Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LucidElement

Starchild Skull

40 posts in this topic

The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull which was found in Mexico. It is primarily known through paranormal researchers' claims that it represents evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes that it is human (WIKIPEDIA)

Human Skull or Paranormal Skull??? interesting.. even though they say the DNA matches it as a human... government cover-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull which was found in Mexico. It is primarily known through paranormal researchers' claims that it represents evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes that it is human (WIKIPEDIA)

Human Skull or Paranormal Skull??? interesting.. even though they say the DNA matches it as a human... government cover-up?

It's a diseased human from a child who has progeria. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of anything else except it looks weird, but so does the wiki photo of the progeria patient. The child probably had other deforming issues as well that caused its death. That's probably why it's a child skull. The extra brain capacity is interesting though, but if it didn't use most of it like the rest of us, its a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a diseased human from a child who has progeria. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of anything else except it looks weird, but so does the wiki photo of the progeria patient. The child probably had other deforming issues as well that caused its death. That's probably why it's a child skull. The extra brain capacity is interesting though, but if it didn't use most of it like the rest of us, its a moot point.

the 10% brain use theory is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts are there. No mystery waits to be unravelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull which was found in Mexico. It is primarily known through paranormal researchers' claims that it represents evidence of extraterrestrial contact. Mitochondrial DNA recovered from the skull establishes that it is human (WIKIPEDIA)

Human Skull or Paranormal Skull??? interesting.. even though they say the DNA matches it as a human... government cover-up?

government cover up? even UFO Hunters said it had human DNA. would crazy old Bill let that go if it was a cover up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So what's up with Pye's story then on the front page of UM today?

Starchild skull "not entirely human" ?

Posted on Saturday, 27 March, 2010 | 28 comments | Posted by: Saru

A recent DNA test performed on the Starchild skull has allegedly revealed that the father wasn't human.

The highly controversial skull has been the focus of work by Lloyd Pye for years, now thanks to improvements in DNA recovery processes the DNA of the father has been allegedly confirmed as 'not human'.

Edit: Just went back and read the comments for the article. I asked there, but I'll ask here as well. Why would only the male DNA deteriorate?

Edited by Qoais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The facts are there. No mystery waits to be unravelled.

Agreed, no need to look at this any further. We should not be wasting science's time on such fringe baloney. However, some fringe pseudo-scientist actually looked at the Nuclear DNA in March 2010 with the new 454 Science method used to break the Neanderthal DNA. Apparently they were not satisfied in only recovering the Starchild's Mother's DNA 5 or 6 years ago (they obtained no nuclear DNA at the time).

The result

"342 contiguous base pairs finally extracted from the Nuclear DNA in early March - "NO match to human found" from the NIH database."

We need to put a stop to this pseudo-science immediately. The Geneticist should be de-certified and the lab closed.

Edited by Stranger14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some extra info:

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, 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". Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs 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. Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's up with Pye's story then on the front page of UM today?

Starchild skull "not entirely human" ?

Posted on Saturday, 27 March, 2010 | 28 comments | Posted by: Saru

A recent DNA test performed on the Starchild skull has allegedly revealed that the father wasn't human.

The highly controversial skull has been the focus of work by Lloyd Pye for years, now thanks to improvements in DNA recovery processes the DNA of the father has been allegedly confirmed as 'not human'.

Edit: Just went back and read the comments for the article. I asked there, but I'll ask here as well. Why would only the male DNA deteriorate?

I'd be more interested in why that article has no evidence and only a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be more interested in why that article has no evidence and only a claim.

True

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's up with Pye's story then on the front page of UM today?

Starchild skull "not entirely human" ?

Posted on Saturday, 27 March, 2010 | 28 comments | Posted by: Saru

A recent DNA test performed on the Starchild skull has allegedly revealed that the father wasn't human.

The highly controversial skull has been the focus of work by Lloyd Pye for years, now thanks to improvements in DNA recovery processes the DNA of the father has been allegedly confirmed as 'not human'.

Edit: Just went back and read the comments for the article. I asked there, but I'll ask here as well. Why would only the male DNA deteriorate?

It is not possible to create viable offspring if the DNA is radically different, i.e. human non-human hybrids. Organisms must be at least in the same genus to produce offspring and that is not always good enough. Assertions to the contrary are nothing more than science fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen,The Elephant Mans skull?..Or the strange skulls found in Peru and other south american countries?....There are enough human deformities, without having to look upwards for the answer.! Good story though !!....But,with questionable (secretive) evidence..And Mr.Pye asking for money.....! Well, it's just that,....A story!! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen,The Elephant Mans skull?..Or the strange skulls found in Peru and other south american countries?....There are enough human deformities, without having to look upwards for the answer.! Good story though !!....But,with questionable (secretive) evidence..And Mr.Pye asking for money.....! Well, it's just that,....A story!! :yes:

While the 'Starchild' and Elephant man's skull are the result of disease, the 'strange' skulls from the America's are the result of head shaping...

Head_Shaping.jpg

Link-> Head flattening

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

While the 'Starchild' and Elephant man's skull are the result of disease, the 'strange' skulls from the America's are the result of head shaping...

Head_Shaping.jpg

Link-> Head flattening

'Nice Pics Pax!'....I'll bet they were good lookers..! :lol: Edited by 1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the mother was human, but they could not identify the DNA of the father. That makes sense when you consider that in most religions the sons of god (the dads) mated with the human women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Just went back and read the comments for the article. I asked there, but I'll ask here as well. Why would only the male DNA deteriorate?

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

Do you mean,'Nephilim',Scouser?..I read about them a while back.!...But were'nt they suposed to be giants?...Another good story!..But just a story!!....No, this ones not quite that spectacular,IMO mate.....Probably just some sort of horrible birth defect.!...In my mind,...900years ago, this young native girl fell pregnant,and gave birth to this unfortunate little child, a child that made The Elephant Man look decent.!....And being 900 years ago, she had to flee the village,because the rest of the village, scared, ..shunned them, and she was probably in fear of their lives !through the villagers ignorance of the childs condition!...She fled to the hills, found a home in the caves. Somehow managed to raise the poor child for about 5 years, until, through either natural causes or...'who knows?'...well let's say a tradgedy occured..! ..and the rest is....history!!!....Or Something Like That ! :) ..Well ! It's as likely as Mr. Pye's story...IMO. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't.

If the father was Alien, we have no way of knowing what his DNA looks like, that's why they can't find it.

Common sense eh?

You want common sence

We know what our dna looks like so if there were any discrepancies , all you'd have to do is compare and contrast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the mother was human, but they could not identify the DNA of the father. That makes sense when you consider that in most religions the sons of god (the dads) mated with the human women.

No, a fringe loon claimed this with no evidence saying that they had secretly told him and they weren't ready to release the information, then claimed that it was on NIH (none of which is true, Lloyd Pye is just a liar) and decided to ignore the fact the the maternal and paternal halotype of the starchild are known and known to be human and native American halotypes.

If you are going to get your science from non-scientific sources, expect rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, a fringe loon claimed this with no evidence saying that they had secretly told him and they weren't ready to release the information, then claimed that it was on NIH (none of which is true, Lloyd Pye is just a liar) and decided to ignore the fact the the maternal and paternal halotype of the starchild are known and known to be human and native American halotypes.

If you are going to get your science from non-scientific sources, expect rubbish.

I'll admit i have only seen the one side of this story, the skeptic view is quite hard to find.

Any chance you can direct me to some sites that can show some scientists proving that both the mother and father are human?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'll admit i have only seen the one side of this story, the skeptic view is quite hard to find.

Any chance you can direct me to some sites that can show some scientists proving that both the mother and father are human?

Sorry, my mistake here, they have the childs halotype © which is Native American, the body found with it was halotype A which is also Native American, but not the childs mother.

Well, you don't prove anything in science, only evidence. No evidence, no case.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070805111104/http://www.starchildproject.com/SCSreport.PDF

Full report on the genetic analysis.

I would advise scepticism personally (your British, it is c not k), scientist tend to know far more about their subjects than some bloke making baseless claims. Real science is done in journals, which are available but unless you have university access, it can be expensive.

Lloyd Pye has as much scientific value however as "spot the dog".

What should also be pointed out is the ridiculous levels on unlikeness of any alien species being able to breed with a human.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my mistake here, they have the childs halotype © which is Native American, the body found with it was halotype A which is also Native American, but not the childs mother.

Well, you don't prove anything in science, only evidence. No evidence, no case.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070805111104/http://www.starchildproject.com/SCSreport.PDF

Full report on the genetic analysis.

I would advise scepticism personally (your British, it is c not k), scientist tend to know far more about their subjects than some bloke making baseless claims. Real science is done in journals, which are available but unless you have university access, it can be expensive.

Lloyd Pye has as much scientific value however as "spot the dog".

What should also be pointed out is the ridiculous levels on unlikeness of any alien species being able to breed with a human.

What is a halotype?

I only got a C in Science! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a halotype?

I only got a C in Science! :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplotype

Here you go, probably explains in a lot less convoluted way than I would!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that the DNA is "not human" implies that extraterrestrials would be DNA-based. Which is a large leap in logic. And probably incorrect.

Anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that the DNA is "not human" implies that extraterrestrials would be DNA-based. Which is a large leap in logic. And probably incorrect.

Anyway...

I'm not saying that the DNA, will ultimately prove to be anything else but human!..But, in the 'extremely unlikely' happenstance that,..it does..!Then, what would you think would be the outcome?....A well endowed ant!..or perhaps...an ancestor of Henry the human ape..! :lol:..What i'm saying, is that if it were proven,..'NOT' to be a human father..! Then,..E.T would be , as good a guess as any! ^_^ or am I wrong.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.