Starchild Skull - looks like a hoax, smells like a hoax...
The Starchild Skull..but is it real? I hate it when evidence is presented, but it's not REAL evidence, but rather someone telling me that there is evidence...but in this case the names of actual experts are used...
When you are used to reading legit science papers, this seems to be kosher on the surface. But then when you follow the link to the references, you find that most are from the author of the site, or Dr. Ted J. Robinson. Dr Robinson, from a Google search, seems to be mostly known for his participation in this project.
Robinson lists a number of experts who assessed the skull. They tend to be known legitimate experts. To get 11 of them to agree with your hypothesis would be impressive for a hoax!
In short, I think that it's a regular human with a condition we are unaware of. But as far as evidence of alien visititions go, this is pretty good.
The "Starchild" is a real, true bone skull [1] independently dated by Carbon-14 to be 900 years old (+/- 40 years) [2]. Research indicates is unlike any human skull ever before recorded [3]. The name "Starchild" is the result of early X-rays taken of the skull and maxilla fragment found with it, which showed unerupted teeth [4] that, combined with the smaller-than-normal-adult size of the skull [5], indicated a child of age 5 or 6 [6]. A second skull was found with the Starchild, a normal, adult female of small stature [7], also C-14 dated to 900 years ago (± 40) [8], and biochemically shown to have lived in the same general area as the Starchild [9]. This second skull is often used for comparison to the Starchild.
From its extremely shallow eye sockets [10] to the total lack of frontal sinuses [11], the Starchild skull's morphology cannot be accounted for by any known combination of deformities. The bone is half as thick [12], weighs half as much [13], and is substantially more durable than normal human bone [14][15]--unlike anything currently in the scientific record [16]. Furthermore, inside that unusual bone are microscopic fibers and a reddish residue that so far defy any explanation [17].
When you are used to reading legit science papers, this seems to be kosher on the surface. But then when you follow the link to the references, you find that most are from the author of the site, or Dr. Ted J. Robinson. Dr Robinson, from a Google search, seems to be mostly known for his participation in this project.
Robinson lists a number of experts who assessed the skull. They tend to be known legitimate experts. To get 11 of them to agree with your hypothesis would be impressive for a hoax!
In short, I think that it's a regular human with a condition we are unaware of. But as far as evidence of alien visititions go, this is pretty good.
posted by Rob at
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
3 Comments:
The Starchild Skull is a perfect skull, neither cradleboarded nor hydrocephalic (nothing that matches the typical human skull deformities). Approximately twice as hard as a normal human skull, but much lighter. Microscopic reddish fibers also found in the bone (which is previously unheard of in human skull). I also understand that tests for the nuclear DNA were ineffective, but the mitochondrial DNA was identifiable as coming from a human mother. Lloyd Pye is anything but a con man; for many years he's been a serious researcher of hominoids. His most recent book, The Starchild Skull [Bell Lap Books. www.BellLapBooks.com], contains the following three appendices : Preliminary Analysis of a Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull [Dr. Ted J. Robinson, MD, LMCC, FRCS]. Report on DNA Analysis of Skeletal Remains from Two Skulls [Dr. Jason Eshleman, PhD, Trace Genetics, Inc, Richmond, CA]. and Summary of Inorganic Chemistry Analysis of Starchild Bone [Professor Ken Pye {My Note: no relation to Lloyd}, Director, Kenneth Pye Associates Ltd., Crowthorne, England]. In the first Appendix, Dr. Robinson writes: "...This skull's morphology is so highly unusual as to be unique in my forty years of experience as a medical doctor specializing in plastic and reconstructive surgery of the human cranium. Because of its uniqueness, I undertook an extensive review of literature on craniofacial abnormalities, which failed to uncover a single similar example. In short, is seems to be not only unique in my personal experience, but also unique through the history of worldwide studies of craniofacial abnormalities. This is significant. Specialists who examined the skull, X-rays, and CAT scans were: Dr. David Hodges, Radiologist, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, BC. Dr. John Bachynsky, Radiologist, New Westminster, BC. Dr. Ken Poskitt, Pediatric Neuroradiologist, Vancouver Children's Hospital. Dr. Ian Jackson, (formerly of Mayo Clinic), Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Michigan. Dr. John McNicoll, Craniofacial Plastic Surgeon, Seattle. Dr. Mike Kaburda, Oral Surgeon, New Westminster, BC. Dr. Tony Townsend, Ophthalmologist, Vancouver. Dr. Hugh Parsons, Ophthamologist, Vancouver. Dr. David Sweet, Forensic Odontologist, Vancouver...Dr. Bachynsky saw no evidence of erosion of the skull's inner table. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. Ther was consensus agreement to both of the observations by other experts conversant with these features..."
Why isn't Pye in jail, or someone pursuing charges? These things are obvious scams. He takes peoples money to do fake "research." I'll bet money he takes the cash and pockets it, then has a buddy of his type up some fake report. Isn't there some laws about companies, like Lloydpye.com, Inc, deceiving people outright?
Dear Rob,
Please present evidence in which goes against the Starchild skull,
Now that is a question that you will find hard to answer,
At the moment you are saying that the evidence presented on Mr. Pye's website is not real or doesn't proof his point?
This evidence does prove such because it shows that the Starchild is nothing like what other skulls are like in appearance nor structure,
How do you think Prehistoric man was proven to be linked into evolution lets say,
It was linked by the work of archeology,
Hence we could say the same about the discovery of dinosaurs as well,
Lloyd has done his research, in my opinion, by the means of a scientist doing his work on evolution or the discovering of dinosaurs,
He has realised that this skull is special because of the structure, fibres in the skull, density of the skull and endurance,
I would love to hear some 'real' opposing questions from yourself and not jargon about Lloyd not representing his evidence correctly or more efficently!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home