Alien Skull

[chattanova]

Amazing Alien Skull Discovered.
Do you know anything about this? Fake or Not?

http://www.illuminatiarchives.org/?p=303

[lightbeing]

Amazing Alien Skull Discovered.
Do you know anything about this? Fake or Not?

http://www.illuminatiarchives.org/?p=303

This is genuine, the Starchild skull, been following this for a few years now. I agree with Lloyd on that it is a hybrid being. This should be all over the media, funny how it isn't!.............:rolleyes:

[chattanova]

These skulls were photographed by Robert Connolly on his trip around the world during which he was collecting materials about ancient civilizations. The discovery of unusual skulls was thus an unintended "spinoff" of his efforts.

http://img39.picoodle.com/img/img39/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_9cb190e.jpg

These were found in the Paracas region of Peru.


http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_59c6b42.jpg

http://img30.picoodle.com/img/img30/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_13e11da.jpg

http://img29.picoodle.com/img/img29/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_e83e60f.jpg

The enormity of the cranial vault is obvious from all three pictures. By interpolation, we can estimate the minimum cranial capacity at 2200 cm3, but the value can be as high as 2500 cm3.

http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/8/6/14/f_2skullsm_b35d433.jpg

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/8/6/14/f_bnnnm_ece8765.jpg

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_3097c86.jpg

http://img31.picoodle.com/img/img31/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_b9da029.jpg

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/8/6/14/f_craneoscrism_c80b7ca.jpg

[adramelech]

Starchild is completely real and a legitimate mystery.

All those pictures of "coneheads" are just reflective of the practice of "skull binding" or elongation, common in the Inca civilization and others. Don't get me wrong, there is a great deal of mystery involving that region (and, honestly, the entire field of archeology in general) and the proposal of a lost "conehead" race of which other Incan races were simply emulating has been proposed by researchers on more than one occassion.

[neutron flux]

All those pictures of "coneheads" are just reflective of the practice of "skull binding" or elongation, common in the Inca civilization and others.

The trouble is binding the head of an infant can deform the skull - but it cannot make the skull grow bigger! It clearly shows the the cranial capacity is larger than normal.

While we're on weirdness I thought I might post this:

265 years ago, a 28 year old German woman named Johanna Sophia Schmied who lived in the village of Taucha near Leipzig, gave birth to a monster that is unlike any other. This monster has become popularly known as the "Chicken Man."

Fate magazine's February (2000) issue recounts the facts of the case as preserved by the attending physician, Dr. Gottlieb Friderici. The physician witnessed the event and preserved the fetus in formaldehyde along with an extensive report of his autopsy, including drawings and the medical history of the mother.

During the autopsy, the doctor noted that the oversized head did not have the characteristics of hydrocephaly and the tumor like outgrowth was completely filled with brain matter. The heart did not have a pericardium, but was instead, embedded in a "peculiarly thin membrane".

The bone structure was also very different in significant ways from that of normal human beings. Neither the lower arms nor the lower legs consisted of two bones as would be present in humans. The kneecap was also absent.


The author of the Fate Magazine article, Hartwig Hausdorf, points out some similarities in the story of the mother of this monster and modern day abductions. He asks the obvious question:

"...Do we have surprising evidence for a case of targeted genetic manipulation by extraterrestrials, abandoned when the results did not meet their expectations?"

This creature is truly monstrous, and it is difficult to even feel pity for it when observing that nothing in either its interior or exterior configuration corresponds to that which is considered to be human.

Mr. Hausdorf writes:

"There are discrepancies in number, size, and above all, certain components are entirely missing while others appear to be 'extraordinarily developed."



http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/1497/monster1we7.jpg

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7279/monster3um4.jpg

[tinmenace]

STARCHILD UPDATE

(Summary of Trace Genetics DNA Report)

August 10, 2003

Greetings:

Good news and not-so-good news. When the geneticists analyzing the Starchild's DNA pulverized its bone like a fossil made of stone, they were able to cleanly recover mitochondrial DNA and compare it with the less-clear recovery in the second test, which resulted from treating the bone like normal bone. In both cases the mtDNA proved to be from Haplogroup C, meaning the second test result was indeed accurate and we can say with certainty that the Starchild's mother was a human Meso-American from that distinctive group, and was not the human female found with it (she was from Haplogroup A). That much is settled.

In the all-important search for nuclear DNA, during the third run the geneticists made four complete attempts at recovery without success. This does not, it turns out, mean nuclear DNA is not present. The clarity of the mtDNA recovery means nuclear DNA stands an excellent chance of being there, too. In a normal recovery from a fossil (say, a Neanderthal from 30,000+ years ago), very little mtDNA is recovered and no nuclear DNA has ever been recovered. The degradation of such ancient samples is comprehensive. However, with the Starchild and the human found with it, such is not the case.

