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 3
SirParadox

Starchild Skull

   44 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it a hybrid?

    • Yes
      3
    • No
      34
    • Maybe
      7
  2. 2. Given the DNA analysis and more research would you change your mind?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      21

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

82 posts in this topic

The skull was found in the 1930s and was carbon dated to be 900 years old. It's DNA is half human and half unknown. The skull shape is humanoid, with a much larger brain cavity than our own. it's face is small compared to the size of the head. Some think its a Grey cross breed while others say it's a deformed human skull. I watched a show earlier today that suggests that it's a hybrid of a hybrid and so on.. creating the distinct human like features.

pye.jpg

Is it a hybrid of sorts given the DNA evidence? Or is it a hydrocephalus head?

Here is a link to the project: Star Child Project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The DNA is human, and this has been debunked so many times, congenital hydrocephalus.

404px-Hydrocephalus-baby.jpg

Edited by Yes_Man
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta go with hydrocephalus head on this one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a ton of threads on this already, if you do a search for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God NO!!!

Do a google!! The dna was totally human

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), 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."

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

Whats next? The alien interview puppet? :lol:

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just makes my head swell ! :clap:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lyod Pye passed away several months ago.On his Youtube channel he would delete posts I made showing that Z Sitchin was a fraud, because some of his lectures are based on Sitchin's lies.

Though there are interesting aspects on the skull, I cannot trust someone that cannot admit a mistake on other stuff.

Edited by davros of skaro
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats quite clearly been somebody with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skull was found in the 1930s and was carbon dated to be 900 years old. It's DNA is half human and half unknown. The skull shape is humanoid, with a much larger brain cavity than our own. it's face is small compared to the size of the head. Some think its a Grey cross breed while others say it's a deformed human skull. I watched a show earlier today that suggests that it's a hybrid of a hybrid and so on.. creating the distinct human like features.

pye.jpg

Is it a hybrid of sorts given the DNA evidence? Or is it a hydrocephalus head?

Here is a link to the project: Star Child Project

What else can it be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The DNA is human, and this has been debunked so many times, congenital hydrocephalus.

Whoops . No it hasn't. Neither has this:

No disease. No binding. The volume of the skull has been measured and is much larger than ours.

Elongated-Skulls-From-Peru_photo_medium.jpg

Look also at the eye sockets. The sutures are also very different.

Edited by zoser
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats quite clearly been somebody with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome

This is quite clearly nonsense.

DYOR into skull elongation. Try Peru, Nazca, Egypt, Malta. Report back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zosers amusing rantings again. Even tho he doesn't check the latest news from BF :lol: Anyway, thread derail soon to happen

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite clearly nonsense.

DYOR into skull elongation. Try Peru, Nazca, Egypt, Malta. Report back.

Im not refering to your picture! I am well aware about of the ancient practices of skull elongation,

But the original "star child" is quite obviously a Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome or a very similar thing

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whoops . No it hasn't. Neither has this:

No disease. No binding. The volume of the skull has been measured and is much larger than ours.

iev

Look also at the eye sockets. The sutures are also very different.

that was a hat or helmet device that after wearing it, made your head stretch out and narrow it, there was a diagram on this site some years ago. The idea was to make your head bigger in order be more "knowledgeable" I believe was used by priests in Maya culture

Edited by Yes_Man
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some nations are using all sorts of devices meant to stretch the human body. The mid part of the body using corsets, feet using some special shoes, the neck like some thai religions using rings. I am on the fence with long skulls. However

Wearing a helmet will not elongate the skull. To do so will have to stretch it first which isn't the case here. The width is the same. There isn't simply bone fabric to produce such hight.

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Im not refering to your picture! I am well aware about of the ancient practices of skull elongation,

Of which the above image is not an example. No way can it be proven that the skull in post is the result of a man made practice. The volume is the give away. These people were born that way.

