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... human mutation or hybrid?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 02:17 AM
I performed a search on this topic and found nothing which really surprised me, so if I simply botched the search and this subject has already been run into the ground... then I apologize ahead of time.

I'm sure that most of you have heard of the "starchild" skull that was discovered in Mexico. The skull itself has many distinct differences from the average human skull. The eye sockets are lower and shallower than usual. The cranial capacity is a bit larger than average. Scientists involved in the research even claim that it has a different density and structure than the average human skull. The artifact is composed of calcium hydroxyapatite (like all mammalian bone). The skull possesses all of the usual human parts, only "reconfigured". New tests have shown strange fibers that run throughout the bone in the skull as well. Mitochondrial DNA has been retrieved and tested, and it's clear that at least this child's mother was completely human. The "official" site is here...
Starchild Project

I don't know much about this and would like to hear what some of you may know. I'd also like to know if anyone has ever heard of any documented cases of natural mutations like this occuring in the human population before. Something tells me that the Starchild Project would be stubborn to present such cases.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:10 PM
I find it funny that no one is willing to touch this one with a ten foot pole... not publicly at least lol. I've gotten a u2u or two, but not a single post on this thread. I find it unlikely that such a skull could be faked, however without any real interest or response I have to think that maybe it was little more than an unsuccessful mutation (considering that the age of death is estimated at 5-6 years old). If by chance there are any anthropologists or even neurosurgeons that are members here, I'd still like to hear your take on this artifact.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 01:33 PM
I believe the "starchild skull" has been talked about on here a few times before, and there are plenty of websites with info on it. The general consensus is that it is simply a deformed child that died very young. Nothing alien about it. Perhaps that is why nobody is posting, cause there's nothing to it.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 04:38 PM
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking lol.

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:59 PM
I was searching and found this from awhile ago, and I figured I'd put my words in...

The websites have a slide show which tell of the dimensions and differences of the skulls... And it is strange. The 'starchild' skull is much more durable than normal human skulls, in fact the makeup of the bone itself is arranged in a way to make it more durable.

The ocular cavities (where the eyes go) are almost perfectly rounded.. normally in deformaties the bone is sometimes even 'warped' (which you could say this was warped to form an 'almost perfect' circle) - normally human eye sockets are more oval/ractangular.. And another thing of the eyes is that where the eyes connect to the brain is more towards the bottom of the sockets, unlike humans being straight back almost.

Oh and another thing.. The brain cavity is almost perfectly round as well, having no ridge for the groove that divides the human brain into left and right.. something doctors even think shouldnt happen in deformation...

These to me are enuf evidence.. though I could be wrong

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 03:20 AM
I want to know where it came from, whats its history?

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 04:51 PM
Skull binding...

common practice in South American child sacrifices...

Sad, but true, and thankfully, not practiced in quite some time....

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 05:57 PM
I am pretty stunned that, with all the sophisticated tests paid for, they forgot to do something as simple (and cheap) as a qualitative and quantitave chemical analysis. I mean: they say that the bone fragment failed to dissolve in EDTA after a week or so. That's kinda strange. Instead of going to incredible lenghts to analize mythocondrial and nuclear DNA, why not start off with a very simple chemical analysis of the bones themselves? Any university or analysis laboratory will perform it for a very reasonable sum; you could get a groundbreaking discovery for a fraction of the cost of the nuclear DNA analysis; in alternative, you save a lot of money and can switch to other activities. Of course, if the bones prove to be outside the set human parameters, you can always get easier access to research funding. If my experience taught me something, is that first you start off with the cheap and simple analysis and you switch to more sophisticated (and expensive) methods only if the sample is worth the shackles.

posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 03:30 AM
I was doing some reading about this "Starchild Skull" tonight and figured I would bump this thread to maybe get some more discussion going on it. Here is the new website about it:

top topics


log in