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: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by DaMod

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]

Damnnnnn..... Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Biatch......

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:47 AM
One thing that has to be taken into consideration is the fact that when dealing with other life forms there will be oddities that we don't understand fully.

Parallel sorta like the same but different.

I thought it was actually quite good myself.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by observe50
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.

Yes of course you have man what some people will say on here is UNREAL!

Could this be a starchild!

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by geo1066
I don't feel the facial reconstruction was at all accurate. Even the artist suggested that.

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.

I agree... He even stated that ithe lower part of the face could be completely different that what he constructed.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:31 AM

I feel the same way about your ignorance, glad you are laughing though because one day you will be able to nicely insert your foot while it's wide open.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:08 PM
Just look at it. It's not human. You can tell at a glance.

Exhibit A

You don't even need to compare or study them to see they are nothing alike. They are both skulls and that is it.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by DaMod]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 01:43 PM
I thought the UFO Hunters & the people involved especially the Dr. did a good job in ruling out hydrocephalus in great detail, & the fact that the Mother was Human. I also thought the older couple during the regression sessions were very convincing, but the younger female interviewed by the UFO Hunter team in the outdoor setting was not.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
I've taken the liberty of tracking down pictures of deformed skulls with several different disorders. As you can see none of them resemble the starchild skull.

The following one really stood out to me, but it's still not the same.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:13 PM

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.

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.

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).
JackPhotoHobby nails it....

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.

Just look at it. It's not human. You can tell at a glance.

The video demolishes Lloyd-Pye's assertions that the skull is larger than a human adult skull. It's clearly smaller than an adult skull. We've been chasing around the details and overlooked the visible evidence in Lloyd-Pye's hands...

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by DaMod

I'm not a doctor, but I have been told today (and checked) that missing sinuses is one of the diagnostic criteria of progeria (it varies). When I've read the various descriptions of various skull deformities they've been quite clear that they refer to a typical cases. By extension there has to be atypical cases. From what I've read about progeria it varies a great deal between patients.

I think, reading the report, that it is simply a deformity that doesn't occur that often e.g. atypical - so it's not going to directly correlate with text books. The missing sinuses and size of the cranium relative to the face (bulging eyes etc.) do correlate with progeria.

Progeria itself isn't a single disease, it's actually a whole group of diseases that vary in detail (note the reference to sinuses, and thin bones):

I'm not saying it's progeria - fact is I'm not qualified to comment. But as far as I can see, reading the doctor's original reports on the skull, the only deformity they have probably ruled out is hydrocephalus (even then a 'typical' case of hydrocephalus - which leaves atypical open). That leaves lots of known deformities, or even a 'one-off' freak of nature quite possible.

Even the doctors that examined the skull call it an anomalous skull. The leap from anomalous to alien hybrid is a huge leap of faith.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by jackphotohobby

The main reason I was blown away by the show is that the Starchild looked very much like the aliens encountered by Travis Walton. Mr Walton's book and the artistic images of the aliens he saw stuck in my mind. They look quite human except for large round heads, and when I saw the finished Starchild, I was impressed by it.

I take all the pieces of the puzzle that are given to us and try to put it together. The evidence and image not only helps out the Starchild, but also Mr Walton's claims of abduction. There is no way he would have known what the Starchild looked like.

Yes, it can be a coincidence, but it is a fact that will stay with me. For the most part, I am skeptical of many claims. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, and look at the details of what is claimed. Any little evidence helps in the matter. I also like to hear from total skeptics and debunkers on the subjects at hand. It also keeps me level headed as I try to counter their arguments. That is what this site is about, and that is getting down to the truth.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

From the report:

Doctors Townsend and Parsons examined the orbital cavities and concluded that the being may well have been sighted, but if so, its visual structures deviated strongly from the norm. The cavities, while astonishingly symmetrical, were less than 50% normal depth. The optic foramen, which carries the optic nerve from the brain through the orbital bone to the eye, is nearly an inch lower than it would be in a normal human skull. However, attachment points for the muscles that control an eyeball's movements were still to be felt on the inner surface of the orbit, indicating that a ball rather than some other mechanism was its most likely expression.

If indeed these sockets held eyeballs, those of normal size would have greatly protruded from the face, creating a serious liability of damage during routine activity. Because the eyeballs occupy a position lower in the face than is normal, and they rest in a socket markedly reduced in rectilinear shape and depth, they would have been significantly reduced in size. In either case, however, large eyeballs or small, they would require upper lids three or four times more extensive than normal upper lids to be lubricated in the manner necessary for human eyeballs to function properly.

I don't think the reconstruction reflects the skull. That or I'm seriously misreading the doc's report. If they were normal sized, or larger eyeballs (like the reconstruction), according to the report, they would noticeably protrude from the face. But if they didn't stick out, they should have been small.

I don't believe we've seen the finished starchild, and unless the report is wrong about the eyes (it's possible), the reconstruction didn't seem to be in reference to the medical work at all. So, because of the eyes, either the report or the reconstruction is wrong.

