Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Topic RSS
Offline
I had seen pictures of this skull before, but accepted the explanation that it was the product of some kind of disease. However, no disease seems to explain the skull's oddities and the skull was not artificially shaped in any way.
The man leading the research on this anomalous skull is a cranial-facial plastic surgeon with forty years in practice, so the fact that he can find no disease that explains the skull either through his research or from personal experience is very interesting.
Recent DNA test results are startling, to say the least.
Here is the site: http://www.starchildproject.com/ – The DNA results are there along with a 10 minute video explaining those results.
I am extremely intrigued by these DNA results and would very much like to hear your opinions/impressions.
Thanks.
Offline
I really don't know what to think, very compelling.
Not an area I have any knowledge in.
I hope J. D. reads this, and would be interested in what he thinks.
Offline
The video couldnt play on my computer for some reason. But the artists rendition reminded me of the aging disease (I forget the true name). Also, just throwing this out there as it makes sense to me. It says no known DNA deformities known today. Well this is a very old skull. Could it be some deformity that has simply died out as other genes did? We have seen that happen before.
Offline
The video couldnt play on my computer for some reason. But the artists rendition reminded me of the aging disease (I forget the true name). Also, just throwing this out there as it makes sense to me. It says no known DNA deformities known today. Well this is a very old skull. Could it be some deformity that has simply died out as other genes did? We have seen that happen before.
The website addresses that disease and all the others that have been put forth as explanations. I don't see how the artist could have much to go on since there is not much of the face left but then again I don't know much about that procedure.
One reason I find this so intriguing is because the researcher is a plastic surgeon specializing in head and facial surgery, so I'm sure he has seen cases involving most of the diseases people mention and he claims to have researched the others in medical journals, etc. One thing that he points out that is interesting is that deformities are not generally symmetrical and this skull is actually more symmetrical than a normal human skull.
I'm really skeptical of the whole disease explanation for anomalous finds since the so called "experts" almost denied us the knowledge of the recently discovered "Hobbits". ALL of the experts immediately said that the first skeleton the discoverers found was "obviously" the result of a disease and bone experts even confirmed that. Fortunately for human knowledge, they found several more skeletons, proving that it was a new branch of humans and not just a disease. The experts were wrong and we would never have known it if they hadn't found more. How much knowledge has been lost this way, I wonder? There is such a strong bias to ignore anything that doesn't follow accepted history.
I also found it interesting that the sample of bone didn't dissolve in the chemical bath after 9 months while a regular bone dissolves in a few days. Apparently it is much lighter than a comparably sized human skull, too. In fact, according to the test results, the skull is more like tooth material than real bone. It's possible that a disease or deformity could cause that, I suppose, but you would think that someone would have explained it by now.
The first DNA test was only able to test the mitochondrial DNA but couldn't find any other DNA. The recent DNA test done by a geneticist found human mitochondrial DNA but the rest of the DNA did not match any known DNA in the NIH data bank. The geneticist who did the test thinks that the results are consistent with a zygote made up of alien DNA placed in a human mitochondrial cell, like we do today with human zygotes and surrogate eggs. I'm not sure what this means but it sure makes me think. Hmmm.
Somedays I just get the feeling that there is SO much more going on out there than we know.
Offline
This is very interesting. I was also struck that the skull material was more like tooth enamel. I wonder about other species on Earth and how their dna compares. I was also thinking about the various "branches" of human development. For me, it seems more likely that this skull is a genetic anomaly or derived from one of the Earth's humanoid's branches. I'm not ready to say alien baby born to human woman. On a side note, I really liked how the site's authors/ owners addressed the wikipedia issue!
Offline
The first thing I do when I see something like this is type in:
(NAME) Debunked.
Then I see if the Debunking has any credit to it. Most of the time, please note I did not say ALL of the time – the debunking is good … I have found times when the debunking sucks big time….
But .. and yes there is a but …..
