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.
Originally posted by Son of Will
That's precisely wrong. Many experts have examined the skull, compared to Progeria, and found dozens of irregularities. Just because you *think* a shabby photograph of one Progeria child resembles a photograph of the starchild skull, that doesn't mean that real experts have conducted real examinations which contradict your "KNOWN" conclusions.
Basically, Progeria and Hydrocephaly produce dramatically irregularly shaped skulls, whereas the Starchild skull is symmetrically perfect, and shows no signs of cranial expansion - the only reason people came to these conclusions is based on the observation that the skull is larger than typical, and thinner. Both of these explanations fail to stand up to further scrutiny, hence, it is not progeria nor hydrocephaly.
The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect.
- Lack of frontal sinuses
- Abnormal bone composition
- Large, shallow orbits
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.
BOOM!
Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by hippomchippo
I think the strength of the skull, the symmetry of the skull, the strange fibers found in it, the different elemental composition, the lack of mutation signatures, and the strange DNA results, when looked at as a whole, make it very difficult to dismiss as a simple case of Progeria or Hydrocephaly.
I hate calling the thing an "alien", I just don't think the above explanations are satisfactory.
Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.
There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.
You Starchild folks are silly.
Originally posted by Kaiju666
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.
BOOM!
Let me begin debunking your debunking by asking what if they can tell if DNA is damaged or mutated and by process of elimination pretty much erases those possibilities off the list.
BOOM!
Originally posted by Kaiju666
Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.
There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.
You Starchild folks are silly.
Heh , soooo if finding it to have some giraffe DNA or ant DNA or of some unidentified species DNA wouldn't be just as remarkable ?????? Better think about what you just said. I don't have any proof of anything or am I on the Starchild bandwagon. But reading your post, you pretty much state that by thinking it's "alien" DNA makes someone 'silly', but if it's hybrid with a known or unidentified species it's pretty ho hum , nothing to see here. Quite unremarkable. Where do you live? You see ant-people, lizard-people walking around ?? Seems you belong in the same group of "silly" people.
Originally posted by OnceReturned
Originally posted by Kaiju666
Originally posted by Blue Shift
Let me begin the debunking by asking just how anyone can determine that a particular bit of DNA is "alien," as opposed to simply mutated or damaged? Seeing as how we don't have any alien DNA strands to compare it to.
BOOM!
Let me begin debunking your debunking by asking what if they can tell if DNA is damaged or mutated and by process of elimination pretty much erases those possibilities off the list.
BOOM!
Extraterrestrial DNA is not even on the list, any more than fairy or demon DNA is on the list. The list only has real stuff on it. All DNA in all organisms alive today is a product of mutation, so that trick doesn't work.
Originally posted by Kaiju666
Originally posted by OnceReturned
How do they know what alien dna looks like? Finding something that you don't recognize isn't proof that that thing is from another planet. . . There are millions of unidentified species on earth. They all have DNA that's not in any database.
There's no way to provide "proof that a percentage of the DNA in the bone is not from Earth (Alien)." The only place in the universe that DNA is known to exist is earth.
You Starchild folks are silly.
Heh , soooo if finding it to have some giraffe DNA or ant DNA or of some unidentified species DNA wouldn't be just as remarkable ?????? Better think about what you just said. I don't have any proof of anything or am I on the Starchild bandwagon. But reading your post, you pretty much state that by thinking it's "alien" DNA makes someone 'silly', but if it's hybrid with a known or unidentified species it's pretty ho hum , nothing to see here. Quite unremarkable. Where do you live? You see ant-people, lizard-people walking around ?? Seems you belong in the same group of "silly" people.
Originally posted by Kaiju666
The only 'trick' is unto yourself to let yourself believe you are all knowing and always right on everything and only your 'beliefs' are the 1 and only truth.
If it truly was of alien origin, i think we'd be looking into the eyesockets of an entirely different skull in terms of its physiology, size, shape, proportions, features, and the overall essence of its fundamental composition. But looking at this "star child"skull, i see far too much of a resemblance to Earthly skulls.. not something i would expect from a species which evolved not only on a different planet, but a completely different solar system, perhaps even galaxy.
The skull is abnormal in several respects. 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.[5] However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 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.[4] The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6]