My bets are on the reconstruction. Given how much the reconstruction deviated, especially on the eyes, I'm amazed the show didn't mention it.

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Kandinsky

I understand where you're coming from. However if you notice most eye witness accounts of grays (if it is a Gray) are only 3 1/2' tall compared to the average 5'7" human that is a huge difference. So if we where to label the starchild skull as a Gray it would be smaller than a humans being a smaller organism. I understand it very well could be of this earth, but if even part of it is not then we have the only true proven piece of physical evidence in the UFO community (after final tests have been done)... That makes this the most important skull on earth.

This of all things should not be taken lightly. This is a huge deal!

[edit on 3-4-2009 by DaMod]

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:29 PM
One of the pics above, with the mother holding a child.. from that picture i notice that just the skull is ballooned, but the childs face is not stretched in any way, its still a normal face.

the biggest thing is still the fathers dna... if it was a deformed/malformed human, not sure with term to use best there but.. if it was completely human the 1st dna test would have cam back human and that would have been the end of everything

even Neanderthal dna has been recovered using human markers that current test use.. which is much much older than either of these skulls

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:45 PM
also on a side note

i love how this skull kindof brings together a multitude of storys from history, from sumerian tales to the bible itself

If we start with sumerians, aliens landed on earth looking for minerals, insert any mineral you want here but for some reason they weren't able to mine it themselves.. fast forward to now, and looking at a grey, it's obvious why they couldn't mine with such frail frames.. So our lucky Neanderthal cousins get a slight dna reworking, ala creating man in gods own image.. the strength of a Neanderthal with the albiet not fully smarts, but the smarts of a grey. We can even see that wow, those new women were hot lol what grey wouldnt wanna come down and mate with a son of man as the bible puts it, woah hybrids.. that would break the prime directive ! no evidence ! so lets flood the planet, no wait, tell noah first gotta save him.

insert flood/rebellian/whole earth disaster here, where after that.. the we walk out and start doing things on our own, all by ourselves, with no clue to any of the previous story except scattered bits n pieces of truth here and there

and even with all that, you still can't rule out god, cause someone made an adam grey and eve grey once upon a time, who's to say he doesn't have a long white flowing beard riding the nebula's of the cosmos with flash gordan musing playing in the background

eh.. family guy pun there..

[edit on 3-4-2009 by hisshadow]

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:27 AM

Originally posted by observe50

I feel the same way about your ignorance, glad you are laughing though because one day you will be able to nicely insert your foot while it's wide open.

How will your space buddies get me

Mork calling Orson

Keep taking the tablets!
Lets see some proof of your wild claims mate I bet I'll die waiting

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:43 AM

Originally posted by DaMod
Just look at it. It's not human. You can tell at a glance.

Exhibit A

You don't even need to compare or study them to see they are nothing alike. They are both skulls and that is it.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by DaMod]

Exhibit B


Oh sorry it is it was the elephant man!

Showing a few possible deformities DOES not show them all!

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:27 AM
I agree that the SC skull 'looks' like what we would expect an alien grey's to look like. Unfortunately we only have representations of what a grey looks like. Furthermore we only have the word of others that such creatures exist at all. I'd be about as surprised if they exist as I would be if they didn't.

What interests me with the SC skull is the man presenting the evidence. We can't prove aliens, but we can get a fair idea about the integrity of Pye.

Has he left out evidence that leads people to conclude that 'in all probability' the skull is human?

Has he presented ALL the evidence?

Is his presentation of the evidence neutral or leading?

Does he have an agenda that requires the SC skull to remain intriguing and inconclusive?

Does he have an incentive to leave out evidence?

These are a few questions we can look at in the hopes of achieving an indication as to what the SC skull really is. If the man has concealed evidence and has an incentive to continue to do so; we can infer that he's dishonest. If he's dishonest, then rational, terrestrial explanations for the skull would be more likely to be accurate. Is that a reasonable stance?

The sample taken from the Starchild Skull (SCS-1) has mtDNA consistent with Native American haplogroup C, as revealed through two independent extractions performed on fragments of parietal bone. While a single first extraction did not appear to type similarly, this inconsistent result is likely a product of a low level of contamination.
DNA analysis report from Starchild Project site

The human mother is definitely a native American. What about the father? We can't ask the lab ''Trace Genetics' because they have possibly gone out of business. The only report that references them is Pye's, but that isn't to imply it's a hoax report. They could have legitimately gone bust.

Nuclear DNA is difficult to extract from old bones and even more so if the remains had been subject to the environment e.g soil acidity, erosion etc. These factors aren't made clear by Pye. Instead he uses the absence of such evidence to lead the reader. It's fairly well worded, but the affect on the average reader's interpretation would encourage doubts of human parentage...

