NEW! Starchild Skull DNA Result..

reply to post by Jukiodone

If I missed those details then please provide them...otherwise you have a disfigured hominid skull and that is all.

Lloyd doesn't give names of scientists or labs any more...too much like a chain of evidence. Also, a little initiative and we could see how much money the lab charges for the analyses!

We shouldn't forget he's been running two websites (Paypal buttons), selling books, doing tours...and always with his hat out asking for donations. He's always 'just short' of the money to complete the analysis! He used to offer 'cash back' for people donating over $250...as soon as the 'proof' arrived, he'd pay 'em back. He's damn good at hustling, huh?

Oh yeah...Lloyd deals with 'hominoids' rather than hominids...it's like his catchphrase or theme-tune.

An alternative explanation to progeria might be the medical condition known as hydrocephalus.

...also known as "water on the brain", is a medical condition in which there is an abnormal accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the ventricles, or cavities, of the brain. This may cause increased intracranial pressure inside the skull and progressive enlargement of the head, convulsion, and mental disability.

According to wikipedia, this was also a known medical condition as far back as to the egyptians. Here's the first clinical description of and operative procedure for hydrocephalus:

“The skull of a newborn baby is often full of liquid, either because the matron has compressed it excessively or for other, unknown reasons. The volume of the skull then increases daily, so that the bones of the skull fail to close. In this case, we must open the middle of the skull in three places, make the liquid flow out, then close the wound and tighten the skull with a bandage.”

Source: Wikipedia: Hydrocephalus

It's not unlikely that a similar procedure was known to the amerindian culture at the time it's estimated the starchild was alive.

[edit on 11/8/10 by Droogie]

[edit on 11/8/10 by Droogie]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I like that answer fella,

So then, your old muka's theory seems reasonable. How can we combat the symmetries and different neck attachment? Seems we have some more half answered questions needing resolution, no?

My gripe would be with, Kandinsky and others discrepancies when debunking. Always need the whole story now; Can't always have a simple answer though, can we?

So all we need now, would be, 'reputable scientific' proof, wherever that may be found, these dark old days.

Shame all this conflict: People always do great things working together, past and present. Maybe we should work towards that

Originally posted by Droogie
An alternative explanation to progeria might be the medical condition known as hydrocephalus.

Droogie.....

I considered hydrocephaly, having seen a lot of things including hydrocephaly, anoncephaly, hydroanoncephaly, etc... during my clinical years at our largest Children's Hospital.

I concluded that it is not typical of hydrocephaly because the bone structure is different & the development of the anterior & posterior fontanelle's is different.....not to mention the other abnormalities associated with Progeria Syndrome.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by DomhainGràdh


DomhainGràdh.....

I really did spend a lot of time on this "Star Child" thing.

Everything looks human too me.

For the record.....regarding the "red fibres", look up "Periosteum".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Did anybody consider that this skull could be a type of monkey that was
a pet of some ancient mexican indian and is already extinct?

Just thinkiing of a B plan if this thing isn´t an alien...

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks, nice to hear from someone that's educated on the topic.

Then I might as well put in a question while we're at it. From what little I've gathered, progeria causes the cranial walls to be thin, and this is not the case with the starchild skull. Are there any consistency with the progeria syndrome causing the cranial walls to be thin, or can they in some instances be abnormaly thick as well?

Originally posted by mrgiller
Did anybody consider that this skull could be a type of monkey that was
a pet of some ancient mexican indian and is already extinct?

Mrgriller.....

I recall we looked into the idea of a monkey skull.

However, we kept coming back to the anatomy being typical of Progeria Syndrome & atypical of a monkey's anatomy.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Droogie
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Thanks, nice to hear from someone that's educated on the topic.

Then I might as well put in a question while we're at it. From what little I've gathered, progeria causes the cranial walls to be thin, and this is not the case with the starchild skull. Are there any consistency with the progeria syndrome causing the cranial walls to be thin, or can they in some instances be abnormaly thick as well?

Droogie.....

I am of the understanding the thickness of the skull wall in Progeria can be variable, as can some of the other abnormal features.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

ATS Team:

Here is an interesting article about Progeria Syndrome, as published in the clinical journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics:

pediatrics.aappublications.org...

For those who didn't see it in my earlier post, here is a picture of a little fellow called Ashley, who has the condition:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7781aa14c38.jpg[/atsimg]

Here is a video of Ashley:



If you review Progeria Syndrome in detail, you will find that all aspects of the "Starchild Skull" can be explained by Progeria Syndrome.

Amongst other points of discussion, I note the oft mentioned.....