WIKIPEDIA …. Starchild Skull (and I quote)
DNA testingDNA 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".[7] Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. 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 obtained nuclear DNA, which contains chromosomes from both the father and the mother, from the adult female, but was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA of the father from the Starchild skull, despite conducting six consecutive tests. The founders of Trace Genetics stated that "[t]he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time." [8]
Explanations
Potential explanations for the skull's unusual features, apart from the alien-hybrid hypothesis, include the use of cradle boarding on a hydrocephalic child,[9] brachycephaly and Crouzon syndrome.[10]
Please note the YEAR: 1999 when the DNA was done.
I mean, it looks like the author is still trying to get DNA done … what I see clearly here is he is looking for the answer that he wants … not the answer that it is …. Thus he is looking for A TRUTH … not The Truth …
Offline
But you got that from Wikipedia. Hardly a reputable source.
Offline
But you got that from Wikipedia. Hardly a reputable source.
BINGO!
Offline
But you got that from Wikipedia. Hardly a reputable source.
Amen!
When anyone quotes from Wikipedia, I always think of a line from "Hot in Cleveland". The actress says "You can't believe anything you read on wikipedia! It says I'm 37 years old. I know because I'm the one who edited it."
Funny, but true.
Offline
Amen!
When anyone quotes from Wikipedia, I always think of a line from "Hot in Cleveland". The actress says "You can't believe anything you read on wikipedia! It says I'm 37 years old. I know because I'm the one who edited it."
Funny, but true.
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I think that a lot of people still don't realize that the average Joe can just go on there and change anything. It is definitely not a source that should be cited for factual evidence needed for research. I have also learned that the geneology giant, Ancestry.com is pretty iffy in regards to being actual and factual because anyone can just provide info which is not verified.
Offline
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
I think that a lot of people still don't realize that the average Joe can just go on there and change anything. It is definitely not a source that should be cited for factual evidence needed for research. I have also learned that the geneology giant, Ancestry.com is pretty iffy in regards to being actual and factual because anyone can just provide info which is not verified.
Yes, you definitely cannot count on other people's genealogical info unless you have documents to back it up. That's why they cover their rears by calling them "hints" from other people's trees. Sometimes the hint is correct but sometimes it is all wrong. You definitely have to do your own research and your own thinking.
As for Wikipedia, they have a strong bias. All you have to do is read a few articles to find that out. They're okay for a few things, but you definitely can't count on them for any important research.
Offline
But you got that from Wikipedia. Hardly a reputable source.
Maybe. But you could take what wikipedia says, and research that on your own. It gives you a nice start and its easier to verify most times then go in blind.
Offline
Maybe. But you could take what wikipedia says, and research that on your own. It gives you a nice start and its easier to verify most times then go in blind.
Good point, this is true caligirl, it really does make it hard for people to find reliable sources for research nowadays. Although, in the old days I am sure that everything written in a book was not true either. Only wealthy people had access to books and printing (and even knowing how to read in some cases). Makes me think about the final scenes from the movie, The Book of Eli. Who ultimately decides what is important enough to document and pass on to future generations? The temptation to rewrite history is always there.
Offline
The father's DNA was not found in any previous DNA tests, so tests to determine paternity were not possible before this. That's what makes the recent DNA results so interesting.
http://www.associatedcontent.c…../article/1…st.html?cat=15:
"The Starchild Skull and Human Alien Hybrid Theory in the News (relevant sentences capitalized by me)
Genetic testing on the child's skull has been in the works since 2003, and thus far it has been proven that the child and his mother were human. AT ISSUE – AND PROVIDING FODDER FOR THE CRYPTOZOOLOGISTS INTERESTED IN HUMAN ALIEN HYBRID THEORY – IS THE NOTABLE INABILITY TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE HUMANNESS OF THE FATHER.
Repeat tests showed several unexplained problems with the Starchild skull, such as unknown bone fibers. Moreover, BECAUSE NUCLEAR DNA COULD NOT BE EXTRACTED, THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SAMPLE ONLY PROVED HUMAN MATERNITY, BUT NOT PATERNITY. With recent advances in DNA testing, this is said to now be remedied, and the Starchild skull may be headed for further testing."
