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 skull on alien hunter question

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by jackphotohobby

I will have to contact my former girlfriend who was a registered nurse to get the full details on your answer. I just think it is too easy to state it is a deformity when looking at the skull suggests just the opposite. I also think most of the alien debunkers wish the Starchild skull would just go away.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Jshock

It's also the case with progeria, and a host of other tragic deformities I looked up prior to commenting
. Even some cases of hydrocephalus. I'm not medically qualified but ruling out deformation on the grounds of symmetry seems, well, convenient.

Who did they have comment on the show?

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by jackphotohobby

They had a registered nurse who has seen all types of deformities. She stated they do not look like the Starchild skull.

I do not rule out any of the possibilities with the skull. Not only is it symmetrical, but has a brain capacity of 200 cc more than a regular skull. It is lighter in weight, but twice as strong, and the face of the child at the end of the show looks similar to the aliens that abducted Travis Walton. I do think much more needs to be done before I will say it is or is not an alien hybrid. I have an open mind about this, and think further study is needed.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:54 PM
For all you starchild believers go to google images and type this


Then give up on your starchild skull stories!!!!!
Then spare a thought for the children round the world born with this
instead of talking TOTAL BULL# about aliens.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:07 PM
Well what about the fibers that they found on the skull as well? and those fibers arent found on human skulls according to the show as well. Why were the fibers there?? Does that disease they speak of that mutates the skull cause the fibers to be there??

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

For all you starchild believers go to google images and type this


Then give up on your starchild skull stories!!!!!
Then spare a thought for the children round the world born with this
instead of talking TOTAL BULL# about aliens.

You are way off base...

Hydrocephalus came to my mind too. The only problem with that is even if it had hydrocephalus it would still have to be anatomically correct as to where the neck connects to the skull and the connection of the jaw to the face. You can't beat anatomy. Hydrocephalus would not cause those effects to anything but the Cranium because of the liquid in the brain case. Several aspects of its morphology defy categorizing as genetic defect. A child with Hydrocephalus has an enlarged head yes, but the skull would loose some of it's bio-symmetry which inherently indicates deformation. The Starchild skull is perfectly symmetric which goes against what modern physicians would call defective, and therefore could not be Hydrocephalus. The Starchild skull has no trace of frontal sinus cavities. Even a child with Hydrocephalus would still have sinuses. The Starchild skull weighs a mere 13.5 ounces. Much more than well below that of any human child of 5 years of age (we know it was 5 when it died... gotta love forensic anthropology....) Hydrocephalus does not make your bones both less dense and stronger... It only adds liquid to the brain case.... If you are going to debunk something make sure your science is correct especially before you become rude about it.

Note: The video above was not my source, only a reference for you. My sources are multiple and my knowledge on the subject was from my personal research.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by DaMod]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:23 PM
It appears there are plans for further testing of the 'starchild skull' in 2009 using a new sequencing technique.

Here is an extract from the site and an intresting comment about previous results from testing.

Now testing with the 454 Life Science technology is set to begin some time in 2009. This testing will utilize the Genome Sequencer™ system, which is fully capable of recovering and sequencing the entire genome of the Starchild Skull. When this result is obtained, its genome can then be compared in every detail to other known genomes and the question of its humanity can conclusively be resolved.

Attempts to recover DNA from the skull easily produced its mitochondrial DNA, which proved its mother was fully human. However, no nuclear DNA could be recovered using human-only primers, which strongly indicates that the skull's father was something other than a typical human.

Personally I find it very interesting that there are no conclusive explanations for what it might be and I will continue to keep an open mind.

The fact that the owners are actively seeking information from tests indicates to me that the people involved are more likely not attempting to mislead people for their own gains.

DNA tests are not cheap and this new genome sequencing technique initially cost many millions, and this is the stated reason for the delay.

It would be nice to see some people offer evidence to back up some of their assertions rather than blindly shouting 'x deformity' or 'swampgas'.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 05:28 PM
I would also like to add that even though the starchild skull is not of our species it does not mean that it's alien (even though it could be). It could very well be a missing link in hominid evolution. It might be a species from earth that went extinct. If you think about it that idea is not very far fetched since we discover new long extinct species all the time. This skull should not be dismissed because whether it is alien or not it is still important.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 07:47 PM
Last night Wed April 1st there was a new UFO Hunters on the History Channel, & one of the things they addressed was the "Starchild Skull" They pretty much got most of the evidence that says this is the real deal, go to the site & maybe they have the episode up for viewing already. I don't know if they do or not, but if theres any ways you can catch this particular new episode that is dealing with "Greys" please view it, as its well worth it.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

I just watched the show.

I guess we'll have to disagree on this. I'm fine with that
, and appreciate your replies.

I've found some of the analysis from the doctors involved, nice because it's got dates, names, details etc. (minus the 1999 tests):

It supports the idea that it's odd, at least.

Doctors Hodges and Poskitt found the brain inside the skull was abnormally large. This was determined by lining the intracranial cavity with a plastic bag that was then filled with Niger birdseed. This gave a size of 1600 cubic centimetres, which is 200 c.c. larger than the typical adult size of 1400 c.c. This is even more unusual because the size of the skull compares most favourably with a small adult or a child of about 12 years old. This extra brain capacity is apparently due to the deep shallowing of the eye sockets, a total lack of frontal sinuses (not even vestigial bumps are discernible), and significant bossing (expansion) of the upper rear of both parietals.

The 200cc figure they used in the show annoys me. Because IIRC to increase the volume of a sphere (4/3PI*R^3) by roughly 33%, you have to increase the radius by roughly 10%. A cranium is more complex than a sphere, but the same general principle applies to increased size.