- Lack of frontal sinuses

- Abnormal bone composition

- Large, shallow orbits

.....which are consistent with Progeria Syndrome.

Here are some other links pertaining to Progeria Syndrome.

www.progeriaresearch.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Interesting, well that put one of my suspicions to rest.

Although there are likely to be other factors that may have caused the starchild to die at an early age, is it likely that a child with progeria could live to be five years old without medical treatment or special nutriments? Especially considering this was nine hundred years ago, it had to be hard supplying any of this to a child with this condition.

Originally posted by Droogie
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Interesting, well that put one of my suspicions to rest.

Although there are likely to be other factors that may have caused the starchild to die at an early age, is it likely that a child with progeria could live to be five years old without medical treatment or special nutriments? Especially considering this was nine hundred years ago, it had to be hard supplying any of this to a child with this condition.

Droogie.....

That's a really interesting question.

I am of the impression the progression of the severity of the condition can vary, meaning that survival until the age of 5 under such conditions might be a case-by-case situation.

I also know that bone age examinations can be quite complex. Therefore it is quite possible the "age" of that "Star Child" person's skull could be easily overestimated or underestimated.

Does this address your question satisfactorily?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Take a look at all the different abnormalities that humans can suffer throughout the world. There are plenty of pictures and documentaries.

There is also the cradleboarding theory, that happens because a childs skull is delicate, fragile and still growing, I know this "starchild's" skull developed with a bit more extreme than what we know of cradleboarding, but who really knows what happened to this "starchild", he/she could have had his head tightly strapped to something or anything. Say he/she was born with a deformity like progeria explaining the other features, it might have been religeon / culture that dictated the treatment of the infant, maybe demon belief, who knows.

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". Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.

So the DNA's right, the chromosomes right, I really do think all we have here is some poor kid who suffered some extreme condition, and may or may not have suffered harsh treatment as a result of a primitive society.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Does this address your question satisfactorily?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

It does, in the way that it further points in the direction of the plausible and reasonable explanation that we're talking about progeria as the answer to the starchild skull.

reply to post by Droogie


Droogie.....

Yes.....

I think so.

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


First Dave I have to say that I for one am glad you started yet 'another' thread on this topic (as some were pointing out to you) as I somehow missed the others, and I would rather see 100 topics on something like this than even one as asinine as NZ or Ireland has moved.

Thanks again I can't wait to hear the final results.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


we have been deceived by the government for a while, specially when the subject is extraterrestrial. I hope the truth comes out with no hiding facts or half truth

My understanding is that it's been established that the mother was Amerindian. Ok, so we know it's half human at least. Once the skull is tested and the fathers origin determined then this will be either debunked or continue tor emain unexplained. Just because dna isn't in the databasw doesn't mean it's alien. There are many examples of strange skulls, deformities and mutations that are human, and I think this one will likely be determined to be human as well.

No offense, but if any credible scientist thought this was actually an alien, it would have been tested already...

HEre are some of the other skulls...

www.watsonsupply.com...

And here is a deformity which doesn't even appear remotely human.

www.cassiopaea.org...

There are human deformities and mutations which could appear alien or paranormal.

listverse.com...

Who's to say the basic building blocks for life aren't consistent throughout the galaxy. We have no known alien DNA so how would we establish that it's otherworldly when we discover it; as opposed to a mutation or simply previously unidentified genetic markers?

This guy seems to make a lot of assumptions. Credible scientists maybe hesitant too touch him because they feel like their results will be twisted and manipulated to support his predetermined view. He's already attacking the credibility of one of the best labs in the world because he didn't like the results.

reply to post by Blue Shift


maybe we do now....this is where it all begins!! news, i for one have been waiting for!!

Originally posted by Section31

I am sticking to my Progeria theory, and I will consider this one debunked.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Section31]

This is what annoys me, people jump to conclusions, and in your case you put in your signature a link that indicates this is debunked, which it is NOT.

There is no conclusive proof either way this is true or false, all we have are hypothesis and statements. Both of which do not become fact no matter how much you want to believe.

I would appreciate it if you stopped indicating this is debunked until you can prove it outright without a doubt, and i would appreciate people who say this is an Alien to also stop saying that until its 100% proven outright.

This entire thing, is without Proof one way or another. The science behind it, if there really is any, is stated not shown for the most part and its only from 1 or 2 sources that can be considered questionable biased statements.


This site is about the search for truth and denying ignorance, all those who have said this is an alien or have said this is debunked are nothing but a detriment to this whole truth finding mission and i wish it would stop.
Try to think like a scientist when you reply, or else you seem narrow-minded and biased.