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 skull on alien hunter question

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Even though it was said no nuclear dna could be read from the skull, any ideas if the skull has been retested? and retested again with new techniques?

I can understand there has to be dna there, and that the skull is not old enough to crop not finding any upto mear age of the fossil as the human skull of the same age worked fine.

To me, the only conclusion is the machine doesn't know what it's looking at.. like me tryign to read russian.

there has to be something not being told, like its been retested later and found out to be human.. cause without that, thats a freaking .. at least hybrid skull.. and where is anderson cooper? like, if you literally couldnt decipher the nuclear dna of that skull anderson cooper would be standing there holding it


Kindof a first 'new topic' poster here.. and, first time i've ever heard of this skull. Hope maybe someone has some 2009 info on it.

Thanks,

Hisshadow




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I read your post and the only thing that sticks out is Anderson Cooper....
Sorry I found that funny, if it wasnt intended to be I apologize.

After watching the show which is actually called "UFO Hunters" last night I did a google search on this skull. You might want to check out this website:
www.starchildproject.com...

I dont know what to think of this skull personally. It may be a deformed childs skull or it may be alien in nature some how. I am leaning more towards the alien side. Well I guess I am 50/50 on it



Here is a thread on ATS too about the skull

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/2/2009 by mblahnikluver]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
thanks for the links

read both sets and i'm still shocked nothing 'new' has been done with the skull

the actual skull site has a dating of like 2003 for dna testing, i'm sure by now there is a multitude of new ways of sampling dna that could be tried

that failing.. well.. the maybe the skull is damaged/too-old/something is wrong with it just doesn't fit, when you have a 2nd skull.. same age, found in same location, that is perfectly fine for sampling.

how can labs around the world.. just not be begging to get a sample of this thing



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hisshadow
thanks for the links

read both sets and i'm still shocked nothing 'new' has been done with the skull

the actual skull site has a dating of like 2003 for dna testing, i'm sure by now there is a multitude of new ways of sampling dna that could be tried

that failing.. well.. the maybe the skull is damaged/too-old/something is wrong with it just doesn't fit, when you have a 2nd skull.. same age, found in same location, that is perfectly fine for sampling.

how can labs around the world.. just not be begging to get a sample of this thing



Yeah I tried to find a google search of recent testing but so far nothing. One would think with all the advanced DNA testing that someone would jump on it. IDK maybe they know something and just dont want us to know



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I think it may possibly have been a child with Progerias. An accelerated
aging disease.

Or Progerias is the result of Alien/Hominid cross breeding.
(specifically Greys)



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I'm just floored... that we got a facial reconstruction instead of real 2009 era dna testing


I mean the model was fine but, the smoking gun is the dna


I am vexed with this question, with all the money that station has to just not go there..

I have posted a thread on the actual historychannel's ufo hunters forum. I ask the hard question, wtf didnt they do new 2009 dna tests on the skull.

If anyone would like to give my thread a poke, in hopes to get an official answer from there please feel free to poke away

here is the link to my thread.

boards.history.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I'd consider any human disease/malformation/mutation

The dna not being readable though, kindof rules that out..

As i said, all things being equal, 2 900yr old skulls, both, found in the same spot as said one laying on the other..

for one to have full dna recovered both mother and father, but the 2nd only to have the mothers recoverred.. is very.. very strange

If i am to consider age.. much older bones have yielded dna.. and age would affect both skulls the same. both should have the same blank reading on the fathers side if i consider it as age damage

still no excuse for them not doing current tests on it, freaking dna testing is cheap these days



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
agreed i think that this skull is that of a deformed/diseased childs skull or of a alien

i am however leaning more to the notion that it is i fact that of an alien

i say this because seeing they have done no new dna testing and the one before came up with nothing it has to be either that it has no clue what this skull is from and truly cant figure out through dna testing or it has been found out to be from an alien or person not from this world and they are not letting that information out or whatever information they do know about it



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
i'm no scientiest but, from what i understand we pull dna by looking for certain markers to ge a sequence...

first possibility, there is really none there... then i have to consider age.. but, we have the other skull same age, dna tests fine.

my second, and really only possibility is that my computer doesnt know what it's looking at... which for windows results in the blue screen of death

i cant accept that its age dmg... if the skull tested way older than the other than sure.. i'm logical here, i'd accept that

but both to be 900 yrs?

I want a better dna test, one that can .. and i'm assuming it exists by now, that pulls sequences without the need for any markers.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

The starchild skull came into the possession of Lloyd Pye, a writer and lecturer in what he calls the field of alternative knowledge, in February 1999. According to Pye, the skull was found around 1930 in a mine tunnel about 100 miles (160 km) southwest of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, buried alongside a normal human skeleton which was exposed and lying supine on the surface of the tunnel.

The skull is abnormal in several aspects. A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a child's skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age. However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult's brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses. The back of the skull is flattened, but not by artificial means. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.

Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both independent tests gave a result of 900 years ± 40 years since death. DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes". BOLD was unable to extract any DNA from the maxilla. Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA though it was not the child of the skull found with it. Its mother did belong to a known Native American haplogroup, haplogroup C. However, useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing have not yet been recovered. Later testing in 2004 at the Royal Holloway college of the University of London revealed unexplained "fibers" in the bone of the skull and a reddish residue in the cancellous bone, neither of which are known or recorded to exist prior to the discovery.

