DNA testing underway on 'alien hybrid human baby' found in Peru

page: 12
162
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
en.wikipedia.org...


The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull allegedly found in Mexico that is claimed to be the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or genetic manipulation. Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human. Experts believe it to be the skull of a child who died as a result of known genetic or congenital abnormalities, such as congenital hydrocephalus.



DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), 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."[4]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged 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.


DENY IGNORANCE!!!


edit on 28-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


Has anybody bothered reading this post at all? It's been disproven, it's human. There's no alien-breeding involved, it was a result of hydrocpehalus....
At least look at the truth when it's presented to you instead of ignoring it and continuing to go on about what it's already been proven NOT to be.


edit on 29-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: typo




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Could it have been extreme hydrocephalus?


That's exactly what it was and has been proven long ago and keeps recirculating


edit on 29-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
These look also interesting, especially at 2.35:


That said, I don't think they are aliens, perhaps just some adoption, like perhaps bigger memory capability's and or since their eye sockets are bigger as well, the visuel part in the brain is enlarged? But not that much different I guess then normal humans.
edit on 29-7-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Could it have been extreme hydrocephalus?


That's exactly what it was and has been proven long ago and keeps recirculating




Source?

I'd be interested in reading the details.

Thanks



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by muzzleflash

You jumped to conclusions.

I made no conclusions other than "I would be surprised to come across it".

Did I say anything about it's origins or causation? Nope. I left that in the air to be decided at a later date when more evidence is provided.

So why are you jumping to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion?
You should probably avoid it until I make a clear statement rather than assuming I inferred it, which I didn't infer anything.


Pardon - but just to clarify, I never said YOU jumped to conclusions, you didn't .. so forgive that for not being clearly spelled .. I said jumping to conclusions should be avoided, it was intended to be general .. because it's happening in the thread.. again, sorry you thought I meant you.. I didn't =)
edit on 7/28/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)


HEHEHEH!!! He was jumping to conclusions that you was jummping to conclusions about him jumping to conclusions!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
en.wikipedia.org...


The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull allegedly found in Mexico that is claimed to be the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or genetic manipulation. Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human. Experts believe it to be the skull of a child who died as a result of known genetic or congenital abnormalities, such as congenital hydrocephalus.



DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), 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."[4]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged 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.


DENY IGNORANCE!!!


edit on 28-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)


Has anybody bothered reading this post at all? It's been disproven, it's human. There's no alien-breeding involved, it was a result of hydrocpehalus....
At least look at the truth when it's presented to you instead of ignoring it and continuing to go on about what it's already been proven NOT to be.


edit on 29-7-2012 by PurpleChiten because: typo


I noticed it, and I for one am glad you posted this, was always curious about the results of the tests on the "starchild skull" and all I seem to have heard is waffle about this so called fox 2 gene, once again, thanks!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
This reminds me of that scene in the holy mountain when they talk about the peruvian war



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Phage
There is no "testing positive for alien". At most the DNA would display unrecognized sequences.




Now, Wouldn't that be cool?


Extremely cool! that would mean a endless supply of answers, although I do doubt if any similar result was to be found, the public would be informed.

Everyone seems really skeptical about this whole subject, and I do understand why, it is a big claim to say a possible human/alien hybrids have been discovered but this has been noted in many other civilisations like the Egyptians and tribes in north eastern Africa, coincidence?
edit on 29-7-2012 by TellEmRye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I hope they include more forensic evidence such as the age based on the teeth and the length/ratio of the rest of the skeleton. I'm inclined to say that this a coincidental case of a type of macrocrania such as hydrocephalus amongst a population that practiced head binding/elongation. Not many individuals survive such a deformity without medical intervention such as a shunt. As other members have pointed out, the orbital sockets seem disproportionately large. Large eyes in the animal kingdom is seen in nocturnal species to see in the dark. We will have to see what the DNA results look like.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
We find them all over the planet. What's interesting to me is that many of the skulls show what appear to be thicker than normal or unusual jaw shapes. Could be my imagination.

From Russia



Peru



If they molded the head from birth, the thickened bone in the jaw could be compensation in development of the jaw to accomodate moving the weight of the head back.

Weight bearing exercise will cause bones to thicken, and if you move the weight backwards on the head this could be considered a type of exercise since it would change the way that a baby learned to hold its head up. It would also change how the muscles in the face were pulling on the bone. Muscle pulling on bones also causing thickening.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

My guess.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Could it have been extreme hydrocephalus?


That's exactly what it was and has been proven long ago and keeps recirculating




Source?

I'd be interested in reading the details.

Thanks


I gave one of the sources, look back at the post.
There are several other sources as well that are linked to it but I thought wikipedia would be the easiest for most folks to follow. There are severa sources from the science academies and several universities that can be googled pretty easily too



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Don't those skulls look sorta like PurpleChiten skulls, less the beak of course



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Here is another child skeleton from Peru that's been siting in one of their museums for a few years now.



Something came to mind while looking at this pic. Is it possible that some people do not grow properly, but their brain DOES continue to grow, and we end up with what we see in this pic?

As for the DNA test, I feel if there is any possibility that it would test positive for alien we'll never be told the truth.
Oooooooo I hope it does test positive and the truth does get out though coz I have a few people in mind who will hear a very loud "I TOLD YOU SO"

Personally I think we've been visited in the past, probably many times.


For comparison purposes, I pulled a picture of a child young enough to still have baby teeth so that people can compare eye sockets.



It isn't the eyes that get me about that skelton. It is the rib cage. That's a pretty massive rib cage on a little dude.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SibylofErythrae
 


Some articles say that the suture line of the plates of the skull are different in these skulls. The skulls of the people trying to elongate the skulls have the same suture lines as normal. You can't change the suture pattern by reshaping the skull to a conehead.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SibylofErythrae
 


That's a really interesting comparison, between the skeletons of "normal" kids vs. that of the "anomalous" kids.
Skulls are quite different, along various features.
The rib cage issue also looks interesting and would be worth closer investigation and merits detailed comparisons.

I am pretty convinced that we don't have the full story here about these skeletons.
Something isn't adding up, not sure what it is yet, but we're missing something here that would make a whole lot of sense out of this. Could be totally simple too.

The head wrapping thing doesn't appear to explain everything (eg. rib cage sizes, etc).
So having a detailed DNA analysis and comparison appears to be the only real way forward in figuring anything out about this.

Was it another species or an evolution or something along these lines? Was it merely a screwed up cultural practice? Is there something even more amazing going on here? Unknown. Lack pertinent data to calculate accurate outcome.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I think it's just another humanoid species also. We had cromagnum and Neanderthal and possibly more so why are people even questioning this? Maybe because they coexisted with humans in the last five thousand years and it doesn't follow present archeological theory? What's new.
edit on 30-7-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by SibylofErythrae
 


Some articles say that the suture line of the plates of the skull are different in these skulls. The skulls of the people trying to elongate the skulls have the same suture lines as normal. You can't change the suture pattern by reshaping the skull to a conehead.


Maybe so but the rib cage size issue is pretty strange.
Maybe it's just a poor camera angle?

But it seems to me that child's rib cage is hardly an inch above it's pelvis.

I don't know about you folks so much, but I do know my rib cage is a lot further separated from the pelvis than that. Hopefully it's a poor camera angle or some strange medical issue that someone may be able to explain.

If anyone is an expert on homo sapiens skeletal features, their input would be invaluable at this point.

What reasons should prevent me from asserting that this skeleton could be construed as a different species? Or alternatively, what reasons can we use as criteria for construing it as a different species?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sorta looks like it has more ribs also.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Sorta looks like it has more ribs also.


Here is a link describing in detail the numerical values of human rib cages.
Also it explains the difference between various types of ribs.

How many ribs do humans have?

I'm having some trouble counting the anomalous skeleton's ribs accurately.
To be absolute sure I would request additional angles of photography in order to double and triple check the counts.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I think it's just another humanoid species also. We had cromagnum and Neanderthal and possibly more so why are people even questioning this? Maybe because they coexisted with humans in the last five thousand years and it doesn't follow present archeological theory? What's new.
edit on 30-7-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)


Cro-magnon....
2nd





top topics
 
162
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join