If we take the typical adult size, as above, and make a ratio with the anomalous skull we get:

1600/1400 = 1.14 (rounded)

Or 14% larger in volume. That doesn't automatically mean that the skull was dramatically larger than an adult (remember a 10% increase in the radius of a sphere equals roughly a 33% increase in volume).

If we make a guestimate (if anyone knows the cranial capacity of a child please comment) and say that a 6 year old has half the cranial capacity of a typical adult we get:

1600/700 = 2.29 (rounded)

Or a 129% increase in volume. Which, again, sounds dramatic, but doesn't tell us much about the dimensions of the skull. I think quoting changes in volume without the context of the dimensions can be very misleading. A relatively trivial change in dimensions can lead to larger volume.

I'm not sure what the cranial capacity is in cases of deformed skulls we know about about. But looking at a lot of the example pictures of sufferers I'd guess some of the sufferers' skulls are way larger, proportionally, than adult skulls. So I don't think it's a huge leap to say that some suffers of known deformities, today, are likely to have 200cc, or greater, cranial capacity over a typical adult. A larger cranial capacity does not automatically equal a larger (or even normally functioning) brain. So, for me, the 200cc figure is meaningless.

Reading the above report I feel sorry for the child, especially the bit about his eyes

I look forward to the updated DNA reports, and further inquiries into what caused the abnormalities.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:28 AM
I will have no problem accepting the skull as a mutated/deformed human, as long as the father's dna comes back showing human.

Just the fact the machine can't understand that dna segment is enough to crush the malformed human idea. We don't have any problems reading human dna, we send people to jail every day using this technique.

What's a dna test that costs 1mill to the history channel... 1mil is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to what the results of the test could show and i'm sure there's some lab out there that would love to lay claim to sequencing the first ever segment of alien dna.

on a side note, i'm not sure the facial reconstruction was exactly accurate, as noted there was no sinus cavity, not because it was missing, but because it didn't grow one. The nose on the constructed model, is adding a sinus cavity to the skull. Without that, the face would be much flatter and more grey looking.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:05 AM
reply to post by DaMod

Many chidren with hyrocephalus also suffer from other medical/ genetic problems have a good look through some of the pages in google images.

Some interesting reading here re this skull

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:13 AM

something is up, starting to sound like roswell, these say they have it dna, those say they dont

even all the more reason for the ufo hunters to have done a round of tests themselves

[edit on 3-4-2009 by hisshadow]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:24 AM
Whenever i see these 2 skulls , i always seem to think the mother was the normal skull (but dna testing proved otherwise) and the mother died after giving birth to a baby with such a massive head. Hehe.
But yes, there could be many reasons

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:28 AM
the saddest part other than if it really was a human child

is that just as me, these people thought once the skull was seen that labs would be knocking down the doors to test the thing

that universities and such, would just swing open the doors and say we'll test it

instead, there was nothing, nada..

thats strange in itself, considering scientists will spend millions digging in the arctic snow just to uncover the skull of predator x..

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:39 AM
I also found this link

It gives about 18 notations as to various parts of the skull that can rule out many deformates

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by hisshadow

Very intresting read, although I'll need to do some research on some of the points given the technical language used and my limited understanding of the structure of the skull.

Some of the the final points stood out to me as being very unusual.

It seems clear that the neck of this being attached to its skull much lower than in a normal skull, centered under the balance point for both lateral and medial flexion. Even more unusual, the neck itself seems to have a circumference somewhere in the range of 50% of usual neck volume, which presents yet another example of the thorough uniqueness of this specimen.

This seems to suggest that the differences in structure is not localized to just the skull, which seems to rule out deformaties and lends credence to the idea that this is something else entirely. Furthermore the information in the link seems to rule out binding as being responsible for its unusual shape.

What other condition could explain away the structure of the skull and the size of its neck? The similarties with the description of grey aliens are quite surprising to me.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:39 AM
Glad someone mentioned binding

Just shows that all routes are being considered

sigh... its killing me being only 1 dna test away from the truth

The reconstructed face, really looks good when i mentally remove the sinus cavity.. the nose flattens to just two holes.. the chin probably gets smaller, cant guarantee that but to me its logical.. it would look even more grey like.

the shape of the eyes says partial human to me... but i think the black reconstruction fit, since the sockets were really thin.. i don't know that a grey's eyes are thin, but they are wide and black so maybe wide makes up for depth..

[edit on 3-4-2009 by hisshadow]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:33 AM
As with everything dealing with this subject it is hard to get positive proof so far.

What I can contribute is the reconstruction done was interesting because I have had contact on one of the World ships with a being that looked just like that. He was the one with the old type human computer where all the star maps were on. Actually they are still mapping the Universe to this day.

He wasn't a child but he was of course male. His skin was tannish and he wore a robe to the ankle area and there was a rope tie around his waist area. He was nice but not happy I figured out about the sausage looking mouse with the humps on it thingy that was used to bring up the maps.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:07 AM
I don't feel the facial reconstruction was at all accurate. Even the artist suggested that.

The optical sockets were measured at being only about an inch apart from each other and quite larger in diameter. Hence wouldn't the eyes be closer and much larger than a typical human's?

Also again, no sinus cavity. The nose would be non-functional thus would not be an average size human's nose.

My other question is the age. They are comparing the age to the size of a developing human skull. Isn't there a more accurate way to determine the age by development of the cranium plates or something?

The skull is interesting none the less but I really thought the artist's rendering could have been thought out abit more and not so 'humanly' bias.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in