Has anyone else heard anything about the "alien" skull found in the desert (in Mexico, I believe it was)? I saw it on a TV program called "Extra" - one of those TV news/magazine shows, I think. (I'm not much of a TV watcher, so I really don't know anything about that program or whether or not it can be picked up outside the Sacramento area - my husband called me into the livingroom when it came on because he knows I'm interested in that sort of thing.) I think they said the skull is in the possession of an anthropologist whose last name sounds like "Pi". They are getting ready to do DNA testing on it soon. I can't find anything on the internet about it, and was wondering if anyone else knows anything about it or where I can find more information about it on the internet? Thanks. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
"Extra" is the National Enquirer of television. I didn't see that particular episode, but pretty much everything else they've done an expose on is little more than sensationalism. They probably found the skull of a deformed native child. I'd like to see pictures of it, though.
Searcher and Oxygen, The website is www.starchildproject.com It has pictures and an analysis of the skull. There was another site I came across that had similar skulls and cone shaped ones too. I'll see if I can find that if it's still up.
Strange how they never mention the possibility of hydrocephalus on that website. It certainly would have been one of my first guesses (especially given the high symmetry of deformity, and the fact that the children died at young age).
about 4 years ago i heard that they found a ton some baby sculls like that, and aperentally what they came to is that the sculls were human, but the parents to the children molded their heads so that they would look like gods or aliens, becasue you can do that with a childs scull. and i also heard that they found these in caves and that the insides of the caves they found pictures of like flying disks and stuff, i also heard that they found like scortcch marks on the inside of the caves, like from lasers or something. i am not sure about the last 2 things, casue they sound made up. but its what i herd and ya. thats all i got ------------------ dexter
Boris, It was mentioned... I believe it was in the detailed version... However, it was also pointed out that this rarely (if ever?) allows the skull to develop as symmetrically as the one in question. It also mentioned that several other conditions would have to have been present for the skull to form the way it did, rendering such a human "inviable" at birth. [This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 13, 1999).]
truestory, No, it was NOT mentioned! I've just searched both the "abridged" and "detailed" pages for the words "hydrocephalus" and "hydrocephalic" -- not a single instance found! Hydrocephalus is a condition that arises because of a blockage of arachnoid granulations, which are one-way valves in the arachnoid membrane. It is more often than not congenital, which means that the valves shut down uniformly everywhere. The arachnoid membrane enshrouds the brain (it is the lowest level of insulation, that contains blood vessels and further attaches to pia mater, which is attached to dura mater, which is a tough, impenetrable wrap that separates the brain from the skull. The brain floats in CSF (cerebro-spinal fluid) which is constantly regenerated and pumped into the brain's ventricles through the brainstem. The fluid mechanically cushions the brain against impacts and abrupt accelerations, an allows it to float, thus resisting the crushing force of gravity (the brain is jelly-like, and would collapse under the force of gravity if there was no CSF to support it.) It flows through the brain, exiting it through the arachnoid granulations, and is recycled. It carries supplies into the brain, and helps to remove wastes. So overall, it's a good thing. However, when the exit valves become blocked, CSF has no way to exit the brain. Yet, it is continuously regenerated by specialized glands in the brain. So, the brain begins to swell with liquid, like an inflating balloon. In children, whose skulls are ultra-flexible, this internal build-up of pressure literally inflates the head to abnormal size. The increased fluid pressure also compresses the brain, causing severe developmental abnormalities, and eventually death. In its extreme forms, hydrocephalus is almost immediately fatal if untreated. In milder forms, the exit valves are only partially blocked, and so the buildup of pressure is not nearly so catastrophic. However, it still results in "inflation" of the skull, and it still damages the brain, and it still eventually leads to an early death. Note that the resulting deformation is actually symmetrical, similar to an inflating balloon. The skulls presented certainly look hydrocephalic. And, the website never even once mentions this! ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
JMitch, Thanks for the website address - that's what I was looking for! Also, if you find the other site, please post the address for that as well. Thanks.
Boris, Believe it or not, I know what hydrocephaly is... Please chill (you don't want to give yourself an aneurysm now!). The discussion in question can be found under the "Analysis Report (Detailed Version)", the section entitle "Natural Deformity". Also, please read the "Note" section which follows that. P.S... In case you can't find it under "Analysis Report (Detailed Version)" it is reiterated throughout the website. For example, it can be found in the Analysis Report under: "Rotational Skull Annimation" (both Discovered Mystery Skull Animation and Discovered Human Skull Animation) - "Forensic Rendering of the Mystery Skull" - "God of Cholula" - all the way down to "Analysis of Maximal". [This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 13, 1999).]