The human's mtDNA and its nuclear DNA were recovered easily on the first test. Why? Because she didn't suffer any climate-driven ravages after death. She laid exposed on the surface of a mining shaft, never baked by the sun or soaked by rain. After 900 years she was in more or less pristine condition. (Compare this to the famous 9,000 year old Kennewick Man skeleton, which our geneticists also worked on. Because it was exposed to the open air, it was soaked by water and scorched by the sun, which leached out all traces of both mtDNA and nuclear DNA.) The Starchild suffers from having been buried in somewhat acidic soil, which accounts for the staining all over the skull and the staining at the back of the human female's head. But the clarity of the Starchild's mtDNA recovery in the third test means the degradation in the acidic soil was not comprehensive. Bits and pieces of its nuclear DNA are almost certainly there to be recovered, amplified, and tested.

Okay, so if it's there, what went wrong? Why no recovery in four tries? Because it degraded enough so that the primers used by the geneticists of today are not sensitive enough to capture and extract it. Understand that the field of ancient DNA recovery is very new, only beginning in 1995. For most of it there has been no concerted attempt to recover the highly fragile nuclear DNA, with most primers being developed to extract the more durable mtDNA. Now that is changing and there are primers for attempting to extract nuclear DNA, but they are not sophisticated nor, at this point, very effective. With easy-to-recover DNA of the kind presented by the human found with the Starchild (and, indeed, with any non-degraded bone less than 50 years old), they work fine. If not, the pathologists on "CSI" and other TV shows of that ilk would have little to grapple with.

Our hope all along has been that the Starchild's burial soil would not have been acidic enough to do terminal damage to either its mtDNA or the nuclear DNA. There was no way to test that soil in advance, since we have no samples of it and have no way to obtain any. So we hoped for the best and moved forward. Now we know the soil was acidic enough to lower the recovery threshold below what the current primers can access. It is as simple--and as deeply frustrating--as that. But before we all go letting our dobbers droop, let's look on the bright side because in this case there really is one....a nice shiny one.

When telling me the disappointing news of no nuclear DNA recovery in four attempts with the third extraction, the geneticists explained the problems with the lack of sensitivity of current primers, then they gave me three options. (1) Start again with a different lab to see if they could obtain a result. I consider our guys two of the best in the game. If they can't do it, nobody else can, either. Besides, we only need a second verifying test if they obtain a positive result. There is no interest in, or need for, comparing and contrasting inconclusive results. (2) If we could raise something approaching six figures, they could attempt to construct primers specifically design to recover the Starchild's DNA. (3) We could allow them to put the extraction they recovered into a nitrogen deep freeze storage for a couple of years (think sperm storage or the head of Ted Williams) and wait for the natural course of events in the field to develop those primers under the auspices of universities and labs with access to millions of dollars in developmental funding.

While they did not pressure me in any way, I took into account their excellent work thus far, their obvious passion for and commitment to their science and the task at hand, and my own inability to raise dust on a dirt farm, so I chose option # 3. The extracted sample is now on ice, and we all intend to hunker down to wait until we have better prospects for recovering the Starchild's elusive--but almost certainly viable--nuclear DNA. Meanwhile, several other things can happen to directly benefit this project. The first is that the geneticists have strongly advised me to have every test available applied to the Starchild's bone because it is so clearly unlike normal human bone. This is not nearly as expensive or as extensive as the DNA testing proved to be. Fundamentally, it is basic chemistry at work.

These tests are as follows: (1) Histomorphometrical analysis; (2) Morphological analysis; (3) Mineral density; (4) Mineral composition; and perhaps most interesting of all (5) Bone strength. These five tests should provide us with all we can learn at this time about the Starchild's bone and how it relates to normal human bone, and we know going into it that we will be getting sharp deviations from the norm. I have known that much for three years. The problem is that it will not be enough to sway mainstream scientific opinion toward accepting the Starchild as anything other than some weird kind of physiological anomaly. Only DNA analysis and comparison can do that.

Let me give a background story here. Over three years ago we commissioned a bone scan comparison between the Starchild and the human. Under a microscope the two slides could not have been more different. I was delighted by what I saw. However, the pathologist I was working with doused a bucket of cold reality on my enthusiasm. "Yes, Lloyd," he said, "they're like apples and oranges. So what? That doesn't mean your Starchild is of alien origin. All it means is that it's a VERY weird human."

"Wait!" I protested. "If it's far enough from human, why CAN'T that mean it's alien?"

"There is no distance far enough from human that will permit a scientist like myself to conclude it might be alien bone. We are trained to always look for the simplest, most economical explanation for anomalies, and the simplest, most economical explanation for what I see here is that it is a VERY weird human. Period."