But the original "star child" is quite obviously a Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome or a very similar thing

Of which you have no proof. Your research and basic knowledge is lacking in all directions.

that was a hat or helmet device that after wearing it, made your head stretch out and narrow it, there was a diagram on this site some years ago. The idea was to make your head bigger in order be more "knowledgeable" I believe was used by priests in Maya culture

LOL.

Sure.

I notice you omit to mention the enlarged eye sockets and the suture abnormalities.

Never mind.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoser, I seem to recall DNA analysis being done on the Starchild Skull and it coming back 100% Homo Sapien.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Zoser, I seem to recall DNA analysis being done on the Starchild Skull and it coming back 100% Homo Sapien.

Depends who did the dating doesn't it?

Try this:

http://beforeitsnews...ru-2440152.html

Too young to have a skull deformed.

Again note the eyes.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of which the above image is not an example. No way can it be proven that the skull in post is the result of a man made practice. The volume is the give away. These people were born that way.

Of which you have no proof. Your research and basic knowledge is lacking in all directions.

LOL.

Sure.

I notice you omit to mention the enlarged eye sockets and the suture abnormalities.

Never mind.

Are you high?

Lets just look at it from a point of feasible possibility ....

You put down your joint and google Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome and you will find that it is a very strong likeness to the starchild!

The eye sockets being close together, the small cheekbones and tiny face, and the disproportionate skull! All point towards this!

What proof exactly have you got to go against this?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends who did the dating doesn't it?

Try this:

http://beforeitsnews...ru-2440152.html

Too young to have a skull deformed.

Again note the eyes.

Dating, dear Zoser, doesn't change DNA. Homo. Sapien. Sapien.

As human as you and me!

It. Is. Not. A. Hybrid. We've the science, the irrefutable science that says so.

Now, the age is another thing entirely. It just means that as you and I oft agree, the archaeology is wrong and our understanding needs to change. But the skull's human.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new and this is my first time posting (yet I've lurked for months, reading the interesting stories and opinions).

My father was Native and head-binding was something that was done in the old days amongst our tribe. Mind you, once the skulls were fully molded and solidified upon maturity, they were, in fact, elongated. However, the skull appeared almost microcephalic (very tight and small, yet elongated and conical from the lateral view), not huge and tall.

I will say this: the tall, huge skulls seem very anomalous because they do not resemble any skull-binding techniques that would enable a safe encapsulation for the brain. Wouldn't the brain be more easily "sloshed around" (for lack of better words) without a snug skull cavity? I am not saying extraterrestrials were to blame, but I find it very peculiar and enigmatic. I wonder how these people were affected cognitively/medically etc by this procedure. Perhaps we'll never know how or why this was performed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Depends who did the dating doesn't it?

Try this:

http://beforeitsnews...ru-2440152.html

Too young to have a skull deformed.

That's not the starchild skull. It's also from beforeitsnews.com, a website that's so awash with misinformation, hoaxes, credulous stories, etc. it's impossible to take seriously. That's where your recent hoax Sky Dreadnought story came from (or you linked to a piece on it discussing the original story). 3 dentists and 4 doctors confirmed it wasn't a hoax? What dentists and doctors, none are named. Has it merely been shown to them or were they allowed to properly examine it and perform proper investigations on it? Typical beforeitsnews.com story, full of unnamed scientists and experts supposedly confirming various stories.

And what does who dated a skull have to do with the results of a DNA test showing it to be 100% human?

Edited by JesseCuster
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to Starchild, I'm inclined to think that he or she was a little (human) soul with genetic deformities. The scientists can extract a tissue sample and then inter the poor baby with a respectful burial ceremony at least smh.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops . No it hasn't. Neither has this:

No disease. No binding. The volume of the skull has been measured and is much larger than ours.

Elongated-Skulls-From-Peru_photo_medium.jpg

Look also at the eye sockets. The sutures are also very different.

