephyrs


lack of evidence can clearly be proof like if you look in the bath and their is no watter in it then you have proof that no one has drawn your bath. But in this case its is not, it proves that they dont know what the father was it could have been any thing a tree a duck mud chicken or even asexual-reproduction i dont want to hear that lack of evidence is not evidence in it self cause it is but in this case their is a lack in the person that is filtering the evidence the guys claims are just silly maybe he should test him self

reply to post by Leto


But dissecting the word tetragrammaton does not produce these results

tetra (4) grammatos (letters)

and furthermore that guy isnt like the lingual Emperor

en.wikipedia.org...
www.experiencefestival.com...

and here is a long in dpeth examination of the word:
tetragrammaton.org...

No where does it carry the meaning the person your quoting is portending.

to be honest it feels a bit like running in circles now,
of course the speciation argument is semi-valid if the Ancient Astronaut Theory is debunked, as you said there is a large amount of intelligent life according to drakes equation, now then there is a chance of it being somewhat similar.
mind you they would most probably dtill be outside the range of speciation, but if they were somewhat close to us in physiology it is much more likely that genetic engineering could have been used.

but to be honest, with the latest pictures from blaine it really does start to look more and more like wishful thinking by a semi-delusional scientist.

Thought I would put this in.
It is a pic from his book showing what the child would have looked like.




[edit on 8-12-2008 by GuyverUnit I]

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
Thought I would put this in.
It is a pic from his book showing what the child would have looked like.

It is a pic from his book showing AN ARTISTS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE AUTHOR WANTS the child to look like.

There, fixed it for ya!

As for aliens being primate-like, I always thought that was a consequence of the limited imagination of the early alien fantasists. Later on, they got a bit more imaginative and thought up some more....creative appearance, like being lizard-based. But essentially, they are still primate-like in appearance. At least star trek went and invented something original.
Primates are the result of 4 billion years of evolution. The chances of the same evolution happening in some near-by galaxy or solar system is remote, at best, coupled with the alien invention of technology that allows them to traverse vast distances in space makes it even more unlikely, then take into account that they found our planet, out of the billions in existance that occupy the 13 billion light years of space our universe occupies, it's pretty incredible. Oh, and they always seem to be able to breathe our atmosphere!.....

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by kevintorvalds

 

In order for sexual hybridization to occur the species would have to both be based on DNA, and have a near identical match. to give you an idea, look how closely simian and Human DNA are closely related, yet you could not engage in intercourse with an ape and give birth.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by NavalFC]

Who said anything about a human/ET hybrid being a result of intercourse?

I would think hybrids of any kind are not a result of natural means. We have done 'hybrid experiments' right here and no results that I can think of were of natural occurances. We had to force the issue to begin with before it could take place naturally. (alter the dna?) I am in no way a scientist nor do I know anything about the 'laws' of dna, but we certainly are nowhere near knowing everything.

After reading 5 pages of posts i have the opinion that being closed minded about this (unless science decides its different, then you would consider a change in view LOL) is as ingnorant as believing the OP video without additional input and or facts.

Originally posted by cruzion
It is a pic from his book showing AN ARTISTS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE AUTHOR WANTS the child to look like.

Yeah well, I'm sure he does want it to look like that. But it is food for thought.

What if they found a forensics expert who does facial reconstruction from skulls? What would they determine? Would the results be the same?

it could be great fun to actually have a more realistic picture of what it would have looked like, although i think that some of the techniques used by forensics facial reconstruction won't work, not because its alien, simply because the deformity of the skull would probably also influence the soft tissue that is our face, i don't know if it will could be fun to find out.