So let's understand what to expect from the upcoming bone tests. We can come in with numbers that will boggle our own minds...distances from normal bone densities, strengths, and mineral content that will scream at us that it can't be human or even a terrestrial creature (say, if beryllium is grossly abundant in it). Even if we get results like that, science can hold us at arms length and explain it away with "histological deformity" and "unique morphology" and all kinds of technical mumbo jumbo that we will not be able to overcome.

In the end, all that counts in this game is DNA, so we have to accept that and play within the rules laid out by our competition, which we will continue to do as long as I'm involved with it. We can't win playing dirty. On the other hand, we can serve notice that the pendulum has swung in our direction, which is the great value that the bone testing will provide. If we come in with five major results deviating from the human norm, we can rest assured that scientists will no longer be able to dismiss us as a bunch of howling cranks. They will have to take the Starchild seriously because of the extreme likelihood that the DNA results will be a clear reflection of the bone analysis. Bone analysis alone they can dodge and weave and work around, but DNA is a skewer through their hearts because it is the bedrock of their own testing protocols. In every case it says what it says, independent of their own dogma or anyone else's (i.e., organized religion, government....even my own).

Two other things I would like to do, and I think would be quite useful, are: (1) another dating test other than Carbon 14, which is not as precise as some of the newer techniques. And (2) I'd like to go ahead with the long-awaited forensic sculpture so we can all have a glimpse of how the Starchild might have looked in life. To do all of this--the bone testing, the new dating, and the forensic sculpture--in total should cost somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on the quality of the labs we use and the forensic sculptor we select. We do not have this amount in the Starchild Fund at present, but I am hoping many of you can see the value in what we are doing and will choose to dig down one more time to get us past this final obligation before we settle into however long we must wait until the geneticists feel fully prepared to go after the nuclear DNA again.

Another thing I need to mention is that a comprehensive technical report is being written by the geneticists, which will be more for the benefit of curious and/or doubting peers than for non-specialists (wait till you read even a little of it!). They hope to have it ready for posting on the Starchild website by the end of this month (August 2003) at the latest. When I post their report I will also be posting a long wrap-up report of my own that will cover all of the developments in the four-and-a-half years I have been working on this project. That long report will cover all I've learned about it up to this point, which I expect to serve as a helpful introduction to individuals who will hear about it in the intervening couple of years and come to the site to learn more.

If you are a fan of the Starchild Project and feel disheartened by these results, please try to focus on the incredible things we have accomplished while obtaining them. Unlike nearly every other alleged relic or artifact in the field of alternative knowledge, we have taken the Starchild skull and shoved it like a huge pile of chips right out into the middle of science's great crap table and said, "Throw the damn DNA dice!" We all stood there--you, me, all of us who have supported this effort--shoulder to shoulder, and watched those dice roll. As it happens, one (the nuclear DNA result) ended up standing on edge. No winner, no loser. So now we have to wait a couple of years before rolling it again.

Please don't miss the point we've made loud and clear to anyone who would listen during this long, often tortuous process. It harkens back to one of the stanzas in Rudyard Kipling's classic poem about courage, "IF..."

"If you can make a heap of all your winnings,
and risk it all on one turn of pitch and toss,
and lose, and start again at your beginnings,
and never say a word about your loss...."

Well, that's what we've done. We risked it all on one turn of pitch and toss. We didn't flinch. We were ready to take the hit if that's what came our way. It didn't. Now it looks very much like the hit is going to go the other way. To me it looks very much like all we have to do is be patient, keep playing within ourselves, and we're going to walk away from this table as winners in the greatest gamble any of us will probably ever take.

**********************

For those willing to contribute, please send a check, bank draft, or money order to “The Starchild Fund.” Don’t make it out to me. Be sure to have your address on your check or on the envelope so I can contact you if necessary. Then mail it to me at:

Lloyd Pye
6805 Veterans Blvd.
# L-3
Metairie, LA 70003

These are the last few hurdles in this long, difficult race. Let's clear them cleanly and finish standing tall.


Lloyd Pye
August 9, 2003
lloydpye@cox.net
lloyd@lloydpye.com


Source (http://www.starchildproject.com/NewsAug2003.html)




Until nuclear DNA can be found, I guess we'll never know. What if Aliens don't have DNA like ours? What if our technology doesn't recognize their DNA? Very tantalizing subject matter.

[tinmenace]

MISSTATEMENTS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS IN “ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS”
ON THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL

By Lloyd Pye, Nov 27 2006

1) The narrator’s tone throughout is one of supercilious condescension. On one occasion he says that alien males “knocked up” human females in order to begin the process of creating humans.


