The Starchild Skull

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Go back to that source. Look under diseases. Search for Congenital hydrocephalus. Run away.

The gene is required during early embryonic development for formation of brain regions associated with speech and language.

The gene, called FOXP2, was identified through studies...

-- news.nationalgeographic.com...

Sorry...I did a rather quick search, but found no reference to hydrocephalus, just references to speech and communication.

Though, no, I didn't go back to the "source", I looked for a better reference.

originally posted by: tanka418


Well... you have not spent enough time researching what I said t actually reach ay conclusion what so ever! Care to try again? perhaps actually READ what refer to...

Great, show me where it says it. You keep talking, but have yet to back anything up. I backed everything up with expert sources.

Wow, thats on hell of a amateur! Quite serious about is hobby? I mean he spent several 1's f thousands on analysis equipment. Which, by the way, was designed to be as "user friendly" as possible, and therefore easy to use, relatively speaking...BUT, that "Bot" will allow almost anybody, even you, to obtain world class results...mostly because some uneducated idiot like me programmed it...amazing what comes from a lack of expertise!

And if we assume the results are correct it 100% is in line with a 100% human skull. None of the data even deals with the findings of the other 2 labs, Ketchum swept that under the rug and doesn't even attempt to disprove it, because it's 100% accurate. Instead Ketchum releases data that is 100% in line with a human skull and simply says it's not. Maybe if he was not an amateur he would understand the data he has since as soon as I saw the FOXP2 gene association I knew right away that is linked to hydrocephalus, which was a prior diagnosis.

I thought we were talking about microbiology and genetics...my bad...Just what do you think "biological systems" are? Oh, and then there is that DNA search engine...

Yes, and when the results are given, where is your expertise in genetics to interpret them? That's right, like Ketchum, who confused an opossum for Bigfoot, you don't have any.

Sorry man, I don't know where you get the notion that a sample with a projection of 1000's of differences in a stable region of the Human DNA sequence constitutes "100% Human"...perhaps you could explain that...

Source that so I know what you are talking about.

If you mean Ketchum's tests on the FOXP2 gene ... this is what I am talking about. Lying amateur. This is where I get that from .. this happens.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This is starting to get on my nerves.

I will make this clear for both sides.

The DNA proves that the starchild's origins are of earth. However the DNA is not entirely human. What we are most likely looking at is a hybrid between Human and Primitive man.

The only thing we can prove is it is shares common ancestry with Humans.

a reply to: ubernood

Ahhhh care to explain why the 1999 test and 2003 test both confirmed 100% human?

a reply to: tanka418

So basically I prove everything I say and you ignore it. Sounds about right.

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: tanka418
What the data shows are far too many differences for the skull to be Human. However you need to understand the nature of those differences.

The only data you like is the Ketchum data which deals with the FOXP2 gene ... which you should take your own advice, that data actually shows the skull to be 100% human and you don't even understand it.

The FOXP2 gene is associated with natural deformities such as hydrocephaly. Exactly what experts have concluded this is.
services.nbic.nl...

If that is the most current data, then yes. Well gee whiz, ya know, when I looked up the FOXP2, it went on abut speech, as differentiated from hydrocephaly...

And, no, it does not show the skull to be "Human", that is only your imagination.

Perhaps you should actually read the report...

He will never read the report. He's sticking to that old obsolete data from 1999 since it sort of helps, but doesn't actually.

What it truly is showing is that no one here can bother him with the facts or any new results garnered from new tests, because he made up his mind way back in 1999. It doesn't even bother him that this glaringly transparent and unscientific stance is so obvious to everyone else who are willing to learn and educate themselves when new data becomes available.

Bias is so easy to spot, especially when someone is presenting something controversial, and I haven't seen any whatsoever on the Starchild site. All independent labs, and volunteers doing the work and presenting only what they have truly found. When they aren't sure, or have doubts about anything, they say so. I noticed that right away when I first read through it and the reports old and new.