Explanations from the skull's unusual features include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child, brachycephaly, Crouzon syndrome, congenital hydrocephalus, and progeria.


That's from the Wikipedia page. Most of the references in that section link back to the Starchild Project, and have since being removed.

I haven't seen the latest A.H. show but if they didn't retest the skull (presuming it's being stored well, and hasn't been badly contaminated) it's a real shame, because as I understand it DNA extraction has moved on considerably since the last test. It's also far cheaper.

If the mitochondrial DNA associated with it is the skull is true (according to the Starchild website it is) its mother was likely human.

If the 1999 BOLD found standard X and Y chromosomes I'm pretty confident any further testing will show a human.

Here's a tinWiki bit (from here) that raises questions:


]There is some confusion regarding these test results as two distinct experts have claimed to have tested the skull and found clear evidence of human DNA and both x and y chromosomes. Such evidence would support alternative interpretations that the skull is of a human child that had hydrocephalus. Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia discovered DNA and both chromosomes. The Starchild Project enlisted the BOLD Lab, Vancouver to do further tests. The Lab was confident that the results confirmed that the skull was fully human. The Project declined to agree with these findings.


I have a feeling that believers in this story are never going to find tests and doctors they feel are telling the truth about it being human.

Did the show contact any of the labs/scientists who had previously tested the skull?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 
Another thing that keeps running through my squirrel cage mind is the Hybrid factoring: ..."1/4...1/8...1/16...1/32...1/64...etc..."

*As was explained, one "hybrid"(a resulting offspring of EBE that mated with a homo sapien female), thus mates with another local homo sapien female, which in turn begets an offspring, resulting in the "Starchild."

The result: As you say, the scientific instruments employed can not make a complete determination if they do not have "something Y" comprable to compare it to. The "something Y" is of course of off world origin, i.e. EBE.




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
To those that have seen the show from last night, when they reconstructed the skull..does it not have a good resemblance to this picture?





posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
The Starchild Skull is being hawked around by Lloyd-Pye to support his interventionist theories. Another ATS Thread goes into more detail. He claims that only mitochondrialDNA is retrievable from the skull and that the absence of a Y-chromosome indicates a non-human was the father. More mundane explanations for the skull refer to hydrocephaly. His claims have been challenged and there are questions about his integrity based on his denial that scientists have found both x and Y chromosomes...


What about their confident prediction that DNA testing will prove the child was alien? Well, a DNA sample was taken from the skull, and was subjected to DNA probes designed to detect sequences of DNA that are unique to humans (performed by Dr. David Sweet, Director of the Bureau of Legal Dentistry at the University of British Columbia)5. The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.
Source

He's just another guy trying to make a living by exploiting the dreams of the others.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Yeah, there was another, earlier program that went more into the hydrocephaly investigation, and it was revealed that the interior impressions of the brain against the cranial vault were consistent with hydrocephaly (that's water on the brain) — indicators such as fewer and smoother convolutions of the cerebrum, etc. So, using point-by-point comparisons with known cases of hydrocephaly, they made a fairly convincing case that this was a malformed human child.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I saw the show. Funny how the X and Y chromosome findings weren't mentioned at all.

Also, when using the unbiased facial reconstruction artist why go straight to the black alien eyes?? The only thing you DO know is that it's half human at the least.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I liked the episode last night. I think these guys do a pretty good job in covering topics that are popular with the UFOlogy crowd and maybe not so popular in main stream.

I do wish they would have done one thing different. When they re-created the "Star-Child" skull, I wish they would have done two of them. One with the skin and eye coloring of an alien/hybrid, along with other accepted appearance traits of aliens. Thes econd with the skin and eye coloring alond with other know appearance traits of a human from that region of Earth.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
DNA aside for a second - one has to realize: I may be off on the numbers a tad, but the skull is from a child of about 6 or 7 years old.
That said, the cranial capacity is still 200 cc larger than an ADULT human's.
I don't think that's a deformation, and if it is/was, then damn.....



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 


The Starchild skull is too symmetrical for it to be a deformity. It ways less than a normal human skull and is much stronger. The Starchild that was shown at the end of the episode looks strikingly like the aliens Travis Walton saw. They had large round heads, five fingers on each hand and looked surprisingly human. I read Mr Walton's second book (published in 1997), and saw an artist's drawings of the first aliens Mr Walton encountered. When I saw the Starchild's face, I was struck by the similarities of the two beings. Mr Walton received a lot of flak from both UFO believers and skeptics because his aliens did not look like the typical "greys". He also had no idea the Starchild would look like his aliens.

I am not going to say the Starchild skull is a hybrid, but the evidence and the face does make it possible. I will keep an open mind on this one as it develops.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Some of these deformities look quite symmetrical:

radiographics.rsnajnls.org...

Why can't deformities be symmetrical?

Edit: changed reference to incorrect skull.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Star for Jack- Brachycephalatics are commonly symmetrical. They never mentioned head binding either- Lloyd Pye claims Starchild couldn't have been formed by binding, but the field museum of Chicago has a Peruvian skull that looks very similar.
Peruvian skull


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Jshock]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join