In fact, if you read the whole wikipedia article, you find this:
Trace Genetics … WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER USEFUL LENGTHS OF NUCLEAR DNA OR Y-CHROMOSOMAL DNA OF THE FATHER FROM THE STARCHILD SKULL, DESPITE CONDUCTING SIX CONSECUTIVE TESTS. The founders of Trace Genetics stated that "[t]he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time." [8]
I'm not saying that it is an alien child or an alien hybrid. I'm just saying that the properties of the bone, especially the bone fibers, and the most recent DNA test results are very intriguing. Wouldn't it rock the world if they are able to repeat these results?
Offline
First off- I have clearly been away for too long!
This topic is awesome- and one I've never heard of! I'll have more time to peruse the Star Child site later, but what I've seen so far is quite intriguing to say the least. And I agree- Wikipedia is not a source to be taken at face value. Debunking is a good thing to attempt- as long as it's wiki-free.
For me, when I hear these kinds of things, I always think of fables and folklore that could possibly back the argument up. For example- there were many stories of dragons well before the first dinosaur remains were found. Clearly, humans came across some of these remains and filled in the blanks with their own tall tales when they returned home. In mythology, they often talk about gods descending upon the earth and fornicating with the fairest of virgins. If the only human connection is on the maternal side it could explain these myths. Perhaps these "gods" really did descend and create superhuman children.
Offline
The father's DNA was not found in any previous DNA tests, so tests to determine paternity were not possible before this. That's what makes the recent DNA results so interesting.
http://www.associatedcontent.c…../article/1…st.html?cat=15:
"The Starchild Skull and Human Alien Hybrid Theory in the News (relevant sentences capitalized by me)
Genetic testing on the child's skull has been in the works since 2003, and thus far it has been proven that the child and his mother were human. AT ISSUE – AND PROVIDING FODDER FOR THE CRYPTOZOOLOGISTS INTERESTED IN HUMAN ALIEN HYBRID THEORY – IS THE NOTABLE INABILITY TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE HUMANNESS OF THE FATHER.
Repeat tests showed several unexplained problems with the Starchild skull, such as unknown bone fibers. Moreover, BECAUSE NUCLEAR DNA COULD NOT BE EXTRACTED, THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA SAMPLE ONLY PROVED HUMAN MATERNITY, BUT NOT PATERNITY. With recent advances in DNA testing, this is said to now be remedied, and the Starchild skull may be headed for further testing."
In fact, if you read the whole wikipedia article, you find this:
Trace Genetics … WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER USEFUL LENGTHS OF NUCLEAR DNA OR Y-CHROMOSOMAL DNA OF THE FATHER FROM THE STARCHILD SKULL, DESPITE CONDUCTING SIX CONSECUTIVE TESTS. The founders of Trace Genetics stated that "[t]he inability to analyze nuclear DNA indicates that such DNA is either not present or present in sufficiently low copy number to prevent PCR analysis using methods available at the present time." [8]
I'm not saying that it is an alien child or an alien hybrid. I'm just saying that the properties of the bone, especially the bone fibers, and the most recent DNA test results are very intriguing. Wouldn't it rock the world if they are able to repeat these results?
You've found the most recent 2010 test results? I have not found the actually test results form the lab, just spin. Maybe I missed it.
I'd love to read the actual lab reports.
I read the 1999 test results produced by Bold Lab, with the results being the X and Y chromosones present, the skull a male with human parents.
This is what I'm down to questioning ….. The new tests because of missing X chromosone could mean it's a human female.
But, the sex has already been proven, in other test by Bold 1999, not making any sense imo, for retests
I question the need for further testing considering it's so expensive and he is picking the testing labs.
Could there be bias?
There is so much spin on these stories, I'm going to stick with reports from the lab journals, in the future.
Nuclear DNA may of been present in the skull, may be too degraded, lask of distraction doesn't mean it's there or not there for testing.
It is a 900 year old skull.