I also heard people speak about the hurdles they have gone through when this skull was first being tested. A lot of ridicule and scoffing from the establishment types. I think they do that because newcomers might take away their sunshine when they discover something that they themselves have ignored and ridiculed as not even worthy of consideration. And then it turns out to be true, and they get left in the dust.

Now it is left at sour grapes, and crying rivers. Common schoolyard sociology at play here..

What is strange is seeing some here fighting for the deniers, even though they have no vested interest in the skull at all. Just showboating for their pals here on ATS..

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
He will never read the report. He's sticking to that old obsolete data from 1999 since it sort of helps, but doesn't actually.

Except I read it years ago. It's actually evidence of 100% human, and I already explained and sourced why.

What it truly is showing is that no one here can bother him with the facts or any new results garnered from new tests, because he made up his mind way back in 1999. It doesn't even bother him that this glaringly transparent and unscientific stance is so obvious to everyone else who are willing to learn and educate themselves when new data becomes available.

Why do you keep saying that when I was the first one to source the 2003 results? Are there newer results from accredited labs? If so can you post them?

Bias is so easy to spot, especially when someone is presenting something controversial, and I haven't seen any whatsoever on the Starchild site. All independent labs, and volunteers doing the work and presenting only what they have truly found. When they aren't sure, or have doubts about anything, they say so. I noticed that right away when I first read through it and the reports old and new.

The Starchild site claims it's likely this child is 100% alien and not human at all and I sourced it. It's ridiculous.

I also heard people speak about the hurdles they have gone through when this skull was first being tested. A lot of ridicule and scoffing from the establishment types. I think they do that because newcomers might take away their sunshine when they discover something that they themselves have ignored and ridiculed as not even worthy of consideration. And then it turns out to be true, and they get left in the dust.

No, there wasn't. Two labs tested it with no problems at all.

Now it is left at sour grapes, and crying rivers.

Common schoolyard sociology at play here..

What is strange is seeing some here fighting for the deniers, even though they have no vested interest in the skull at all. Just showboating for their pals here on ATS..

I presented all the data and facts. Care to dispute any of it or are you too busy with logical fallacies and character assassinations?

Fact. Every lab has concluded 100% human male.

the cranial sutures and teeth prove it is not a child. why don't you like to talk about the morphological and chemical differences? because they don't fit your agenda.

this thing has the same genetic issues as the skull and go ahead and trash Greer for your argument it's the same old song and dance.

www.youtube.com...


a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

So basically I prove everything I say and you ignore it. Sounds about right.

you don't prove anything and you ignore all kinds of stuff so don't pat yerself on the back

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanka418

So basically I prove everything I say and you ignore it. Sounds about right.

Actually man, you haven't proven anything except your abilities to make random associations.

Your association of FOXP2 and hydrocephalus for instance. This link of yours is merely the result of a text search, and all it is showing is that in three (3) papers the two words appear. Not that they are in anyway, or particularly, related. Only that they appear in the same paper.

And, in all of the papers out there; there are only 3.

You are not providing any new or resolving data, only desperately hanging on to obsolete data, that is easier to misinterpret, and "morph" into something that makes you feel better.

All I've seen from you is attempted character assassination and insistence on a misinterpretation of obsolete data.

This is NOT how science works.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ubernood

Ahhhh care to explain why the 1999 test and 2003 test both confirmed 100% human?

Care to explain why you so desperately hang on to obsolete, superseded, data?

originally posted by: SPECULUM
The only thing missing is a forensic reconstruction, to see what it looks like with skin and eyes.

You can clearly see its not some form of a birth defect of alteration, and its clearly not Human either. or a 900 year old Hoax.

I'd say its a Grey Alien Skull.. I cant see it being a Human Hybrid, there would be no purpose

Not missing. Go to around 08:00.

They even got the greenish gray flesh and all black almond eyes right.

"No Alien in mind..."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'll be referencing data on this page:
www.starchildproject.com...

