The Starchild Skull

originally posted by: cuckooold
I particularly like the highly prominent donate button on the Starchild Project site.

Having a highly prominent donate button on a site is not a reason to discredit it...assuming that you don't think that ATS is a discredited site simply because it has a prominent donate button.

No matter what non-experts on this subject claim that they know, this is a legitimate mystery that deserves further study. I'm not claiming that it is an alien by any means--could be, could not be at this point--but the fact that we don't know means that it's worth discussing.

It is now, and always has been, a deformed child. Deal with it.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No matter what non-experts on this subject claim that they know,

You mean like the people pushing the "starchild hoax"!

this is a legitimate mystery that deserves further study.

It is not a mystery at all, as the DNA testing has shown, it is a human skull.

but the fact that we don't know

We DO know, it is human.

a reply to: hellobruce
Are you saying that the nuclear dna has shown up in test and that the complete strands are just a match with our dna and there are no extras?

I like this topic and I think that OP did a great job putting all the facts in order from both sides of this dispute, so people can read and make their own mind.
Is just that is quite annoying having to skim through all the negative posts some can't help posting.

This topic has been discussed before on ATS; okay, we got it. You can stop saying it over and over.
The skull is a human skull, or so you think. You can either take all the anomalies presented one by one and show us how they fit into the anatomy of a human skull, or let it be if is just an opinion.
I understand that the OP is posting some new findings in this topic; maybe some people want to further discuss it. That is why we come to a forum; if we wanted for someone to tell us to shut up and listen to what are we told we would be at work right now

So either discuss it or let other discuss it, and enjoy other threads you agree to. But for god's sake please stop fighting like kids in the school yard.

do a chemical analysis of Merrick's bone and it will be human the Starchild not so much, not to mention the fibers, red residue and interior morphology of the cranial cavity doesn't house a human brain. You need to do your homework on this if you want to try to disprove it.


a reply to: Revolution9

you're rehashing old data not to mention ignoring tons of other evidence besides dna. how about you explain the FoxP2 gene not matching anything human?


a reply to: hellobruce

originally posted by: obscurepanda
It is now, and always has been, a deformed child. Deal with it.

really? where did you find that?

using the Novella article proves you aren't up to date and have missed quite a lot. Explain the Starchild's FOXp2 gene.


a reply to: hellobruce

a reply to: hellobruce

You don't think a government funded scientist is going to go against the establishment do you? So, NO not a human skull.

Same thing is always done when the government wants to discredit something. Project Bluebook. The Robertson panel report. The Brookings report. The 911 Commission.. ETC ETC ETC.

Something like this gets little guys like academians to go on record and on the air and recite a nicely written piece of Bullshyt to satisfy the status quo and keep the topic buried.

Things like the star child with so many different characteristics proving beyond any doubt that it has nothing in common with the physiology of a human skull as far as normal, and abnormal differences in chemistry, density, locations and placements of features. Everything is different.

Your Earthly views are flat and stiff. Too much starch

originally posted by: hellobruce
We DO know, it is human.

People like you are the non-experts I was talking about.

People "pushing the hoax" are generally just pointing out unanswered anomalies with this skull--so many contained within one skull that it appears to be a near impossibility for them all to be occurring in one human--and asking questions because we are unconvinced about the explanations that say that this is 'just' a human skull.

You can "know" all you want, but I question your knowledge--it's a healthy thing to do in this situation.

Like I said, I'm not claiming it's alien, but there are a lot of indicators and unanswered questions that point to it not being 100% human (as in H. Sapien Sapien).

a reply to: wmd_2008

Do you account for newer members, or anyone that is more interesting in this subject than yourself?

Do you even need to be on this thread?


To the OP, thank you for starting another thread on this subject, believe me people appreciate it, you'll notice the ones who don't, they cry out for stars.

Bumping older threads sometimes doesn't receive the newer discussion they deserve when people like the OP but in effort to bring more to light.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There seem to be plenty of "experts" on both sides.

So answer me this - where is the sample of "alien" DNA to which this skull is being compared?

Better yet, where is the "alien skull" to which this skull is being compared?

a reply to: Telepathy3

Information that to my knowledge that apparently isn't allowed to be corrected even though its information is long disproven and/or outdated. Here are the several medical conditions that have been given to explain or debunk the skulls anomalies but have been disproven.

I'm no neurologist but I'm pretty sure skull size and and brain size is irrelevant in humans. The mentally deficient folk don't have a head the size of a orange, just like geniuses heads don't need their own parking space. Lets not forget that body modifications or genetic abnormalities are not exclusive to certain cultures.

a reply to: Revolution9

Ok... sorry to not just look more of this up to be sure... But wasn't John Merrick's affliction what we've come to call "Elephantitus"?

It's a great example to use, but the deformities in the so called star child just seem more like the skull evolved as opposed to Merrick's unfortunate random-like deformities on his skull.

That one picture has the skull 4 times and dense as a normal skull?

That's a lot more convenience a deformity to get.

a reply to: Telepathy3

A few remarks....I spoke to Lloyd Pye back in 2002-3. Nice man.

I'm a neuroradiologist and while Lloyd did get human neuroanatomists to look at this specimen, I've never seen a temporal bone CT scan of it - yet. I was trying to set one up for him back then, it just never materialized for various reasons.

A great leap of faith is being made by stating that "telepathy" is possible due to various anatomical features, which is frankly nonsense. I do not possess frontal sinuses - and a small percent of normal homo sapiens do not. The Maxillary and ethmoids develop first, followed by the frontal sinuses by 10 years of age, and last to finish pneumatizing are the sphenoid chambers....

I do agree however that the optic nerve canals, and superior orbital fissures, are quite malformed for a normal human. The various craniosynostoses mentioned, and craniofacial dysplastic syndromes possible are many, and quite complex, needing an advanced and experienced pediatric craniofacial academician's input.

a reply to: drphilxr

I do agree however that the optic nerve canals, and superior orbital fissures, are quite malformed for a normal human. The various craniosynostoses mentioned, and craniofacial dysplastic syndromes possible are many, and quite complex, needing an advanced and experienced pediatric craniofacial academician's input.

So its either alien or some form of mental retardation?