Okay, I looked at the site and read the detailed analysis. Um, yeah. I've worked with some severely handicapped children. I have seen a litle girl whose head was so large that she could not lift it. This skull is nothing new. I think they're just trying to scam some dough off of anybody willing to pay. As far as the sinus cavity goes, it is entirely possible for a deformed sinus cavity to not have an effect on the length of life. I don't believe this is anything other than skull of an unfortunate, severely deformed child.
truestory, I apologize, the single use in the entire document of an informal variant ("hydrocephaly") is the one I forgot to look for. However, the objections cited on the site are all bogus. Synostosis has nothing to do with hydrocephalus; they are entirely separate and independent conditions; synostosis is by no means a "hallmark" of hydrocephalus. The "absense" of inion is easily accounted for by an outward deformation of the occipital bone so as to protrude beyond the inion and thus smooth it out. Hydrocephalus may not be the actual explanation, but the authors of the site certainly did not go to any length to eliminate it. Moreover, they actually (whether intentionally or through ignorance) inserted incorrect information concerning synostosis. This entire site stinks of cheap ploy and charlatanism. Little surprise it is that the author is in the book-peddling business (his own book, amazingly enough). This is from the same guy who claims "we humans use only about 10% of our massively supercharged brains", or "our skin is so poorly adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth" (dark-skinned people are not part of "us", apparently), or "the ancient Sumerians knew all about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto", or "we humans in no way resemble those ancient so-called 'prehumans'" -- among many other things. Yeah, we've got some real scientific analysis going on here... ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
JMitch, Thanks for coming through again! I would like to quote a paragraph from this last site: Interesting. As Boris pointed out, "In milder forms, the exit valves are only partially blocked, and so the buildup of pressure is not nearly so catastrophic. However, it still results in "inflation" of the skull, and it still damages the brain, and it still eventually leads to an early death". It seems to me a hydrocephalic child would never make it to maturity. ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Boris, That's a good point. However, I think that the foramen magnum is a somewhat over-riding piece of evidence. Having the foramen magnum displaced AND the huge skull sitting balanced on top is quite a feat of coincidence. It would suggest that this deformity was genetically planned for.
O.K., Boris... I am wondering... What is it that causes you to so vehemently deny the existence of things which you have not yet seen or do not yet understand? I can understand skepticism and questioning, however, there is a big difference, is there not, between questioning and denying? Being the ultimate, self-proclaimed skeptic that you claim to be, are you not at all skeptical about your own ability to perceive? [This message has been edited by truestory (edited November 14, 1999).]
JMitch, Good point. Though, one has to wonder whether it is the foramen magnum that is "misplaced", or is it the back of the skull that protrudes abnormally beyond a normally-placed foramen magnum. Another interesting point, concerning Searcher's excerpt above. Specifically, it states "All the specimens presented here were mature individuals." Yet, the skull examined in most detail is that of a child! Here's a quote from the "Condensed Version": "Skull suturing and baby teeth in a detached piece of maxilla (upper jaw and palate) indicate death around 5 years of age." Yet another fascinating incongruity. Not altogether surprising, given the overall quality of "analysis"... Of course, genetic analysis should be able to close this issue, as in fact I'm sure it can. However, I sincerely doubt that results of such analysis will ever make it out to the public -- because I believe quite strongly that the results will indeed show 100% human DNA, which would be devastating to the author's business interests. Though, of course there is a possibility that in such a case, the authors will take advantage of the noise that is always present in DNA analysis of poorly preserved material. It will not be statistically significant, but it will be an easy task to twist the noise for any desired conclusion. Just wait and see... truestory, I hate charlatans, and I hate to see them deceive the public and reap people off. If this guy was not peddling his book of alien theories, if he requested and cited, with full references and credentials, the opinions of other researchers (including those who do not share his assumptions), if he did not have such an obvious vested interest in providing "evidence" for his theories no matter what, if he did not straight out provide false information, if it were not for inconsistencies in his presentations, if it were not for his many other outrageous, unsubstantiated, yet mutually interdependent claims -- then perhaps I would be willing to listen with a little more patience. However, the guy is an obvious quack. 'nuff said. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, The excerpt I posted was from the second site that JMitch listed, not the first one. Did you see that one? ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
Boris, I was not speaking about your skeptical questioning of the origin of the skull. I was speaking specifically of your "denials" and the conclusions which you come to based on not "seeing" things correctly or "misinterpreting" information. For example, during our discussion about "hydrocephalus" you did not use your mind in a probing manner as you profess... You did not ask to be guided to the specific area in the website which contained the information... Rather, you denied that it existed, quite vehemently, because YOU had not seen it. I am still wondering where such leaps from skepticism to denial come from? Another example is that you seemed to have misread Searcher's post in that you assumed the quote came from the "Starchild" website. No biggy for the "average" person but, for such a self-proclaimed, astute observer??? Furthermore, you use this "misinterpretation" in an attempt to convince others that the author of the "Starchild" website is disseminating incorrect information. Knowingly or not, Boris, you are disseminating incorrect information in this forum... The above are just a couple of examples. ... and you "hate" those who claim to possess knowledge or skill that they do not have (charlatans)??? Boris' oversight, misunderstanding of information or differing opinion does not a charlatan make. On the subject of funding... I wonder how far science would have advanced if it were not for "grants" and other "funding" from the government, individuals and private sectors? As for any book on the subject of the "Starchild" skull... I wonder how much scientific knowledge you would possess if it were not for "recorded" discoveries, observations and conclusions of others?
The DNA test results of the starchild skull are posted on the site, along with a defense by Lloyd Pye. It's not much to comment on, but hopefully further testing will be more revealing. www.starchildproject.com/dna-01.html www.starchildproject.com/lloyd-01.html
JMitch, Thanks for the update! It doesn't seem likely that we'll find out much more about the Starchild skull any time in the near future, but if you do hear anything else, please share it with us! ------------------ www.indigenousrocks.com