In an area where the 2003 and 2011 mtDNA results are discussed...

167 nucleotides were sequenced and compared...In this highly conservative (stable) area some 17 differences were found...

In all of Human kind there are a total of 120 (+/-) differences cataloged.

If we extrapolate this to cover the entire 16,570 nucleotides...we arrive at 1,687 differences...

As a comparison: there are 200(+/-) differences in Neanderthal, 385(+/-) in Denisova, and some 1500 in Chimpanzees. Our starchild has over 1600 differences.

And this is in your "100% Human" mtDNA! Not so 100% any more...this is data that can not be ignored as you seem to want.

Here are a few percentages to help visualize this...

Differences...
Neanderthal: 1.44%
Denisova: 2.77%
Chimpanzee: 10.8%
Starchild: 12.14%

So...it would appear that Mother wasn't quite Human after all despite all the screaming that she is...

It is time for y'all to catch up with the rest of the world, use contemporary data, and at least try to properly understand the science that is attempting to explain it all.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'll be referencing data on this page:
www.starchildproject.com...

Of course you will.

It looks like the facts have been posted and with no logical rebuttal I think it is now more prudent to figure out why so many choose to ignore the data and put forth a false narrative. The question becomes what do the haters have to gain by this action or why reason would their be to have everyone believe that this is just a human skull. I feel that way because they are smart enough peeps to understand the truth yet remain as if they do not.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
It looks like the facts have been posted and with no logical rebuttal I think it is now more prudent to figure out why so many choose to ignore the data and put forth a false narrative. The question becomes what do the haters have to gain by this action or why reason would their be to have everyone believe that this is just a human skull. I feel that way because they are smart enough peeps to understand the truth yet remain as if they do not.

Currently the term: Xenophobia applies. It is probably not quite accurate, but, it is what is in current use.

Basically, they have a fear of things extraterrestrial / alien. It is also highly likely that they don't perceive things quite that way, and so will vehemently deny the reality...like they do with "things not Human".

And, of course, IF this skull turned out to be "not Human"; why there'd be another species that no longer exists here.

a reply to: tanka418

Makes sense but personally I believe they answer to a power that has made clear that aliens and humans should remain separate. I have listened to many of these posters and would stake my life on them not being stupid or phobic. I think if you look at the issue as a whole you can easily got to the thought that conditions for life in space is highly probable but there have been serious efforts to cover up and hide evidence through the years and the stance many take on the subject is more scripted than thought like.

Aliens exist along with an effort to cover up that truth

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Agartha meant there are no real reports for YOUR side of the fence. Agartha clearly agreed there are reports proving this to be 100% human.

Yep, this is exactly what I meant ^^

And I go back to the same point: the paternal DNA... if the paternal DNA is soooo different from our human DNA and knowing that even with apes we couldn't reproduce (although we share 98% of our DNA), then hybridization would be impossible.

And if aliens did breed with us we would have millions of starchild people on this planet....where are they?

I want to see a real lab test done, under controlled conditions, where we can prove without doubt that the specimen came from this skull. Until then all I see on those sites is just hearsay without real evidence.

originally posted by: Agartha
I want to see a real lab test done, under controlled conditions, where we can prove without doubt that the specimen came from this skull. Until then all I see on those sites is just hearsay without real evidence.

Gotta love it! When all else fails, resort to unreasonable demands that you hope will not be met...

In the results provided so far testing labs have been specified, although individual technicians have not. These are all accredited labs...so your demands of "real lab", and "under controlled conditions" have been met...by the accreditation process.

While you are not required to accept a damn bit of it; you owe it to yourself to at least try to understand what the data says.

Maybe its just me...but, I can't quite "see" how y'all could have missed such obvious anomalies.

originally posted by: Agartha
I want to see a real lab test done, under controlled conditions, where we can prove without doubt that the specimen came from this skull. Until then all I see on those sites is just hearsay without real evidence.

You will never see that, as it would show it was human and destroy their cash cow!