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.
Starchild Project (Overview)

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.
The New England Sceptic

DNA tests were conducted on the teeth as they contain the strongest chances of recovering DNA markers. The site doesn't offer a source for the 'Y-Chromosome' claim, however Dr David Sweetdoes exist. He is associated with criminal investigation where DNA and forensic analysis is required. A possible source for the DNA evidence was from here at Rense. So, has Pye left out the evidence that proves the skull is that of a human?

His focus appears to be on demonstrating to readers that it can't be human. He does this by pointing out differences in a normal human sample. The skull is not normal and didn't come from a normal human. It came from a deformed child. The child was aged around 4-5 years old and possibly died due to difficulties of it's condition.

The argument he uses about its extraordinary brain size (skull capacity) is inaccurate. He again leads the reader to share his conclusions and uses uncited claims.

The most reasonable explanation for the morphology of the skull is a condition known as brachycephaly. Skulls very similar to the SC are found here, here and the fused skull is explained and illustrated here.

Pye makes a lot of the extraordinary size of the skull and claims it's 200cc larger than the average human. It isn't clear where the large capacity measurements are from and based on the video comparison it actually isn't larger than an adult human. It looks much smaller in comparison to Pye's own head. His figure of 1600cc is large, but not unusual...

Figures for the average brain size of modern humans tend to vary between sources, but a typical value is 1350 or 1400 cc (cubic centimetres). The following figures should convey a feel for the normal range of variation in human skulls. Burenhult (1993) states that the 90% of humans fit in the range 1040-1595 cc, and that the extreme range is 900-2000 cc.
Talk Origins

So...he runs at least two websites. He sells a $30 book that is wholly based on the SC being hybrid alien. He tours the alien/paranormal circuit. He is interviewed in magazines and online. His incentive is making a living or at least subsidizing one. His agenda is ancient alien visitors and the typical mash-up of pyramids, aliens, bigfoots and hybridized aliens. Alien interventions etc. New results are scheduled for 2009-2010
The clever man would have a book and a tour timed for the event. The cautious man will yet again claim that DNA evidence remains 'inconclusive.'

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by Kandinsky

I can't work out whether he's blind to the truth or genuinely believes.

Take a look at this, it's just as depressing:

That's the UFO Hunters reconstruction of the skull. It was the culmination of the episode and presented as some kind of proof.

It contradicts the reports Lloyd Pye commisioned in 1999 (available here). I'll quote what it says about how the kid would have looked:


"... If indeed these sockets held eyeballs, those of normal size would have greatly protruded from the face, creating a serious liability of damage during routine activity. Because the eyeballs occupy a position lower in the face than is normal, and they rest in a socket markedly reduced in rectilinear shape and depth, they would have been significantly reduced in size. In either case, however, large eyeballs or small, they would require upper lids three or four times more extensive than normal upper lids to be lubricated in the manner necessary for human eyeballs to function properly. ..."


"... In addition to lacking frontal sinuses, there is no sign of the brow ridges evident in normal skulls. Its upper orbits are thin edged rather than rounded. Its zygomatic arches are greatly reduced and significantly lowered from their usual positions. Its mastoid processes are less than normal, as are all connective points for the lower face (which would attach to the coronoid process and condylar process of the missing mandible). Based on these observations, its lower face may have been as much as 50% reduced from normal. On the other hand, its inner ears are noticeably larger than normal, again pushing into the range of 50% larger. This is also true for the condyles abutting the spinal atlas. ..."


"... Another of my concerns is that the external occipital protuberance (inion) is absent from its notable position in the center of the occipital bone, and indeed is represented by an actual slight fossa (depression) in the surface. (As mentioned earlier, the same is true for its internal counterpart, which has been greatly reduced.) 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. ..."

The UFO Hunters have produced a normal neck, large eyes (black), and a normally proportioned face. It contradicts the evidence completely.

Either their reconstruction guy didn't read the reports about the skull or there's some lying going on. Who's lying is open to question. But throughout the programme all of the experts seemed to come from one group, intimately involved with the skull.

Numerous people were also handling the skull without gloves... If they ever want to get another DNA sample from it that complicates things severely. Either they're unaware of that, or don't care.

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by jackphotohobby

That reconstruction is absurd
It fails on at least two counts. 1-It looks nothing like a 'grey alien' apart from black eyes. 2-It looks nothing like the child would have looked like...even to an idiot.

The mythology is sure to be perpetuated by shows like this and the raised profile that Pye's claims will receive as an outcome.

Having looked at the brachycephaly cases and read the report extracts you posted, I wonder what life the kid enjoyed? If it is indeed 900 years old, he would have lived in the century after the Mayans abandoned their northern cities. How would a kid with such extensive deformities been viewed by contemporaries? He must have been accepted to a degree if only because he reached the age of 5.

The original discovery by the American girl remains as inconclusive as the unusual story (how many teenage girls seek to dig up skeletons to take home?). If the skeletons could be recovered, we could possibly discover cause of death. Natural causes, murder, sacrifice?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in