DNA is endemic to our planet alone, and the lineage could be extinct.This specimen could have no surving relatives, where DNA could be passed down onto modern genomes when tested. Unknown species is possible, there are only the known genomes in the system. I didn't read an unknown species being ruled out, or considered.
The worst spin on this, is how this man is pushing for it to be an alien. When I search he comes up every where, with his opinion on what he has dominating the results of the search, this makes me leary. I 'm looking for the facts, not what he thinks, because human bias is always the problem. lol
It also slightly annoys me, because some answers aren't found it becomes of Alien orgin.
Think of how many things were so unbelievable when first discovered, dinosaurs come to mind.
Wiki, is something to start with leads, to find documented evidence, thru verifying the sighted scources, like Caligirl said.
But saying it's all good and bad, nah. I think a good researcher would take NOTHING on gospel and research any scources they find.
That's the problem anymore, everybody has a story to tell, and you then either believe it or you don't.
I normlly ignore the person that's telling the story in these cases, like this guy with the skull, and have to sift threw endless amouts of b s to find the facts, without his spin.
Offline
But you got that from Wikipedia. Hardly a reputable source.
I agree – thus you check out their source link, which I did. The links are good.
(But this is true with any web-site. You have to check and see the Sited Source Link and see if it exists and is 'there ….)
I did this with a Conspiracy Board .. that was sighted for a totally different topic .. and found the source – sited another Conspiracy Board .. which sighted yet a different Conspiracy Board .. which sited the 1st Board I checked out .. bottom line … the source was simply not to be found. LOL!! Talk about going in circles .. /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' />
Offline
You've found the most recent 2010 test results? I have not found the actually test results form the lab, just spin. Maybe I missed it.
I'd love to read the actual lab reports.
I read the 1999 test results produced by Bold Lab, with the results being the X and Y chromosones present, the skull a male with human parents.
This is what I'm down to questioning ….. The new tests because of missing X chromosone could mean it's a human female.
But, the sex has already been proven, in other test by Bold 1999, not making any sense imo, for retests
I question the need for further testing considering it's so expensive and he is picking the testing labs.
Could there be bias?
There is so much spin on these stories, I'm going to stick with reports from the lab journals, in the future.
Nuclear DNA may of been present in the skull, may be too degraded, lask of distraction doesn't mean it's there or not there for testing.
It is a 900 year old skull.
DNA is endemic to our planet alone, and the lineage could be extinct.This specimen could have no surving relatives, where DNA could be passed down onto modern genomes when tested. Unknown species is possible, there are only the known genomes in the system. I didn't read an unknown species being ruled out, or considered.
The worst spin on this, is how this man is pushing for it to be an alien. When I search he comes up every where, with his opinion on what he has dominating the results of the search, this makes me leary. I 'm looking for the facts, not what he thinks, because human bias is always the problem. lol
It also slightly annoys me, because some answers aren't found it becomes of Alien orgin.
Think of how many things were so unbelievable when first discovered, dinosaurs come to mind.
Wiki, is something to start with leads, to find documented evidence, thru verifying the sighted scources, like Caligirl said.
But saying it's all good and bad, nah. I think a good researcher would take NOTHING on gospel and research any scources they find.
That's the problem anymore, everybody has a story to tell, and you then either believe it or you don't.
I normlly ignore the person that's telling the story in these cases, like this guy with the skull, and have to sift threw endless amouts of b s to find the facts, without his spin.
Well the most "recent" one I found, would not release the Name of the Person/Lab that did the test. /blink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> So that there was a BIG RED FLAG … Un-named Source is just that … Un-named and thus un-verifiable.
I agree, Wiki is a stepping stone … You have to check out the Source/Sited Links before just whisking it away.
.. Respectfully ..
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2945
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1886
Posts: 104920
Newest Members: SkainsDutremble299, Esserszw, bremxazl, eleshyendutle, oprscesr, jtr194113, purswellcaracciolo346, Johnsrudcraig@yahoo.com, Enverrera
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5526), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground