6153 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Ah, thanks mate.  You have probably posted this before and I may very well have read it and failed to recall the details.  It all seems very plausible to me.  I wonder what Kali thinks of this, and anyone else who has expressed interest.

[bee]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 02:14 AM, said:

I agree. Everyone has been doing a great job lately (you know who you are!).

thankyou that is most kind.......

[lost_shaman]

bee, on 06 June 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

thankyou that is most kind.......

I'm sorry Bee, I know you feel like you should have made that list. No hard feelings, but you didn't.

[bee]

lost_shaman, on 06 June 2011 - 06:59 AM, said:

I'm sorry Bee, I know you feel like you should have made that list. No hard feelings, but you didn't.

that's ok...I'm not into your elitism.....

[Copasetic]

My opinion in coming. Personally I feel that congenital hydrocephalus is the most likely explanation. The reasons given on the "starchildproject" website for dismissing hydrocephalus are frankly, pathetic and really point out a lot of errors in gross anatomy.

Let's look at their quick dismissal;

Quote

Hydrocephaly indiscriminately expands the skull starting at the softest areas--the unfused sutures.1 The Starchild Skull's sutures were open and healthy at the time of death, meaning that if any internal pressure was present in the cranium it would have expanded first at the suture lines. But the expansion in the Starchild Skull, while symmetrical, is present only in the solid bone plates of the parietals.2 In fact, there is a pronounced dent at the sagittal suture 3--as impossible in a Hydrocephalic as it is to blow up a round balloon while leaving a dent down the middle. In addition, Hydrocephaly does not cause natural flattening of the occipital 4, shallowing and realignment of the eye sockets, compression of the bone, or any of the other abnormal features present in the Starchild Skull.5

(My inserted numbers to address their claims).

1. This actually isn't true. Hydrocephalus happens below the level of the dura matter. The dura and meningial layers are uneven and contorted following the contours of the cranial cavity. This actually can result in certain areas preferentially enlarging over others. Further more, not all suture lines are created equal. Some parts of the head will be easier to expand than others because the thickness and strength of the features there. This isn't something we need to speculate on, we can simply observe children with congenital hydrocephalus (CH) to see that they are mistaken about the always equal expansion;




2. This is again not true at all.



Looking at the starchild skull you can clearly see all the hallmarks of a human skull (sutures, foramen, fossas, etc) but more than just "expansion at the parietal". I would hope a real doctor examining the skulls would be able to see a little better than that....

You can clearly see that the frontal bones have been deformed, the hallmark is the in the ablatment of the supraorbital ridge seen in the side view. Notice the distension at the pterion, which signifies that greater wing of the sphenoid bone is deformed as well. Likewise, you can see the zygomatic process and squamous part of the temporal bone are deformed.

In a front on view;



Even the amateur anatomist can clearly see the ethmoid, pterygoid processes, nasal and orbital bones are all deformed. More interesting in this front on view, I find the foramen magnum, which looks deformed as well (which I believe is pointed out in Pye's report at his website). If this is the case then that could actually support CH--As deformities which interfered with CSF flow from the 4th ventricle down through the cerebellomedullary cistern into the spinal cord. I've modified this TI MRI to add how the flow of CSF should normally go (green arrows) and where it gets reabsored in the arachnoid granulations (green stars). The red line is the approximate level the FM and you can see if this was displaced forward (yet the rhombencephalon still underwent embrylogical folding) the caudal medulla would penetrate the FM at a funny angle reducing flow for the normal route of the CSF (in fact I believe Pye's own measurements put it at "1.5 inches forward").




3. Again, as seen in the picture above the "pronounced dent" at the superior sagittal suture isn't uncommon in CH.

You can clearly see again with this child, the "dent" at the sagittal suture.

And if his "experts" don't understand why they really shouldn't be practicing medicine. This is med school gross anatomy 101. Running in your brain you have compartmental specializations from the dura--The cerebral falx (sorry for you Latin fans I'm from the states so no falx cerebri for you!), cerebellar falx and cerebellar tentorium;



At the apex of the cerebral falx you have a particular specialization called the dural venous sinus, which is a very thick and tough part of the dural meningial layer there. For anyone who's ever dissected a human brain (and I have) you know that the dura here is particularly thick and tough while "thin" out over the cortical regions of the brain. Since it is more thick and tough, we'd expect it to less malleable to pressure from CH and thus create an artifact of "dent" during expansion.


4. No CH doesn't specifically cause flattening of the occipital bone, but I'll tell you what does. Having a head weighed down with a heavy liquid substance (CSF) so never developing the neck strength to lift said head up. Ohhhh, over looked that one have we "experts". Not so surprising this still happens today to "late" bloomers who even have the luxury of laying in a soft crib. You may have heard people say "crib" head before, they are referring to the fact that the back of their head is flat from spending too much time on it (which is also one of the reasons your pediatrician tells you to get your baby interacting on its stomach as soon as you can). Laying on a cave floor or the ground, I can only imagine this is exacerbated all the more.


5. Again, this is more they've reached their conclusion and are simply dismissing anything that doesn't support it. The "shallowing" of orbits here is due to their elongation. If you look at normal 5 year olds skull and the starchilds, you'll not that the orbits are more shallow but elongated as well. When the head is "growing" up in CH, the inflicted individuals tend to get a "surprised" look expression due to extension of the skin and musculature around the eyes (see picture below). Considering that the bones that make up the orbit and periorbital areas are full of cartilagenous sutures it not a far stretch (no pun intended) to imagine they are easily distorted in the direction of the distorting force.



The bottom line is though, these starchild people already have their answer (its alien) and anything contrary is going be dismissed. You're not going to get the real details of "expert" evaluations (if they really had them) nor do I think Pye and the owners are all that eager to let real unbiased professionals go poking about.

My thoughts anyway, for those that were wondering  

Edited by Copasetic, 06 June 2011 - 07:49 AM.

[lost_shaman]

bee, on 06 June 2011 - 07:24 AM, said:

that's ok...I'm not into your elitism.....

That's not fair. I'm not "elitist'. What on Earth makes you think that?

[Slave2Fate]

Copasetic, on 06 June 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

My opinion in coming. Personally I feel that congenital hydrocephalus is the most likely explanation. The reasons given on the "starchildproject" website for dismissing hydrocephalus are frankly, pathetic and really point out a lot of errors in gross anatomy.

*Snip for quote brevity**

Hey Copa, thanks for taking the time to address this issue. Always appreciated to have the word of someone who knows a thing or two about this kind of thing . Now if you'll pardon me, I have some terminology to look up.   

[psyche101]

Thank you Copa, we really appreciate you lending your expertise to clear up the mystery. An interesting, and informative post. Top read. Great work there.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 06 June 2011 - 08:19 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Oh dear, did we really need to see those pictures?  Poor kids.

[bee]

747400, on 06 June 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh dear, did we really need to see those pictures?  Poor kids.

I thought the same.....it's a heart-breaker.....


and anyway....I haven't had time to go through Kali's link properly yet..(cheers Kali)

but a cursory skim told me it was all about DNA...not well known human birth defects??????

[Slave2Fate]

747400, on 06 June 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh dear, did we really need to see those pictures?  Poor kids.

I too feel bad for the little crumb-snatchers   but given the similarities that Copa's argument highlights I think the images serve as an acceptable visual aid in my opinion.

[quillius]

badeskov, on 03 June 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

Hi quillius,

Sorry to shamelessly interject myself here with my point of view.

Yes, I think most agree with that

No, Sky has not been able to counter anything.

No, knowing your debating tactics you probably wouldn't be overwhelmed, and if you were it would be in a positive way.

Lets face it. Sky's claims have been negated by cold, hard facts. There is no way to deny that. Sky has no case. Period. The pity Sky has earned (and he certainly has mine), is that fact that he has neither the intellectual nor willingness to accept that he is wrong. This is not a vendetta against Sky as a person, this is an attempt to try and make sure newcomers to this understand what is going on. The fact of the matter is that Sky has been proven wrong continuously and I seriously question why that has to be the case. If you really wanted the facts out, like you do, wouldn't you like the facts come out? I know you do! I have a serious problem with people that need to misrepresent in a discussion like this. That I have no respect for!  

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hello Badeskov, no shame in interjecting, this is an open forum and every opinion has a value, directly or indirectly.

We seem to mainly agree by the sounds of it.

I would however for my own personal curiosity ask about your wording 'debating tactics' mainly the tactics part has me interested and may I ask you ellaborate on what you envisage my tactics are?

mnay thanks  

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 03 June 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

I agree the point is more or less moot. That said, we are talking about hundreds of man hours that would likely be needed just to unload and make safe a few Flares that then have to be stored and transported back to Maryland and then stored again. It's a lot of trouble when the Air Force in their own words had labeled the Flares "Unaccptable". I feel that you are simply looking at that 13% number and thinking that you personally don't think it's that bad, however the Air Force would be looking at all the logistics involved and even the possiblity of needing to dispose of these Flares in the future in making their decision. They were likely thinking ahead and tring to avoid a situation like they are in today where they are stuck with a warehouse full of 70,000 bad Flares that they can't do anything with.

Hey LS, without prolonging this argument may I ask if you actually know if the decision to dispose of flares prior to returning to base is standard practise for safety reasons? As I believe I read this somewhere, not sure if its from someones post or some other source.

edit: spelling

Edited by quillius, 06 June 2011 - 10:40 AM.

[quillius]

lost_shaman, on 03 June 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

If you go look at old Roswell threads on say Space.com you'll see the Man has been using this same Modus Operandi since like 2002 or earlier. So it's not about being overwhelmed or needing to regroup at all. What you are seeing is simply the Man's MO which is exactly the way he wants it.

noted

lost_shaman, on 03 June 2011 - 08:14 PM, said:

Such a question is not so simple. If there is no physical evidence such an event actually happened then what you are saying is really no different than when a mentally ill person such as a schizophrenic makes similar claims. Schizophrenics, as an example, often have delusions about Aliens. People who have no mental illness making a similar claim while no evidence exist to back them may have simply had a one time episode brought on by stress or environmental factors. Or more simply be lying for fun or attention. There is no way to know.

valid point LS. Maybe I should have used three people as opposed to one to eliminate the 'mental illness aspect'.

Maybe using your own experience with two friends. If you saw a physical craft as opposed to a light and ET jumped out said hello then flew off, surely you would not need any further proof of visitation, would you? I am sure it would raise a thousand other questions though.

[lost_shaman]

quillius, on 06 June 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

Hey LS, without prolonging this argument may I ask if you actually know if the decision to dispose of flares prior to returning to base is standard practise for safety reasons? As I believe I read this somewhere, not sure if its from someones post or some other source.

edit: spelling

All I can say is that I've never heard of it except in discussion of the 10pm PL's. As far as I can tell there is no mention of anything like this before or after that I've been able to find.