starchild skull on alien hunter question

reply to post by Kandinsky


In some ways it's nice, because for it to have survived past when it's abnormalities became apparent, it must have had some kind of family or tribal support, suggesting someone embraced the kid as human rather than drowning him in a sack, or some other method of killing. How the two skeletons died is another question, but for the kid to have survived that long shows that as a species we're not universally aggressive or irrational. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find enough information about the discovery to know any more about it. I know that archaeologists look for objects/trinkets/clothes/food buried with corpses to try and establish their social status. It's a shame that the alien angle detracts from the stories associated with the two corpses, I don't think we'll ever know . How people must have reacted to it is just as interesting, especially in light of the other corpse being unrelated.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by jackphotohobby]

You have to realize we can't take everything in the reality we know it in this time in history. Just because it is not logical at this time doesn't mean it is not logically a reality in the future or even from the past actually.

Okay I know what I meant and what I wrote is confusing but hey......

reply to post by ChipsAhoy


Or how about this? To me it more resembles the aliens seen by Betty and Barny Hill.


www.theironskeptic.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

I'm really just floored over the ufo hunters handling of the skull...

It really shows why we don't know any more now, then we did 40yrs ago, or 3,000yrs ago

I can't blame the makeup artist, cause he's an artist... i'm sure he had no idea there wasnt a nasal cavity... no brows.. he just took the skull had a human face in mind and went with it

There are real medical guys out there that do the same thing, but with an understanding of the bones and all that lie beneath and i'm sure such a reproduction would look less human like

that nose.. with no nasal cavity.. is just wow.. and as said before the neck

I could only imagine, what would it been like, if bill had been presented with an actual saucer.. just open the hanger doors and be like here it is bill, touch it, feel it.. stroke it

and then, bill would be like, lets get this thing into photoshop and see what it would really look like flying

wtf??? why not get inside, fire it up and really fly the thing


sigh...

Well, I know I have been with a being that looked like that so................ this guy had every thing placed correctly and even the ears were correct.

But what do I know

reply to post by observe50


I don't believe in greys yada yada. But that's irrelevant, lots of people do, and I know, through talking to some of them, they're not all idiots. I accept people saw something, even if I'm sceptical of what they saw, and I'd never accuse them of being liars (although a minority of people will be).

By a show like UFO Hunters associating greys with a dodgy reconstruction they undermine the subject. It allows the worst kind of knee-jerk sceptic, who is sceptical of things without understanding why, just dismissing people out of hand, and using it as an excuse to look down on people for their beliefs.

They use the flawed logic that because things like the UFO Hunters Starchild reconstruction are wrong, people must be lying. People who think like that are wrong, but sloppy evidence only encourages them.

I understand but I guess I should have said:

I don't know about the Starchild skull but the Sculpture this man made looks like a being on one of the ships I was on that was mapping the Universe.

In case anyone's interested, here's an interview with Lloyd Pye from a while back on The Paracast.

I personally don't think there is anything "alien" about the skull at all, and it's just being used as a money-making prop. But that's just me.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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

Exhibit A

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d77291f05a23.jpg[/atsimg]

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

ITS JUST NOT HUMAN

www.doctorsecrets.com...

Oh sorry it is it was the elephant man!

Showing a few possible deformities DOES not show them all!

You are correct, but you would also be correct in saying deformities delude bio-symmetry. Why is the starchild skull perfectly symmetrical? Explain that!!!

reply to post by azureskys


I agree with you completely. It seems a much more reasonable and likely explanation.

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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

Exhibit A

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d77291f05a23.jpg[/atsimg]

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

ITS JUST NOT HUMAN

www.doctorsecrets.com...

Oh sorry it is it was the elephant man!

Showing a few possible deformities DOES not show them all!

You are correct, but you would also be correct in saying deformities delude bio-symmetry. Why is the starchild skull perfectly symmetrical? Explain that!!!

No skull is symetrical look at it in close up!

Normal skull

anthropolos.com...

If you edit the picture in photoshop etc you will see that if symetrical a face /skull looks strange try it

As a post says above a money maker just keep the myth going!

[edit on 7-4-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by DaMod


Hey, the links to the pictures of the reconstruction are not on anymore.
Can someone repost them maybe?
I've been waiting for this quite some time, hope they look better than the alienhunter versions.
That one is ridiculous

I do not know if it has already been posted but there are some news.

March 18, 2010
We finally have a recovery of nuclear DNA from the Starchild!

This past weekend I met with the geneticist working on the Starchild's DNA. He explained how he can now prove the Starchild is not entirely human, which has been our position for years. Now it is no longer a question of "if," but of "when" and "how" we spread this astounding new reality beyond the mailing list. First, though, let me bring the list's newcomers up to speed.


In 2003 we had a DNA analysis that used human-only primers to recover the Starchild's mitochondrial DNA, the DNA outside the nucleus, which comes from the mother and her genetic line. That meant its mother was human. But we could not recover its nuclear DNA, which comes from both mother and father, which meant its father was not a human. Unfortunately, with the recovery technology of 2003 we couldn't prove what he was, which left us in scientific limbo. The "no result" from the search for the nuclear DNA clearly meant Dad wasn't human, but we could not prove that fact beyond all possible doubt.

Now, in 2010, there have been many improvements in the recovery process, and those improvements have been applied to the Starchild skull with the stunning result you see below. This is a gel sheet that shows a clear recovery of its nuclear DNA, which could not be done in 2003.

Full article: www.starchildproject.com...