No it most certainly is not, it falls within normal cranial capacities despite the odd shape created by head binding. You are just regurgitating Foerster's nonsense which has been soundly debunked. And as you have been clearly offered direct proof in the past, I would have to suggest you are just making these dumb claims for attention.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is quite clearly nonsense.

DYOR into skull elongation. Try Peru, Nazca, Egypt, Malta. Report back.

It is not clearly nonsense at all, what is nonsense is your insistence to push outdated and debunked fringe claims and you know that very very well. You have been pushing Foerster's inane rantings for some time, and all that has ever culminated from those discussions is mountains of proof that Foerster's claims are entirely bogus.

Im not refering to your picture! I am well aware about of the ancient practices of skull elongation,

But the original "star child" is quite obviously a Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome or a very similar thing

Yes, it is obviously a human with deformities. You are totally correct, Zoser has NEVER "done his own research" that I am aware of on this forum. He has posted hoaxes a=that are well known and debunked thoroughly often by the hoaxers themselves, and yet he posts these tales as if genuine when all the information one needs is right here at UM. Effort was not even required, simply use of the search function right here. I personally have outright proven him to be 100% wrong in every case I have debated with him. He does this for attention, not to understand conundrums and attempt to solve mysteries. You are the one in the right here, not he.

As for his "order" that you do some research here, let me give you a leg up, I have had to listen to his inane rantings for longer than I care to mention and this is the sort of information he will NEVER depart to you, even though he is more than aware that it exists.

Brien Foerster managed to persuade Juan Navarro Hierro, director (and owner) of the Paracas History Museum (sic: the name is given first in English, then, smaller, in Spanish) to part with some tissue samples. He claims that he did this because “[t]he only way to establish the actual age, and possible genetic origins of the Paracas people is through DNA analysis of the skulls themselves”. Dating human tissue by means of DNA analysis is such a new technique that I can find no other use of this remarkable development in any other archaeological investigation. Of course, there is no such dating technique: this is Brien Foerster displaying his ignorance of archaeological dating techniques!

Where did he choose to send the samples? To some prestigious university department, well known for its work on ancient DNA? No. Instead, he chose to send them to Lloyd Pye (1946-2013), a crank who believed in ancient astronauts, the extraterrestrial origins of humanity and, worst of all, the “Starchild Skull” as an alien/human hybrid. Why? This suggests that, far from being a dispassionate researcher, Brien Foerster has a preconceived agenda and it’s one that involves aliens. Although his Academia.edu lists his affiliation as “University of Victoria, Biological Sciences, Department Member”, his association with the university is as a graduate, not a member of faculty.

A Paracas skull: note the dimple toward the top of the head, which is a product of head-binding, depressing the suture between the parietal plates that Brien Foerster claims does not exist

On his website, Brien Foerster makes a number of claims about the skulls from Paracas, citing Lloyd Pye as an authority. He refers to “5 physical factors, pointed out by Lloyd Pye and myself, which are not at all common to Homo sapiens”, of which he lists two: “the presence of 2 small holes in the back of the skull” and “only one parietal plate, where there should be 2”. This is backed up by a photograph, although it appears to depict a skull with no cranial deformation.

The “small holes” are the parietal foramina, perfectly normal features of the human skull (he does say that Lloyd Pye believed that they might be “natural”, so why are they flagged up as a factor “not at all common to Homo sapiens”?). There are few photographs that show the top of the Paracas skulls, but it is obvious that the frontal bone (the bone behind our foreheads) is stretched enormously; it is also evident that the sagittal suture (between the two parietal bones) begins very high up on the skull on those few photographs that show this element. Either Brien Foerster is entirely ignorant of the normal features of the human skull, or he is deliberately deceiving a readership he expects of be ignorant of these features.

It gets worse

Sadly, it does get worse, but I wont steal all the space here, please CLICK THIS LINKfor the rest of this sad story.

Edited by psyche101
5 people like this

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.