2) The continual use of fifty-year-old black-and-white “alien” movie clips lend the entire show an air of campy absurdity. When so many of the images in a show like this appear absurd, it implies that more substantial images and statements are similarly absurd.


3) The overweening emphasis on sex between humans and aliens, with the partners nearly always being a bizarre looking alien male and an overpowered female. Furthermore, a repeated theme is that humans resulted from a series of unions between inter-species couples.


4) The Ancient Astronaut Theory states that humans resulted from genetic engineering, with much trial and error before a “final product” was achieved. Only then did sex begin to occur between humans and those who created them in their own image, after their own likeness.


5) In the sequence with geneticist Jason Eshleman of Trace Genetics, the narrator states that several attempts were required to recover the Starchild skull’s mitochondrial DNA, which proved its mother was human. That is only half true. The mitochondrial DNA did prove its mother was human, which was expected all along. A hybridization between a human and an alien species would require the human egg to be genetically manipulated so it could properly receive and utilize the alien’s sperm.


6) The Starchild’s mitochondrial DNA was very easily recovered on the first attempt, with the gel bands appearing bright and clear, indicating very little degradation of its DNA. Therefore, the nuclear DNA should have been recovered with equal ease, but it was not. In seven complete attempts there was no recovery at all. This fact was not mentioned.


7) The “expert” brought in at the end of the show is Dr. William Rodriguez, a forensic anthropologist for the U.S. Army who works at the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. As was stated in the show, he did examine the Starchild skull in 1999, and in fact was one of the first groups of experts to examine it. He and several colleagues met with me to handle and examine the two skulls in my possession then.


8) At that meeting in 1999, Dr. Rodriguez was of the firm opinion that the Starchild represented a “cradleboarded hydrocephalic,” a common response of experts who make little or no attempt to actually understand the Starchild skull. When I began to point out the myriad reasons why the Starchild could not have been either cradleboarded or hydrocephalic, the meeting ground to an uncomfortable conclusion. Experts do not easily accept being told they are wrong by their own colleagues. Being told that by someone they view as an “amateur” is totally unacceptable.


9) The skull Dr. Rodriguez used on the show to compare to the Starchild was utterly normal in every respect except for mild over-expansion of the parietal bones at the upper rear of the head. This syndrome is so common that since the year 2000, photographs of just such a skull have been on the Starchild Project website in direct comparison with the Starchild skull. These photographs are available now, as they were then.


10) Dr. Rodriguez implies that because he’s found a skull with parietal “bossing” (expansion) that very vaguely resembles the Starchild skull, viewers can feel comfortable dismissing the dozens of other anomalies presented by this incredible relic. It is laughably simplistic, yet in being presented as the last word regarding the Starchild, it leaves viewers with the clear impression that, in the end, the Starchild has been explained.


Nothing could be further from the truth.

StarChildProject.com (http://www.starchildproject.com/NatGeoText.html)

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/starchild-skull.jpg

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/skull_starchild.jpg





.

[tinmenace]

http://www.globalfailure.com/images/human%20skull.jpg

Look how the human skull kinda rounds off at the back, almost in line with the eye sockets. The Starchild skull just flattens out and continues past the eye sockets. Very strange...

[pumma]

I agree with chattanova's 3rd post > aliens... But for the rest I believe it is case of a Hydrocephalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a.k.a. "Water on the Brain".

____________________
neutron flux > this could be Congenital disorder ;) But after seeing some questions answered it makes you wonder what IF ...

This story and the accompanying photographs, were so curious that I decided to ask the Cassiopaeans for a few remarks at the end of a session last month. I thought the comments were interesting, and maybe you will too.

01-22-2000

Q: Now, we have this bizarre picture here of this absolutely strange creature in a museum in Germany. What is this 265 year old creature that has been kept in formaldehyde all these years?
A: Hybridized conception/gestate.
Q: Was there hybridization and genetic manipulation going on almost 300 years ago?
A: Most done this way are miscarried.
Q: Did it live at all after birth?
A: No.
Q: Who was responsible for this experiment?
A: It was not an experiment. It was the result of Reptoid "rape."
Q: So, the mother was raped by a reptoid. Why do reptoids rape human women?
A: We have discussed motives.
Q: Yes. They feed on the fear, terror, or absorb some substance emitted by the sexual organs and/or chakra as a kind of "food," and in some cases they are "changing the genetic program." But, in general, when we have discussed this, it has not included impregnating human women with Reptoid sperm. How often does this activity result in impregnation?
A: Rarely.
Q: So, in this case it did, and here is the result. Pretty horrible.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/monster.htm

[chattanova]

Reptilian Skulls (humanswin's collection)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GWziXs5khzQ&eurl=http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30344

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GWziXs5khzQ&eurl=http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30344

[conspiraca]

Looks more like the skull of a small child or infant.